By Amir NOUR[1]
Convinced that terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, is unacceptable and unjustifiable, member States of the United Nations were finally able to adopt, on September 8, 2006, a common approach within the framework of the “United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy ». But, ten years later, the “international community” has yet to agree on a consensus definition of the common enemy, which continues to grow and expand, thus inflicting devastation and untold misery, mainly to the States and the peoples of the Arab and Muslim world.
However, in a bitter irony, and in total defiance of established historical truths, these very victims and their majority religion -Islam- are accused by some of the crime of sponsoring transnational terrorism, hence jeopardizing international peace and security.
But who is really to be held liable for the birth and expansion of the phenomenon of violence in modern times, against the consequences of which a number of visionary thinkers like Malek Bennabi and Eric E. Hobsbawm had yet forewarned the world a century ago already?
The opinions exposed in this paper on this burning topic aren’t expressed by Muslim officials or thinkers. They are those of Westerners, at different levels of authority and moral and political responsibility, representing the obverse and the reverse of the terrorism medal, and pointing out the historical responsibility of some Western governments They are representative of a “politically incorrect” voice whose echo is barely audible in the middle of the media tumult skillfully orchestrated by the new “self-righteous”.
Terrorism, Islam and treason of the clerks
Recently, magistrate Vincent Sizaire, author of the book titled “L’Imposture sécuritaire”, explained[2] that the characterization of terrorism is more about political calculation than legal hermeneutics, since it is necessarily the result of a process of balance of power and political assessment, at the end of which the powers to be tend to apply it in a more or less discretionary manner to a particular criminal rather than another. Sizaire highlights how it is problematic, today, to use the same term to refer to activities undertaken by fanatical and obscurantist groups, and to actions of political opponents of authoritarian regimes.
Therefore, there can obviously be no question for the need to put forward a new definition of this concept, one less equivocal. Indeed, it should be pointed out that, to date, no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman identify 109 different definitions[3]. The United Nations still can’t find an agreed upon definition among its member States since December 17, 1996, date of adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 51/210, by which it was decided to create a special Committee to develop a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It’s so controversial a debate that, according to Oliver Libaw, even in the United States -where the “Global War on Terror” was launched in 2001- “it turns out that no one is all that sure just what ‘terrorism’ is”[4].
Thus, the future still looks bright for the famous and often-cited claim that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”[5]. Never mind! For one school of thought in the West, terrorism, barbarity and intolerance are consubstantial to Islam as a religion. Consequently, in the face of the “crazy Muslim zealots” who “see progress as an evil, tolerance as a weakness and pacifism as a sin”, and “call for murder and destruction”, resistance and relentless struggle are to be opposed within a “long Fourth World War”[6], akin to those waged by the “Free World” against fascism and nazism during the First and Second World Wars, and against communism during the third world war, presumably completed with the end of the cold war in 1989.
Nothing seems to shake the certainties of the proponents of this “dominant thought” often described as neoconservative, mainly conveyed by Western and Israeli think tanks, and relayed by their powerful mainstream media. And it would be pointless to remind them, for instance, that in the absence of a comprehensive international convention on terrorism-a result of the lack of a consensus definition that should be distinguished from the legitimate struggle of peoples for self-determination and which should include “State terrorism”- Arab and Muslim States have developed their own legal instruments within their regional groups; that in the 1990s, a country like Algeria fought alone against terrorism -before a suspicious international silence- that cost her more than 200,000 deaths and economic losses estimated at more than $ 30 billion; that 95% of lives lost to “terrorist barbarity” are to be found among Muslims[7]; that the highest official authorities of Islam have condemned without appeal both the ideology and actions of terrorist groups; and that the overwhelming majority of Muslim populations reject terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, as confirmed by statistics provided by Western survey institutes and agencies themselves.
In his time, Julien Benda denounced the “betrayal of the clerks”. More recently, Pascal Boniface pin the “intellectual counterfeiters” who bear a heavy responsibility in “the place occupied by lies in the public debate”. He targets in particular those who tend to equate Islam and terrorism by referring to “fascislamism” and contribute to nurture a neoconservative approach that thrives in the West since the 9/11 attacks.
