Drone warfare and surveillance has expanded exponentially since their arrival in 2004 over Pakistan for use in targeted killings. Drones are just one of many vital issues for those who seek peace and freedom, but should be near the top of the “red alert” warnings for Americans, as not only have human rights groups and studies stated that they are instruments of state terror, but they have been embraced by Congress to create unfriendly skies over America as well.
Even the warmongering Brookings Institution has concluded that there are 10 civilians killed to every 1 “militant” in Pakistan alone. Obama denies this, and a range of other documented evidence, when he states that only “precision strikes against al Qaeda and their affiliates” are undertaken. Obama has been an unrepentant murderer by employing drone strikes at his whim, and has even gone so far as to make jokes about their use. The truth is that at least 884 civilians, including 176 children have died in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan alone. These were innocent people where no war has even been declared.
As with all imperial endeavors and the accompanying treatment toward the targets “over there,” drones are already having a boomerang effect upon the American people … and we are literally paying for them to conduct surveillance on us, and perhaps one day kill us if they (autonomously) decide anyone is a threat to the State. The video below is a moving example of what this type of world looks like.
(Part two of a three-part series excerpted from Chapter 8: Project Frankenstein: Afhanistan: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)
In the mid-1980’s the UN tried to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan involving a complete Soviet withdrawal in return for an end to US and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) support for the Afghan rebels. The Reagan Administration refused the UN deal. It wanted to “give the Soviets their Vietnam” as part of a grander scheme to rip apart the Soviet Union. It also wanted the socialist Karmal government out of Kabul. In 1986 US military aid to the mujahadeen increased dramatically to $1 billion/year.
In 1988 the US and the Soviets signed the Geneva Accords which called for an Afghan arms embargo. Both countries ignored the deal and the fighting continued. Mujahadeen fighters routinely tortured and mutilated captured Russian and Afghan soldiers- often in the presence of American advisers. 
In 1989 the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. Their hand-picked Prime Minister Babrak Karmal had been replaced by the democratically-elected Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai in 1986. But Najibullah was also a socialist and democracy was never a State Department priority. He represented the Parchom faction of the Communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan.
Though the Soviets were gone, the US kept funding the guerrilla campaign against the duly-elected government in Kabul. In 1992 Najibullah was overthrown. One of seven fighting mujahadeen factions led by Burhaddin Rabbani took power. Six of the seven rebel groups laid down their arms and got behind Rabbani.
The one that did not was CIA-favorite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezbi-i Isbmi, which proceeded to soak the streets of Kabul in yet another round of blood. Though the UN now recognized the Rabbani-led faction as Afghanistan’s legitimate government, the CIA still saw Rabbani as too much the leftist.
Hekmatyar’s forces finally seized Kabul. Rabbani and his government fled north into the Mazar-i-Sharif region where, under the command of military chief Sheik Ahmed Shah Massoud, the ousted mujahadeen factions reconstituted themselves as the Northern Alliance. In 1995 Hezbi-i Isbmi suddenly stepped down, ceding Kabul to a new creation of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) already in charge in Kandahar- the Taliban.
(Part one of a three-part series excerpted from Chapter 8: Project Frankenstein: Afghanistan: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Syrian government reversed a ban on women teachers wearing Islamic face cover in the classroom. The concession to Western-backed Islamist protestors is instructive, since the secular socialist Assad government is clearly in the crosshairs of City of London bankers attempting to redraw the political map of the Middle East. As in Libya and Afghanistan, the banksters are counting on fundamentalists to carry out their counter-revolutionary agenda.
Though Western intelligence had earlier cavorted with Islamists in attacking nationalist movements in Iraq, Indonesia and Iran; it was in Afghanistan where they unleashed the full force of their young Frankensteins.
This disastrous experiment came to a head last week when 2,000 Afghans attacked a UN compound in usually sedate Mazar-e-Sharif, killing 7 staffers. Though set off by the burning of a Quran by our own Florida version of the Taliban (see my Left Hook article “Pastor Jones & Mohammed Atta”), one must understand this nation’s history to fully comprehend Afghan anger towards their Western occupiers.
My children, the reality is Lame Cherry is the Bob Woodward of the 21st century in breaking stories for years, and for the uncovering of ANALGATE, the hostage gone anal rape and murder election fiasco of the Obama 2012 campaign.
You have lived weeks in the future with this blog, now live months in telling you what took place, as now even CO Jones of Western Journalism has heard the rumors coming directly from inside the White House.
This operation was focused on many things and the chief of them deals with the disarming of American Soldiers in Afnamistan when Leon Panetta visited there. As this blog exposed there were numbers of ops who were furious over what the murder of bin Laden’s corpse unleashed in the retaliation mass assassination of the Obama SEALS in Team Six.
The regime was operating in fear, and it is why Muchelle was exposed in that bizarre reach out to dead Soldiers families in pretending the regime actually cared for the Soldiers. They were afraid people in this group were going to go postal.
On September 25, Obama addressed the UN General Assembly. Duplicity, imperial arrogance, and belligerent were conspicuous.
He began discussing US ambassador Christopher Stevens. On September 11, he was killed in Benghazi, Libya. Obama inverted truth like he always does.
He claimed he went there last year to help Libyans “cope with violent conflict, care for the wounded, and craft a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.”
“And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.”
Stevens was an imperial front man. He urged violent intervention. He supported NATO’s killing machine throughout months of slaughter. He participated in Libya’s destruction.
He helped turn Africa’s most developed country into a charnel house. Tens of thousands were murdered. Multiples more were injured. Many more were displaced.
Mostly civilians were harmed. NATO attacks willfully targeted them. At issue was replacing another independent government with a puppet one.
Casualties inflicted doing it aren’t counted. Obama claimed Stevens “was killed in the city he helped to save.” He bears responsibility for destroying it and much of Libya. He helped install its puppet government.
Obama continued extolling a war criminal. It takes one to know one. He blamed terrorists and Al Qaeda for killing him. Again he lied like he always does.
Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham explained what Obama suppressed. Their Global Research article discussed Libya’s Green Resistance. They’re committed Jamahiriya loyalists. They’re freedom fighters. They want imperial occupiers driven out.
Source: We Must Know
The alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia helped spread the ideology of fundamentalist Sunni Islam all over the globe. The majority of its victims are not citizens of Western countries, but citizens of countries that U.S. elites consider a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of Shiʿite Islamic faith.
This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate America’s responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere.
The Origins of Wahhabism
Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers’ archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to America’s geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shi’te Islam. Continue reading
Par Guillaume de Rouville
Lors des guerres menées par les États-Unis depuis la chute du mur de Berlin au nom d’une certaine idée de leur puissance, est apparue une notion, celle de « dommages collatéraux », qui a été utilisée par les organes des relations publiques du Pentagone pour justifier et faire accepter aux opinions occidentales des actes de guerre provocant des victimes civiles. Ces dommages collatéraux ne seraient pas souhaités par la puissance militaire qui déplore ces tragiques erreurs, fruits de renseignements erronés ou d’une technologie défaillante.
Or, a y regarder de plus près, on s’aperçoit que la plupart de ces actes de guerre ayant détruit la vie de milliers de civils en Afghanistan, en Irak, en Libye ces dernières années , ne sont pas des erreurs, des dommages collatéraux d’une entreprise militaire qui ne prendrait pour cible que des soldats en uniforme appartenant à la partie adverse, mais bien des actes délibérés visant à tuer des femmes, des enfants et des hommes sans défense.
On pourrait se demander dans quels buts de telles horreurs seraient entreprises. La doctrine militaire répond : pour imposer la terreur source de toute obéissance. Continue reading