In George Orwell’s 1984, the fake terrorist threat is very effectively used as a tool to spread fear and compliance among the population of ‘Airstrip One’, the new name for Great Britain. Whenever the government wishes to impose a new law or further restrict freedoms in any way, they wheel out their utterly invented, fake nemesis, ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’ who is then, along with his organisation, said to have committed various atrocities, effectively paving the way for further draconian restrictions of freedoms by invoking the Hegelian dialectic (problem, reaction, solution). Does this sound at all familiar? For ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’ read ‘Osama bin Laden’, ‘Colonel Gaddafi’ or ‘Saddam Hussein’ and all may become clearer.
Watching Edward Snowden’s movie, it was clear we where right all along. The CIA, Pentagon, and NSA are about maintaining power. There is no spying nor intelligence on Terror. First we know that the Wars are about Shia Muslims in behalf of Saudi Arabia Sunni’s.
The main reasons why George Bush attacked Iraq and Afganistan
are oil, natural gas and establishing military bases in the Middle East.
The following articles elaborate on these reasons for the deaths of over
100,000 Iraqis and over 1400 United States soldiers. This does not
include the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been permanently
disabled as a result of injuries sustained in this war. Nor does this include
the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and United States serviceman
who have suffered and died from depleted uranium poisoning.
July 2015, and the media was filled with the news that Turkey will allow US jets to use its bases to bomb Islamic State (ISIS) targets in Syria. There is much talk about how this development is how this is a clear escalation of the much lauding, but more fictional than real, US war on ISIS: the terror organization that US intelligence welcomed as a positive development in 2012 in their continued attempts to instigate regime change against the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad.
Of equal importance is the simple fact that a “war on ISIS” is merely a distortion for Turkey’s military engagement in Syria and throughout the region. Not only does Turkey’s neo-Ottoman revanchist President Erdogan want to flex his military might in order to further the regime change in Syria, he also is using recent tragic events as political and diplomatic cover for waging a new aggressive war against the region’s Kurds, especially Turkey’s longtime enemy the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).
In this way, Turkey’s recent moves should be seen as merely a new phase of its engagement in the regional war that it has helped foment. Contrary to western corporate media talking points, Turkey has not just recently become actively engaged in the conflict; Ankara has merely shifted its strategy and its tactics, moving from covert engagement to overt participation.
The Guardian States:
Saudi Arabia is like the big brother Yemen never wanted to have. It has been intervening in Yemen’s politics in one way or another since both countries were founded. One way to think about is that Yemen is to Saudi Arabia like Ukraine is to Russia. Saudi Arabia doesn’t like things happening there that are out of its control, especially if those things are linked to Iran-backed Shiites. This isn’t the first time Saudi intervened militarily to stop Shiites from controlling one of its neighbors. In 2011, the Saudis invaded Bahrain to support the Sunni king against a Shiite majority.
Also, Saudi Arabia has a new king, whose son is the defense minister. Some have speculated that this war is a way for them to prove they are worthy of their new titles
A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.
The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: ‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’
The PNAC document supports a ‘blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests’.
This ‘American grand strategy’ must be advanced for ‘as far into the future as possible’, the report says. It also calls for the US to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars’ as a ‘core mission’.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as ‘the cavalry on the new American frontier’. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must ‘discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.