Why Does The “War on Terror” Serve Western Policy?
By: Jay Dyer
From Benghazi to Turkey, the ISIS “supply lines” are directly from NATO-controlled territory,
and apparently it never occurs to the minds of western media to ask
where, in fact, the so-called Islamic State obtains their arms. The
reason for this is obvious, as it would demonstrate that the Islamic
State is not a homegrown, indigenous Wahhabist extremist group, but
western creation, funded and aided like Al Qaeda since its inception, as Carter and Brzezinski openly discussed. Not much has changed in the international terror theater since 1979, save the targets. Counterpunch noted over a decade ago:
“Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert
Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American
intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6
months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the
national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a
role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official
version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that
is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But
the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise:
Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first
directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in
Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I
explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a
Soviet military intervention.”
Concerning the aiding and funding of the updated Mujahideen-Al Qaeda-ISIS brand, Tony Cartalucci comments:
The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that:
[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that:
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources
continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner
of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of
dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS
would be dominating the battlefield.
Recent revelations have revealed that
as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only
anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria
and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and
contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.”
In terms of foreign policy, the target with ISIS is still Syria, as Washington elites have expounded through their Brookings Institute discussion of June 24,
a rebound from the failed attempt by John Kerry to drum up support for
war with Syria that fell flat due to the exposure of the laughable false flag “chlorine attack” propaganda pinned on Assad.
Now ISIS is both the means and the raison d’etre for invading and
saving Syria, in the classic problem-reaction-solution strategy the West
never tires from enacting in the global “freedom” war.
Acting far inferior to Peter O’Toole.
Saudi Arabia, of course if one of the world’s chief funders of terror, operating as a proxy for the western elites. Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait are all “Gulf Cooperation nations,” arising from the aegis of the British Empire, and adopted under the U.S. empire. And what is constantly forgotten is the origin of this cadre’s alignment of the West through oil production was not merely the result of OPEC and Kissinger, it was in fact organized by Bilderberg: It was Bilderberg that organized the 70s OPEC oil debacle. Isn’t it curious the GCC pro-terror states are also western-supplying oil states? Citing William F. Engdahl in his A Century of War, Andrew Gavin Marshall writes:
“One enormous consequence of the ensuing
400 per cent rise in OPEC oil prices was that investments of hundreds of
millions of dollars by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell [both
present at Bilderberg] and other Anglo-American petroleum concerns in
the risky North Sea could produce oil at a profit,” as “the
profitability of these new North Sea oilfields was not at all secure
until after the OPEC price rises.” In 2001, the former Saudi
representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, said, “’I am 100 per cent
sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil.
The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a
lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.” When he
was sent by King Faisal to the Shah of Iran in 1974, the Shah said that
it was Henry Kissinger who wanted a higher price for oil.” (136-7)
Heartland versus Rimland.
It is precisely this same utilitarian Anglo-empiricist, pragmatist philosophy that has ultimately turned on its own populace in a parasitical fashion unheard of for past empires. Promising sensual and economic utopia, the Bolshevik export to Russia on the part of the Atlantic banking power is not the top-down social engineering strategy of the corporate elite upon the U.S. population itself. The great delusion is that the West is “free,” when it is entering the realm of greater enslavement than Sovietism experienced. The only difference is the foolish western populace cannot grasp their enslavement is at the hands of Marxist corporations.
The central banks, the Fortune 100 and their shareholders love cultural Marxism and command and control, socialist economic models because it is the quickest way to consolidate wealth and transfer the actually valuable assets to the controlling oligarchy. In such a system, the opposition will inevitably all be titled “terrorists,” as the appellation is already being extended beyond radical Islamists. And after it extends beyond the average person, the conditioning will be so strong that any thoughts, words, actions or potential-pre-crime actions will also follow under the elastic notion of “terror.”
Terrorism is thus a social weapon, not of indigenous, individual “actors” and lone wolves, but stage managed dupes, patsies and tools of an international oligarchical cartel, as Orwell demonstrated in 1984 with the fictional villain of Immanuel Goldstein. Indeed, who funds these groups? (We saw who, above). The most obvious fact of the contradiction of the “War on Terror” (TM) is that it almost always works to further Washington’s domestic and geopolitical aims. Terror, then, is like Trotsky’s notion of perpetual war – perpetual war on the psyche of the globe (it’s a global war on terror), as a phase in the dialectical convergence on the path to global government. That is why terrorism serves western political aims.
No comments:
Post a Comment