Tag Archives: terrorism

A ‘Convenient Killing’ Of US Troops In Syria, by Finian Cunningham

It used to be that if you were stuck in a senseless quagmire of a war in which your people were losing their lives for no good reason, it was a strong argument for getting out. Now it’s supposedly a strong argument for staying in. From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

With unseemly haste, US news media leapt on the killing of four American military personnel in Syria as a way to undermine President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw troops from that country.

The deadly attack in the northern city of Manbij, on the west bank of the Euphrates River, was reported to have been carried out by a suicide bomber. The Islamic State (ISIS) terror group reportedly claimed responsibility, but the group routinely makes such claims which often turn out to be false.

The American military personnel were said to be on a routine patrol of Manbij where US forces have been backing Kurdish militants in a purported campaign against ISIS and other terror groups.

An explosion at a restaurant resulted in two US troops and two Pentagon civilian officials being killed, along with more than a dozen other victims. Three other US military persons were among those injured.

US media highlighted the bombing as the biggest single death toll of American forces in Syria since they began operations in the country nearly four years ago.

The US and Kurdish militia have been in control of Manbij for over two years. It is one of the main sites from where American troops are to withdraw under Trump’s exit plan, which he announced on December 19.

Continue reading

Advertisements

The War on Populism, by C. J. Hopkins

Is populism the new terrorism? From C. J. Hopkins at unz.com:

Remember when the War on Terror ended and the War on Populism began? That’s OK, no one else does.

It happened in the Summer of 2016, also known as “the Summer of Fear.” The War on Terror was going splendidly. There had been a series of “terrorist attacks,” in Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, and Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, each of them perpetrated by suddenly “self-radicalized” “lone wolf terrorists” (or “non-terrorist terrorists“) who had absolutely no connection to any type of organized terrorist groups prior to suddenly “self- radicalizing” themselves by consuming “terrorist content” on the Internet. It seemed we were entering a new and even more terrifying phase of the Global War on Terror, a phase in which anyone could be a “terrorist” and “terrorism” could mean almost anything.

This broadening of the already virtually meaningless definition of “terrorism” was transpiring just in time for Obama to hand off the reins to Hillary Clinton, who everyone knew was going to be the next president, and who was going to have to bomb the crap out of Syria in response to the non-terrorist terrorist threat. The War on Terror (or, rather, “the series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” as Obama rebranded it) was going to continue, probably forever. The Brexit referendum had just taken place, but no one had really digested that yet … and then Trump won the nomination.

Continue reading

Continued American Occupation of the Middle East Does Not Suppress Terrorism, It Causes It, by Craig Murray

That US interventions cause the terrorism they are ostensibly supposed to squelch is a truth that’s been so obvious for so long that only a neoconservative could miss it. From Craig Murray at craigmurray.org:

Even the neo-con warmongers’ house journal The Guardian, furious at Trump’s attempts to pull US troops out of Syria, in producing a map to illustrate its point, could only produce one single, uncertain, very short pen stroke to describe the minute strip of territory it claims ISIS still control on the Iraqi border.

Of course, the Guardian produces the argument that continued US military presence is necessary to ensure that ISIS does not spring back to life in Syria. The fallacy of that argument can be easily demonstrated. In Afghanistan, the USA has managed to drag out the long process of humiliating defeat in war even further than it did in Vietnam. It is plain as a pikestaff that the presence of US occupation troops is itself the best recruiting sergeant for resistance. In Sikunder Burnes I trace how the battle lines of tribal alliances there today are precisely the same ones the British faced in 1841. We just attach labels like Taliban to hide the fact that invaders face national resistance.

Continue reading

UK: Syrian Rebels Can’t Possibly Be Planning a False Flag, Because Russia Said They Are, by Caitlin Johnstone

If Russia were to claim the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, somebody would say its propaganda and a lie. From Caitlin Johnstone at theantimedia.org:

(CJ Opinion) — In a recent meeting with the press, British ambassador to the United Nations Karen Pierce told reporters that it is absolutely unthinkable that the terrorist factions in the terrorist-held Syrian province of Idlib could possibly be planning a terrorist attack using chemical weapons with the intention of blaming it on the Syrian government.

Her reasoning? Since the Russian government has been warning of this possibility, the exact opposite must necessarily therefore be true.

Yes, really.

Continue reading

Why US Imperialism Loves Afghan Quagmire, by Finian Cunningham

The real reasons the US stays in Afghanistan, from Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

t may seem paradoxical that any American interest would seek to deliberately prolong the Afghan quagmire. Costing trillions of dollars to the national debt, one would think that US planners are anxious to wind down the war and cut their immense losses. Not so, it seems.