We have already addressed this issue of Islam as a mobilizing and unifying scarecrow in the West[8]. We have reported “a dangerous semantic shift that we constantly observe since the fall of the Berlin Wall: from ‘counter-terrorism’ actions, we jumped to war against ‘Islamic terrorism’, and then to the fight against ‘Islamic extremism’ “. And we have, inevitably, raised the following question: “Are we soon going to abandon superfluous adjectives and hypocritical euphemisms to openly claim the war against Islam itself ?”. Since then, time and events seem to have proved us right…
Responsibility of the West regarding transnational terrorism
Some people believe that radical Islamism and jihadism are not an exclusive “creation” of the West. To think otherwise, they argue, would be to overestimate the Western influence in areas where many other local and international factors have contributed to their development over a long period of time. That is certainly right, and so is the fact that certain misguided policies pursued by Western powers, particularly by Anglo-Saxon countries, have greatly contributed to the emergence and expansion of these phenomena, especially since the iconic events of 9/11 and their disastrous ‘by-products’: the Afghan and Iraqi military expeditions.
Britain’s role
This view is shared by Mark Curtis, who documented in a book[9] the collusion of the United Kingdom with Islamism since the last century. Based on reliable documentation and government archives, he dissects an aspect of British foreign policy, which has remained curiously ignored or deliberately obscured by the mainstream media. This collusion, he says, has “a long history which has contributed not only to the rise of radical Islam itself, but also to that of international terrorism, which the new strategy of national security of the UK Government has designated as the biggest threat to the country”, and that the highest ranking officer of the British army has identified as “the fight of our generation, maybe our Thirty Years’ War”.
Curtis says that the share of responsibility of London in the emergence of the terrorist threat goes well beyond the impact its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had on a few individuals. The most important fact in this story is, according to him, that the successive labour and conservative governments have, for decades, connived with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have, sometimes, trained and financed them in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives, with a view to desperately preserving what was left of British power and influence internationally, mainly in areas considered as sensitive but where it was no longer possible to impose their will and interests unilaterally or by relying on other local allies.
The role of the United States of America
In his book[10] published in 2005, Robert Dreyfuss meticulously documents the American role in this “Devil’s Game”. Drawing on archival research and interviews with policymakers and officials of the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department, he analyzes the consequences of “sixty years of misguided efforts” on the part of the United States in order to dominate the economically and strategically vital Middle East region. Dreyfuss argues that America’s historic alliance with the Islamic right is greatly to blame for the emergence of Islamist terrorism. He concludes by stating that “far from promoting democracy and security”, this policy, which continues to this day, “ensures a future of blunders and blowback”.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of the late U.S. President J.F. Kennedy, also considered the long history of the violent interventions of his country in the region. He explains in a long article[11] in “Politico” magazine why we should look beyond convenient explanations of religion and ideology and examine instead the more complex rationales of history and oil “and how they often point the finger of blame back at our own shores”. He also describes how “over the past seven decades, the Dulles brothers, the Cheney gang, the neocons and their ilk have hijacked that fundamental principle of American idealism and deployed our military and intelligence apparatus to serve the mercantile interests of large corporations and particularly, the petroleum companies and military contractors that have literally made a killing from these conflicts”.
Moreover, a Foreign Policy Journal article[12] tells us that the White House had made the decision to support the armed radical Jihadists in Syria (that would later emerge as ISIL and Jabhat Al-Nusra) despite the warnings of the intelligence agencies, which provided for the advent of the Islamic State. This amazing information was confirmed by former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Michael Flynn –after he resigned from his post in April 2014, much to everyone’s surprise- who was previously the Director of information for the Center of command of special operations and, in that capacity, had the main mission to hunt down Usama Bin Laden and dismantle Al-Qaeda.
It is worth noting that this piece of information and other related revelations have been reported in a documentary film[13] broadcast by ARTE-TV channel, which explains “how, from Bush to Obama, America has left prosper the blind terror that Daesh took over”. In this film, former members of the intelligence community, representatives of U.S. forces in Iraq, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and terrorism experts trace, with supporting evidence and archives, the thirteen years of “the lost war on terror”.
Last but not least, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, said[14] that he meant exactly what he had declared previously in Florida, when he called President Barack Obama the “founder of ISIS”. And when the conservative radio show host, Hugh Hewitt, tried to clarify Trump’s position by saying he understood him to mean “that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace”, D. Trump objected, declaring “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton”.
