U.S.
Drops Bombs; EU Gets Refugees & Blame. This Is Insane
Eric
Zuesse
7
September, 2015
Starting
in 2011 in Libya, the United States dropped bombs on Libya in order
to replace its pro-Russian dictator,
Muammar Gaddafi. The EU is now tearing itself apart with
guilt-feelings at European nations’ responses to the refugee-crisis
that was caused by this American bombing-campaign in Libya, and then
by the one in Syria.
Europe
has also received refugees from the American-sponsored
bombing-campaign in eastern Ukraine (the bombing-campaign that
the 2014 American-installed anti-Russian
Ukrainian government calls an ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation,’ or
‘ATO,’ which labels the
residents in that pro-Russian area —
where the residents reject the
February 2014 U.S. coup —
as ‘Terrorists’ and thus as being suitable to be bombed, and
even firebombed).
And
yet, despite these millions of U.S.-caused refugees into Europe,
European nations still permit U.S. troops to remain stationed on
European soil decades after the entire reason for NATO’s very
existence (which was protection of Europe against a communist
invasion from the east) ended. (The Soviet Union’s equivalent
Warsaw Pact had dissolved and ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union
itself did — yet NATO continued on, and constantly touts ‘the
Russian threat,’ just as it did the Soviet threat, as if there were
no change when communism collapsed, as if the ideological reason for
the Cold War had been fake all along.
There is no justification
whatsoever for «the New Cold War».) Russia is now responding to
this new American-created hostility of Europeans against Russia, by
its matching this newly transformed now anti-Russian NATO’s
war-games against Russia, with similar Russian defensive maneuvers to
prepare for an increasingly possible NATO invasion into Russia.
So:
the current refugee-crisis was, in fact, caused by America’s
continuing obsession to destroy Russia — an obsession that the EU
goes along with, and now suffers greatly from, not only because of
loss of their Russian trading-partner, but because of the influx into
Europe of millions of refugees that were caused by this New Cold War.
This crisis was not caused by Russia’s defensive measures against
an increasingly aggressive NATO. It was caused by U.S. aggressions,
which the EU continues to endorse.
Let’s
go back to the very beginning of the current crisis:
The
great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7
October 2013 at his nsnbc news site, «Top
US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in
Syria», and
he opened: «Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John
Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s
Interior Ministry». (The U.S. has been allied with the Saudi royal
family since 1945.) Lehmann discussed the chemical-weapons attack «in
the Eastern Ghouta Suburb of Damascus on 21 August 2013,» which
attack U.S.
President Barack Obama was citing as his reason for planning to
bomb to
bring down Syria’s pro-Russian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, whom
Obama was blaming for the chemical attack.
However, much like another
great investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh subsequently reported (using different sources) in
the London
Review of Books on
17 April 2014, Lehmann’s even-earlier investigation found that the
U.S. had set up the chemical attack, and that it was actually carried
out by Islamic jihadists that the U.S. itself was supplying in Syria,
through Turkey. Lehmann reported:
After
the defeat of the predominantly Qatar-backed Muslim Brotherhood and
Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces, which were reinforced by Libyans in
June and July 2012, the U.S.-Saudi Axis was strengthened.
Uncooperative Qatari-led brigades which rejected the new command
structure had to be removed. The influx of Salafi-Wahhabbi fighters
to Syria was documented by the International Crisis Group in their
report titled «Tentative Jihad».
Hersh’s
report added to Lehmann’s, a powerful confirmation by British
intelligence, which found that the source of the chemical-weapons
attack couldn’t possibly have been Assad’s forces. However, the
Brits, of course, didn’t publicly expose Obama’s lie; after all,
just as Tony Blair had been George W. Bush’s «lap dog» in Iraq
and Afghanistan, David Cameron is Obama’s lap dog in Syria and
Libya.
The
Libyan campaign turned Libya into a failed state, just as the Syrian
campaign is doing (and as the Ukrainian campaign is also trending),
and Europe is now getting the resulting refugees.
The
great investigative journalist John Pilger provided the
best summary description of the horrific and intentional catastrophe
that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perpetrated
upon the Libyan people. For example: «In 2011, NATO launched 9,700
‘strike sorties’ against Libya, of which more than a third were
aimed at civilian targets. Uranium
warheads were used;
the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross
identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that ‘most [of the
children killed] were under the age of ten’». These were
international war-crimes, which will never be prosecuted. Hillary
Clinton expressed merry pride («We
came, we saw, he died! (Laughs)»)
regarding what she and Obama did in killing Gaddafi, no matter how
many people’s lives were destroyed in the process. Europe is
reaping America’s whirlwind.
I
have elsewhere explained
how all three of these bombing-campaigns are part of an attempt by
the Obama Administration and the Saudi royal family, to transfer away
from Russia, and toward the Saudi and other Arabic royal families,
Europe’s main supply-source for oil and gas.
Perhaps
some EU leader will be able to explain why all EU nations don’t
just kick out NATO and ally with Russia, so as to put a stop to
Islamic jihad, which
is funded by the royal families of the Arabic oil states,
and also so as to put an end to the sources of these flows of
refugees, and also to put a start to, and become a part of, the
emerging Eur-Asian economic giant which will finally eclipse the
corrupt declining American empire, and perhaps bring it to an end —
bring to an end the
world’s biggest single threat to peace,
and the world’s biggest single sponsor of endless wars.
Or
are EU’s leaders instead in America’s pay? Why else, for example,
would Angela
Merkel’s Germany in 2012 have been providing spying-assistance to
the jihadist rebels in Syria?
(Merkel’s spies were at
the same time spying against Sahra Wagenecht and other members of the
Bundestag who opposed Merkel’s anti-Russian policies). That
just makes Germany’s own leader, Merkel, complicit in helping to
cause the surge of Syrians who are trying to find safe haven in
Germany and other European countries. (And, this way, EU leaders can
then blame the rise of the far-right opposition to that influx, as if
they themselves had opposed, instead of helped to cause — as they
had — this influx.) The sheer corruption behind this could be
incalculable. But, surely, the hypocrisy behind it is intolerable.
Why,
then, do European voters accept it? (For example, why isn’t someone
like Wagenecht leading Germany?) Why are U.S. lap-dogs, such as
Merkel, in power? Why aren’t they repudiated? The public suffer
much from them. Europe is being destroyed by them — by U.S.
agents.
Do
Europeans not know what is happening and why? Attaining freedom from
the U.S. yoke is not nationalism; it is not right-wing: it is
patriotism; it is progress, not regress. It is looking forward, not
backward. It is serving the people whom one claims to represent. It
is real democracy. America is no longer the nation of the Marshall
Plan. That nation, sadly, has been replaced: a new group took it
over, and their obsession is empire. Or, as President Obama himself
has arrogantly said:
«The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation». He
promised to keep it that way: «That has been true for the century
passed [he misspelt ‘past’ [[somebody at the White House didn’t
even know the difference between ‘past’ and ‘passed’]] and it
will be true for the century to come». (At least he wasn’t
predicting a Thousand-Year Reich. He’s not yet quite that bad.)
He
was saying that the U.S. empire must continue for at least another
century. Do the people of Europe really find that acceptable,
especially now that they can see where it is heading them? Real
compassion for those refugees would demand getting the U.S. out of
the EU. And ending NATO. Why are there not enormous public displays
in the EU against America, instead of against the refugees, etc.? Do
Europeans really think that the nation of the Marshall Plan still
exists? If so, they are wrong. Very wrong.
—————
Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records,
1910-2010, and
of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.