Like the classic 1960s satire film, Dr Strangelove, and how he came to “love the A-bomb”, there are present-day elements in the US military-security apparatus that seem to be just fine about being wedded to the mayhem in Afghanistan.

That war is officially the longest-ever war fought by US forces overseas, outlasting the Vietnam war (1964-75) by six years – and still counting.

After GW Bush launched the operation in October 2001, the war is now under the purview of its third consecutive president. What’s more, the 17-year campaign to date is unlikely to end for several more years to come, after President Donald Trump last year gave the Pentagon control over its conduct.

This week saw two developments which show that powerful elements within the US state have very different calculations concerning the Afghan war compared with most ordinary citizens.

First there was the rejection by Washington of an offer extended by Russia to join a peace summit scheduled for next month. The purpose of the Moscow conference is to bring together participants in the war, including the US-backed Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani, as well as the Taliban militants who have been fighting against American military occupation.

Washington and its Afghan surrogate administration in Kabul said they would not be participating because, in their view, such a dialogue would be futile.

The US refusal to attend the Moscow event, after previously showing an apparent interest, drew an angry response from Russia. Russia’s foreign ministry said the “refusal to attend the Moscow meeting on Afghanistan shows Washington has no interest in launching a peace process.”

One suspects that US reluctance is partly due to not wanting to give Moscow any additional international standing since Russia’s successful military intervention in Syria and its leading role in mediating for peace there.

To continue reading: Why US Imperialism Loves Afghan Quagmire

Meanwhile, 10 Miles From the White House, by Ann Coulter

The US’s immigration problem is still out there, unaddressed. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

Now that Trump has solved Northeast Asia’s problems, maybe he can get to a problem in our country — in fact, within 10 miles of the White House. For some reason, The Washington Post recently ran an article on something important — the MS-13 gang presence at a public school on the outskirts of our nation’s capital, William Wirt Middle School in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

The media’s usual approach to the diversity being inflicted on us is: Don’t report this! It’s better if no one knows. Maybe the left has decided it’s too late to do anything about the transformation of our country into a Third World hellhole, and Trump couldn’t stop it even if he wanted to.

The Post reported that, like many schools up and down the East Coast, MS-13 has turned Wirt into a battleground. There have been near-daily gang fights, rampant drug dealing, one reported rape, gang signs on the walls, one shooting — more in nearby schools — and teachers afraid to be alone with their students. At least two students are required to have security officers assigned to them, walking them from class to class and watching them during lunch hour, on account of MS-13 threatening to kill them.

How many different categories of immigrants require special law enforcement officers devoted to them? Thanks to mass Muslim immigration, the FBI has terrorist watch lists in ALL 50 STATES. That’s why whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the FBI says, Oh yeah, we were watching that guy. And now we have police bodyguards for kids at schools wherever “unaccompanied minors” have been dumped by our government.

In addition to the free school lunches, transportation, housing and health care to pay for all this wonderful diversity, immigrants are also massively ratcheting up law enforcement costs.

It would be enraging enough if bad things were happening to our country and the immigrants were paying for it. But we’re paying for it. Wait — you are offering to bring gang warfare, drug cartels and terrorism? We’ll go top dollar for that! Put your wallet away! Your money’s no good here!

To continue reading: Meanwhile, 10 Miles From the White House

Trump Accidentally Described US Foreign Policy While Trying to Slam Iran, by Darius Shahtahmasebi

Most of President Trump’s claims about Iran don’t hold up to close examination, and many of them are more true about the US and its allies. From Darius Shahtahmasebi at theantimedia.org:

U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the United States is officially walking away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear accord, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

As Anti-Media has already outlined, it appears that right from the get-go, it was the United States that implemented this agreement in bad faith — not Iran. To put it bluntly, the United States is the only party that has violated its terms. In light of this harsh truth, is it Iran or the United States that poses a threat to global stability?

In taking this drastic step, the United States has certainly demonstrated its schizophrenic approach to global affairs and effectively shown its true colors to the world. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, sanctions will be re-imposed on Iran to punish Iran for the following:

  1.       Iran’s status as the world’s largest state sponsor of terror;
  2.       Its use of ballistic missiles against American allies;
  3.       Its support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria;
  4.       Its human rights violations against its own people;
  5.       Its abuses of the international financial system.

The first of these claims is completely untrue. Iran spends very little on military-related affairs compared to the United States and its regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia has openly confirmed it spread the ideology of Wahhabism — the same sect of Islam as ISIS — across the world at the behest of its Western allies. The U.S. actively supported the precursor to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan with Saudi assistance in order to confront the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. continues a similar policy of supporting Sunni jihadists even to this day.

To continue reading: Trump Accidentally Described US Foreign Policy While Trying to Slam Iran