France’s role
In his latest book[15], French philosopher Michel Onfray states that “terrorist Islam” was partially created by the bellicose West. Denouncing what he calls “contemporary colonial wars” conducted by some Western countries including France, he argues that Islamic regimes only started to threaten the West once, and only once the latter had indeed threatened them by brutal force.
For his part, Pierre Conesa, former senior official in the Ministry of defense, said[16] that his country “is paying a high price for a war that is not its own”. In this regard, he cites the example of the intervention in Libya where France has “done on its own account what Bush did in Iraq, which is destroying a regime and leaving behind chaos it has no ability to manage”.
In Syria, especially during the period when Laurent Fabius was the head of the Quai d’Orsay, this dubious interventionist policy resulted in total support to the rebels fighting against Al-Assad regime. Believing that the departure of the latter “is only a matter of weeks”, Fabius said in August 2012 “Bashar Al-Assad would not deserve to be on Earth”. And in December of the same year, reacting to Washington’s decision to place Jabhat Al-Nusra on its list of terrorist organizations, he declared: “All Arabs were fiercely against” the American position “because, on the ground, they (the elements of Al-Nusra) do a good job”[17].
In conclusion, we would like to invite the public to ponder the wisdom of a thinker who once said that in the past weapons were manufactured to wage wars, but today wars are manufactured to sell weapons.
Yet unfortunately, it has to be recognized that the rhetoric on the “clash of civilizations”, constantly and tirelessly repeated by some since the end of the cold war and the subsequent disappearance of the “indispensable enemy”, seems to have achieved the objective assigned to it, chiefly by those who benefit from and pull the strings of the perpetuation of conflicts all over the world. This rhetoric has thus produced a dangerous “clash of fundamentalisms’, which is updating the notions of “revenge of God”, “Crusades” and “Jihad”, and adding new ones such as “islamofascism”. The consequence of this dramatic turn of events is illustrated, on the sought and obtained ground of confrontation, by a “clash of barbarities”.
In today’s increasing international turmoil, nobody should be blind to the fact that the biggest danger associated with this change is that since the end of the second world war, the world has entered the age of the “supreme weapon” –the atomic bomb- and other weapons of mass destruction, and that extremists on all sides are promising and fervently promoting a “Cosmic War” for “the triumph of Good over Evil”. For some of them, it is a religious war, the ultimate war prior to the Apocalypse or the end of the world, whose theatre of operations one party sets in “Armageddon” and the other in “Dabiq”, both places situated in the Levant, comprising Syria which is being today put to fire and sword…
Isn’t it insane to believe that our civilized world is unable to find a path other than the one leading toward Mutually Agreed Destruction?
* * *
- Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the book “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (East and West in time of a new Sykes-Picot”, Alem El Afkar, 2014. ↑
- In Le MONDE Diplomatique, “Une notion piégée: quand parler de terrorisme ?” (A Tricky notion: When to talk about terrorism?), August 2016. ↑
- A. Schmid & A. Jongman, “Political Terrorism“, 1988. ↑
- O. Libaw, “How Do You Define Terrorism ?“, ABC News Network, October 11, 2015. ↑
- C. Friedersdorf, “Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter ?”, The Atlantic, May 16, 2012. ↑
- Norman Podhoretz, “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism”, Doubleday, 2007. ↑
- 2015 Global Terrorism Index report shows that terrorist attacks are concentrated in just five countries with a Muslim majority: Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria, totalling 78% of all deaths and 57% of all attacks; the West is remarkably safe from terrorism as 2.6% ‘only’ of terrorist deaths occurred there since the beginning of the 21st century (excluding the 3,000 deaths from September 11, 2001, this proportion falls to 0.5%). ↑
- In our book “L’Orient et l’Occident…”, op. cit. ↑
- M. Curtis, “Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion With Radical Islam“, Serpent’s Tail, 2010. ↑
- R. Dreyfuss, “Devil’s Game: How The United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam“, Metropolitan Books, 2005. ↑
- http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/ ↑
- B. Hoff, “Rise of Islamic State Was a Willful Decision“, 7 August 2015. ↑
- Titled “Du 11 septembre au Califat: l’histoire secrète de Daesh” (From 9/11 to the Caliphate: The Secret History of ISIS), August 30, 2016. ↑
- Tal Kopan, “Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally”, CNN, August 12, 2016.↑
- M. Onfray, “Penser l’Islam” (Thinking Islam), éditions Bernard Grasset, Paris, 2016. ↑
- See: “Les attentats sont la suite logique des bombardements” (Attacks are the logical result of the bombings”, Le Temps, July 16, 2016. ↑
- See B. Collombat and J. Monin’s investigation: “Daesh: Autopsie d’un monstre” (ISIS: Autopsy of a Monster), November 20, 2015. ↑
As an ex-white Rhodesia brain washed during the Ian Smith white minority government (1960s – 70s) and hero worshipping a Scandinavian mercenary from on the richest families who delighted in killing trips to the ex Belgian Congo (Tshombe, Lamumba, UN Secretary Hammerscholt , etc) and other Black Killing Zones, this article is very welcome.
