The streets of a war now in the city of angle between
rival militias and the burning of houses and shops.
Burning home Jerzh Samar Sergiwa. Her argument “lipo Ihrkona”.
Targeting gate militias affiliated to the ‘Roma Libya’ at
Bridge pressures Abashaal, propelled RPG.
Violent clashes on the bridge Zahra between
tribal forces and militias ‘Roma Libya’.
GREEN NAFUSA WESTERN MOUNTAINS:
Interruption of communications service Libyana
again full of the mountain west.
(BTW: ‘LIBYANA’, works with the rat occupiers of TRIPOLI,
where they have their main office in Libya. This is not the first
time they purposely broke LIBYAN ARMY communications.)
MR. FARHAT / SATURDAY MARKET /CHILDREN TLES
30 cars from Misurata militias now entered a road link
between the Saturday market and Azizia.
They are now on the outskirts of the ‘children Tles area’.
This is an attempt to circumvent the tribal forces
stationed in the area, ‘Mr. Farhat’.
Successful wrap forces tribes in the center of the Saturday market
and the elimination of a large number of militia ‘Dawn Libya’, and escape
the rest of sheep and many of the weapons and vehicles.
Violent clashes are now underway in the ‘region antibrachii’
against our tribal forces, on the outskirts of Sawani area.
Tariq‘s body was found burned in the military Ojaili, Jinan Nawar area of B.Ajeelat.
‘Dr. Tariq al’, the leader of ‘Jemaah Islamiyah’
-al-Qaeda group al-Asalamah-
all returnees from Libya, in order to provide Ahtiajtahm for themselves and their families (after their losses caused by their removal from work in Libya): even provides them enough and their families to be plotting to them pursuant equivalent Aaúdhm in Libya.
Two car bomb blasts in the city of Zliten.
Detonate a car bomb in downtown Misurata,
resulting in deaths and injury of many of the wounded.
Renewed clashes between militia organization Daash
and “166” of the militias Roma Libya in Sirte.
LIBYAN AIRFORCE Warplanes bombed the Egyptian company’s
headquarters where were stationed
DAASH point belonging to a fork in Daash‘s Nofaliya area.
Once again Barak Chat’ai is under the yolk of ‘ROMA LIBYA’ !!!
An al-Qaeda Sniper, allied with ‘militias Roma Libya’,
arrested a Sudanese farmer accidentally, in front of Azwaip area in Barak Chat’ai.
Bomb Iran? Not now: bomb Yemen
Published time: 08 April 2015 15:42
People walk past a car damaged by an airstrike in Sanaa 08 April 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)
‘Operation Decisive Storm’ – the Pentagon-style House of Saud glorifying of its ghastly ‘Bomb Yemen’ show – could be summed up in a single paragraph.
The wealthiest Arab nation – the House of Saud petro-hacienda – supported by other GCC petro-rackets and also the wealthy “West”, has launched an – illegal – bombing/war/kinetic operation against the poorest Arab nation in the name of “democracy.”
And this absurdity is just the beginning.
The EU’s foreign policy chief, the innocuous as a stale cannoli Federica Mogherini, seems to be mildly alarmed. She remarked that Saudi bombing of hospitals and “deliberate targeting and destruction of private homes, education facilities and basic infrastructure cannot be tolerated.”
Well, the EU tolerates exactly the same thing in Donbass perpetrated by Kiev’s goons – so nothing will come out La Mogherini’s feigned outrage.
The Red Cross and the Russian Federation, for their part, at least are demanding a temporary ceasefire to allow for humanitarian relief. Humanitarian relief is incompatible with the House of Saud’s bloodline. So after two weeks of Saudi ‘Shock and Awe’, the current toll of at least 560 Yemeni civilians dead (and counting), and 1700 wounded – dozens of them children – is bound to increase.
Bab-el-Mandeb me, baby
Bomb Iran? Not now; the new normal is bomb Yemen. But still bomb Iran might be back in a flash. Pentagon supremo Ash Carter confirmed last week “all options are on the table” even if an Iran-P5+1 nuclear deal is finally reached in June. So, for the record, the Pentagon is affirming nuclear negotiations are just white noise unable to deter the tantalizing prospect of yet another nice little Middle East war.
Needless to add, the so civilized ‘West’ didn’t even flinch when “our bastards” the House of Saud invaded and started shockin’ an’awin’ dirt-poor Yemen. No UN Security Council resolution. Not even a mandate from the totally discredited Arab League. Who cares? After all the ‘Empire of Chaos’ has done the same over and over again with total impunity.
Much hysteria has been raging on whether the Houthis are about to take control of the Bab-el-Mandeb – one of the key strategic global energy chokepoints along with the Straits of Hormuz, and as crucial as the Suez Canal. Nonsense. Whatever the House of Saud does, the not so hidden ‘Empire of Chaos’ agenda is never to lose control of the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands.
A man reacts as he inspects the damage of a building caused by an air strike in Sanaa April 8, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)
This is part of what we could dub ‘Chokepointistan’; wars taking place near or around energy bottlenecks, and always narrated in Global War on Terror (GWOT) deceitful terminology. US Think Tankland is more straightforward, carefully following US naval deployments. That’s what this is all about; an Orwellian “freedom of navigation” masquerading a hardcore strategy of shutting out the geopolitical enemy – be it Iran, Russia, China or all of the above.