African/Black/or Kaffirs or “munts”, Terrorists in Rhodesia were referred to as “terrs” (a pun on “turds”=shit, I have no idea) a good one was a dead one. Naturally, SAS and ex-Vietnam soldiers were most appreciated. “Kafirs” in fact an Arabic term meaning non-believer of Mohammed.
We anglo-zionist whites are all Kafirs, too.
I left Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1976 when Israel most generously delivered 3-5 nuclear devices to South Africa to be placed on joint produced missiles.
Those apartheid days were great man,! Not just the Boks (Springboks) playing all white rugby while listening to pop-music minus the Bealtes (banned for insinuating the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ) The DIVIDENDS man, the profits!!!! Diamonds and Gold, hey!! With mega-contributions from the overbearing Jewish business community to Israel. Shalom !!
As John Pilger (Australian journalist) and others have repeatedly underlined the complete hypocrisy of London while supporting genocide in Indonesia, colonial wars in Oman-Yemen, oil wars in Nigeria, de-population of Chagas Island for a huge US airbase etc.,
How convenient the Colonial-Foreign office has lost, inadvertently lost through flooding of archives etc., many key documents recording London”s wheeling and dealings over the past 150 years in her colonies…… Damn poor showing chaps!! What !!!
So where is the border line between the City of London dominated by Rothschilds merry band and the present Foreign Office… who calls the shots? Who pays the endless mercenary and other security services based in London …the slush funds (bribes) of Royal Dutch-Shell or from the government coffers itself..with a few sheckels thrown in to oil the cogs…
We English, we wallow joyously in our hypocrisy and double-standards –
Terrorists we love them, including the Irish. We make them!!!! It is all good business man !!!
Those were the days hey!! And todays Zimbabwe and South Africa as most other ex-colonies are still managed and coerced by the City of London…diamonds, gold, tungsten,nickel, oil etc.,
Speak to the Belgian bankers, royalists and elite of their juicy historical ventures in the Congo..Joseph Conrad was spot on with his infamous novel..
Now in the US (another colony), they even have “domestic terrorists”… are they house trained!!! or do they poop (defacate) in their own nest…
Svend Jensen, Danish Passport 208351716, CPR 061053-2365
”Kafirs” means disbeliever…disbeliever in what? in the One God. If you are a christian you are not a ”kafir” :)
kafir كافر
a person who is not a Muslim (used chiefly by Muslims). according to the Koran, the kafir is characterized by his worldliness.
ORIGIN from Arabic kāfir ‘infidel, unbeliever’. “disbeliever”. The term[1] alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God and… the teachings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad,
Becoming academic.. but most Christians, especially from Southern Africa, also reject or disbelieve the teachings of the Prophet and that the Koran is a pile of nonsense…
“the kafir is characterized by his worldliness.”
Maybe the Quran, which I read as a rewording of the Jewish Tanach and New Testament scriptures, took kafir from this in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?
These things say the Amen, the Faithful and True witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God;
I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot.
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and don’t know that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I counsel you to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich; and white raiment, that you may be clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.
Revelation 3:14-18
There is no more sitting on the fence or silent majority. It’s TIME to choose which side your on.
Not ‘”kafirs” … “kuffar” ;)
Actually the offense is the disbelief in the teaching of Muhammad.
Jews believe in One God, but not in the teaching of Muhammad and they are kafirs.
Christians are the worse kafirs:
“Surely, disbelievers are those who say, “Allah is the Masīh, son of Maryam” while the Masīh had said, “O children of Isrā’īl , worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” In fact, whoever ascribes any partner to Allah, Allah has prohibited for him the Jannah (the Paradise), and his shelter is the Fire, and there will be no supporters for the unjust.
(al-Ma’idah: 72) (in the translation of Yusuf Ali: In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.
“Surely, disbelievers are those who say, “Allah is the third of the three” while there is no god but One God. If they do not desist from what they say, a painful punishment shall certainly befall such disbelievers.
(al-Ma’idah: 73)
“The word kafir can also be used to imply a rejection of Islam. It describes one who knows the truth, but rejects it out of pride or vanity. This is someone who knows the truth in their heart and deliberately rejects it”.@https://www.whyislam.org/faqs/islam-and-other-faiths/why-does-the-quran-refer-to-jews-and-christians-as-kufar-or-infidels-what-kind-of-respect-and-tolerance-is-that/
This is the kind of comment that one would predictably expect, on cue, from the kind of Liar that would claim that the KKK represent “Christianity”.
I remain grateful to God for exposing bigots wherever they may try to reside through their own stupidity.
Winston Churchill”s comments in 1900s-1920s directly relating to the above article on Western (Anglo-Saxon-zionists) roots of Middle East Terrorism are most relevant I believe..
– Saudi Arabia and their kings, princes etc “They are barbaric, cruel but most importantly they are LOYAL to us….”
– Suez Canal and the Ottoman Empire “We must protect Suez at all costs”… includes the disastrous English-French-Israeli intervention in 1956..(Anthony Eden versus Dwight Eisenhower)
– Iran-Persian oil and other fields in the ME 1900s …”A fairyland of riches are to be had….”
– Machine gunning and gassing of Iraqi civilians (terrorists-insurgents…) in the 1920s…
“Why are you all so sqeamish (upset) about this!!!”, referring to the disgusted and horrified reactions of certain English politicians to the use of mustard gas.1920s.
As Winston Churchill was one of the most influential British Empire builders and retainers before WW2, his policies and thoughts explain it all.
.History repeats itself. again and again..Since the 1920s the Anglo-Zionists support of “terrorism”
has just multiplied itself many times over …Divide and rule – is the name of the game!!
(please excuse the inexactitude of his quoted comments)
“The Western roots of “Middle-Eastern” terrorism”
It’s not simply Terrorism. It is Nation ‘culling’. A scientific, industrial, multi-layered approach to drain all resources from a given place.
– Gold, oil, arable lands. etc. sold to cartel companies …
– Academics, doctors brought to Europe and the US for cheap labor …
– Young men sold into work slavery, mercenary armies, death squads, Nazi-battalions …
– Women sold into work slavery, Mengele breeding programs, prostitution rings …
– Children used for organ harvesting, vaccines testing, pedophilia …
and so on.
Overlooked is the leading role of the terrorist artificial rogue state created on stolen Palestinian land and their pioneering work in terrorism.
Also, all western intervention at Israel’s behest is a form of state terrorism.
US Generals Are Terrified Russia May End Their Afghanistan Gravy Train War
Hostile words from the Pentagon as Moscow hosts a regional powers conference on Afghanistan
Marko Marjanović
February 14, 2017
Here is a fact: you don’t keep at something for fifteen years if you don’t think it is to your benefit.
For fifteen years now US generals have been proving they do not know how to “win” the war in Afghanistan, and yet rather than cut their losses they want to keep at it. Why?
Well at this point they want to keep it because it’s good business for the generals, the military and war contractors. Everybody wins! Except the Afghan “bugsplat” of course.
But what if somebody threatens your hustle? Specifically what if Russia (which already terminated your Syria hustle) starts organizing peace conferences?? Now that is cause for alarm!
Recently Russia has established some communication channels with the Taleban. This has sent Americans into a tailspin albeit it is no more than what they themselves had been trying to accomplish for years.
What is worse, Moscow is now gathering regional powers to talk Afghanistan resolution. And if the preliminary meeting last December which brought together Russia, Pakistan and China could be derided as “an Afghanistan conference without Afghanistan” the next one to be held tomorrow is bringing together Russia, China, India, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan — in short everyone but the US.
http://www.checkpointasia.net/index.php/2017/02/14/us-generals-are-terrified-russia-may-end-their-afghanistan-gravy-train-war/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
The Russian peace-mongers are getting everywhere. If it is not Syria, it is Turkey-Cyprus, and Libya, and banging Iraeli-Palestinian heads together, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Donbass and now Afghanistan. What bizarre kind of world would it be if we let these peace-mongers have their way?
Until Tony Blair, there was no significant ‘islamic terrorism’. And why? Because every flavour of ruler in nations of islamic heritage, and every major islamic religious figurehead was utterly against such forms of activity.
Remember when Tony Blair faked ‘evidence’ against Iraq and invaded, leading directly to the murder of two million souls? At first, even as Blair butchered them by the tens of thousands with every high tech weapon in NATO’s arsenal, there was no ‘terror’ action against the invaders. No suicide bombers. No ‘beheadings’.
But then it began. Videos of masked hulky men- clearly special forces from Britian, Canada, the USA, Australia, etc- dressed as pantomine ‘muslims’- cutting the heads off hostages. And the ‘suicide’ checkpoint bobmbings began at the same time- which we now know were actually special forces planting bombs in the cares of unsuspecting dupes, and detonating the explosives as the reached the target location.
Why were the initial waves of ‘terror’ attacks all actually atrocities carried out by Blair’s own forces? Because this activity was designed to ***groom*** the general population of Iraq- make them think such forms of violence an expected response to the invasion, so Iraqi traitors actually in the employ of the West could start putting together ***real*** terror cells.
Terrorism is never the first (or even second or third) instinct of any group of people fighting superior forces. You see such people, by circumstances, are the ***good guys***, and good guys are the last types to resort to what everyone considers obscene. But with the right type of desperation, and the whispers of evil manipulators, things can easily change.
Today ISIS atrocity videos never feature hulky special forces body types, masked or not. The ‘real’ thing proves even more clearly just how fake the original beheading videos from Iraq were- fake in the sense that the killers were soldiers in the direct employ of the West not fake in the sense that no-one was murdered. But the strategy to spead terror and terror tactics throughout an invaded land is actually taught at all the military academies in NATO nations. You murder the brightest and best in the lands you exterminate. You recruit legions of traitors, using generational rewards to their wider families in the Empire homelands. You turn the resistance into brutal midless terrorists. The Ancient Romans perfected this method, and took down the Germanic and Gaul people this way.
The British Empire, as I’m sure lots of you know, considered itself a successor to the Roman Empire. The nazis, despite being on paper a ‘germanic’ movement, also modelled themselves to a degree of the romans. And the Romans were so ruthless. Genocide was their go-to tactic when the enemy was just too numerous, as with the gauls and german tribes. After all, the Romans argued, after genocide the defeated people breed like crazy, but the new generations can be conditioned from birth to be far more servile to the Empire.
Iran is the ***last*** major bulwark against the wahhabi terror tactic. Terrorism cannot take down Iran- and indeed terror in Syria has helped Iran and its allies from Lebanon become even stronger. But terror (fake terror and real) means something very useful in the minds of the sheeple of the West. Anti-islamic feeling has never been higher. Ordinary people across the West hate the never ending waves of muslim immigrants flooding in under ever possible excuse, and see all of them as potential parts of terror infrastructure. That the mass migration is synthetic created by demonic wars against secular islamic nations is understood by most sheeple- but irrelevent in the sense that regardless of actually reason, the problem still exists and grows daily.
And the highest thought is this. If the demons have never been held accountable for the insanely blatant false-flag of 9/11, or the completely unjustified invasion of Iraq, what chance is there of the demons being held accountable for creating the terrorism in the Middle East. Zero.
Thank you for such a logical insight on terrorism. Especially how it all started in Iraq. One wonders why it is never mentioned in the media. I will definitely look forward to your analysis about 911. Obviously the Islamic thugs were inappropriately tagged as the executioners of 911.
It’s an unfortunate reality that most of society are victims to a slow-moving, carnage-filled hostage situation. We are hostage to the machinations of sycophants who live in a zero sum game of power politics. People want to rule the world and get rich in the process, and so are willing to justify any means to that end – including manufacturing terrorism to create political will and context for military aggression or destabilizing actions (color revolutions, assassinations, arbitrary sanctions, blockades, funding of despots who can be bought and controlled, brownstone operations of sexual blackmail to maintain control over politicians and corporations and governments, forced asset seizure ala brownstone operations and false planting of evidence, the list literally goes on and on). At this point it might better to hope for someone to win so that, eventually, in time, one ruler can just torture us outright instead of twenty countries all doing the same in the shadows.
The ‘zero sum game’ is us, against them.
Hello Amir,
I’m afraid your analysis is starting too late and missing initial phases. You need to check out the role of Max von Oppenheim (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Oppenheim) who worked the middle east trying to incite a jihad against the british during WW I. Read this: http://www.trafoberlin.de/pdf-dateien/2014_06/kas_5678-544-1-30.pdf (german main text but with long english summary)
For me, what is interesting is that the truest definition of terrorism is that a group knowingly commits atrocities with the full understanding that anything they do will not accomplish anything good for any country or for any people, especially their people and their country.
Dear all,
First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read and react.
Second, when I wrote my article I knew – and I still do – no analysis on the topic could be exhaustive and right on every single point. My main purpose was – and stil is – to contribute to a much needed broad public debate. It is explained in the notice I wrote to launch my article which reads as follows:
” Important notice to all peace-loving, and truth-seeking people around the world !
It is my great pleasure to present my contribution to the debate on the main roots of this global plague of « transnational terrorism ».
I would like, at the outset, to clarify that the main goal through the publication of this modest attempt, is to participate, with other goodwilling and faithful people elsewhere in the world, in the honorable effort of raising public awareness on the serious threats that are increasingly jeopardizing peace, security, solidarity, development and, above all, the future of the “Living Together” or « Community Life » of the human race.
The other goal, no less important than the first, is to express a personal point of view on the stereotyped,
biased and often deliberately truncated picture of Islam and Muslims, conveyed by a certain
school of thought and the selfish interests which feed it and support it, by all means possible.
Needless to add that this personal view is shared by hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims and non Muslims alike, aspiring to live, together with their children, a decent and worthy life, in full respect of their particular common beliefs, and their diverse cultures and customs. And, just as legitimately as for all other peoples, Muslim communities are active and positive stakeholders in the exhilarating adventure of universal progress.
For sure, however, under the sublime banner of Islam, the real one, the very one which has contributed – significantly and in a manner inscribed in letters of gold to the History as well as to the progress of Humanity, there can never be a place for those who glorify terrorism, practice the massacre of innocent people – wherever they may be and whatever culture they belong to – and cause destruction, desolation and despair in the creative genius of Man.
May my modest “brick” contribute to the construction of a beautiful monument dedicated to peace among peoples. Amen ! “.
Kind regards.
Amir NOUR
Since the beginning of the 19th century, the Western powers have made the choice of annexing territories and cornerinf of the wealth. This policy became a longstanding strategy and theories have emerged to regulate the new relations of colonial and postcolonial domination. This aggressive stance continues to be deployed by the West, in search of new gains. Politicians and secutity experts does not shrink from anything to achieve these goals though the price is.
New theories emerged since and Professor Nour rightly reminds us that the tools of cooperation have gradually been transformed into instruments of interference and fomentation of disturbances against the National Governments which aspire to develop their countries and move forward to build a strong economy.
Coup were organized, disorders were caused to bring down patriotic regimes and paramilitary groups were created to sow trouble in the country. Today, new forms of pressure have emerged and the encouragement of the ideology of violence and extremism is part of it. Transnational terrorism, which has hit much of the world, has been partly instrumentalized, structured and financed to serve hidden strategies. Bold measures could have contained this phenomenon and dismantled its networks, but other policies have prevailed to allow terrorism to expand and become a threat to the peace and security of all nations.
I agree with Professor Nour that the West must reconsider its strategic objectives and engage in a partnership for peace and development for all. We need to build a strong collective security and work toghether to achieve sustainable development.