‘Chokepointistan’ is all over the place: just watch the war or pre-positioning action in the Bab-el-Mandeb (with spillover effects from Yemen to Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti); the Straits of Hormuz (all about Iran); but also the strait of Malacca (all about China), Panama (about Venezuela), the coming Nicaragua canal (about China), the Korean Strait, the Taiwan Strait, the Kuril Islands, and last but not least the Baltic Sea.
A Grand Armada Run Amok
Saudi intel knows the Houthis can’t possibly control the Bab-el-Mandeb – not to mention Washington would never allow it. What freaks the Saudis out is that the Houthi rebellion in Yemen – supported by Tehran – may encourage bright rebellion ideas among the Shi’ite majority in the eastern provinces in Saudi Arabia, where most of the oil is.
And this where the Saudi excuse for war interfaces with the empire’s paranoia of preventing Iran, Russia and/or China from establishing a possible strategic presence in Yemen, at the Bab-el-Mandeb, overlooking the Gulf of Aden.
So we have once again Pentagon supremo Carter insisting, “The United States supports Arab plans to create a unified military force to counter growing security threats in the Middle East, and the Pentagon will cooperate with it where US and Arab interests coincide.” Translation: we gave the green light for our bastards to maintain “stability” in the Middle East.
Yet there’s a spanner in the works; the possible Washington-Tehran rapprochement, assuming a nuclear deal is reached. For the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration, the nuclear deal will be their only foreign policy success. Moreover, without Tehran there’s no meaningful fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in “Syraq”.
None of this mollifies the cosmically paranoid Saudis, who assembled in a flash a Grand Armada Run Amok (GARA) – 100 jet fighters, 150,000 soldiers – respectfully described by US Think Tankland as a “coalition” of 10 countries. Without even blinking at UN norms, the Saudis instantly declared the whole of Yemen as a no-fly zone.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif addresses during a joint statement with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (L) in Lausanne April 2, 2015. (Reuters/Ruben Sprich)
And along with routine bombing of residential complexes, the al-Mazraq camp for the internally displaced in Hajjah, a dairy factory near Hodeida, and other instances, came, what else, hardcore internal Saudi repression, via a crackdown with tanks and indiscriminate shooting in Awamiyah, in the eastern provinces; Shi’ites there can’t even think of organizing protests against the bloodbath in Yemen.
In a nutshell, this is the immensely wealthy, corrupt, medieval Saudi regime busy at war against their own people. The usual hard-line Wahhabi imams are busy working up anti-Shi’ite and anti-Iranian fever everywhere; these are all “apostates” under the takfir doctrine, and Iranians are lowly “Safawis” – a quite pejorative reference to the 16th century Safavid dynasty. It’s crucial to remember that Islamic State treats Shi’tes and Iranians the exact same way. But forget about any of this being reported by Western corporate media.
The General and the Sheikh
The House of Saud insists it wants to reinstall the government-in-exile of Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. Or, as Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir glowingly put it, “protect the legitimate government of the country.”
Royally paid Saudi lobby hagiographers are once again frantically spinning the Sunni versus Shi’ite sectarian narrative – which totally ignores the mind-boggling tribal/class complexity of Yemeni society. In a nutshell, this laughable Saudi defense of democracy is paving the way for a ground war; a long, bloody and horribly expensive ground war.
And it gets, as expected, even more absurd. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was recently asked during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether he knew of “any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL.”His response: “I know major Arab allies who fund them.”
Translation: the US government not only does not sanction or punish these “allies” (the real fun is to sanction Russia) but showers with logistical and “non-lethal” support the “coalition” that is arguably fighting the same Islamic State they are funding. No one is making this up; this is how the endless war on terra remains the gift that keeps on giving.
It gets even curioser and curioser when we have Dempsey on the same page of Hezbollah’s Sheikh Nasrallah. In this crucial speech, Sheikh Nasrallah offers the most extensive and precise account of the origins and ideology of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Last part of the speech of the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayed Hasan Nasrallah, during the days commemorating ‘Ashura – 25 October 2014 – English Subtitles (Translated from French by Jenny from Tlaxcala : http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/biographi…)
And here he expands on Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on 27 March 2015
In His Name
So what we have is the ‘Empire of Chaos’ ‘leading from behind’ in the war on Yemen and also de facto ‘leading from behind’ in the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh; the ones doing the heavy lifting are Iraqi militias supported by Tehran. The hidden agenda is always – what else –chaos; be it across “Syraq” or inside Yemen. With an extra bonus; while Washington is engaged on striking a nuclear deal with Tehran, it also turbo-charges an alliance against Tehran using the House of Saud.
Vietnam in the desert
The House of Saud badly wants Pakistan to take no prisoners, supplying bomber jets, ships and lots of ground troops for their war. Riyadh treats Islamabad as a vassal state. A joint session of the Pakistani Parliament will decide what to do.
It’s quite revealing to learn what happened when Pakistan’s most popular private TV channel assembled representatives of all major political parties to explain where they stand. Soon they reached a consensus; Pakistan should be neutral; act as mediator; and commit no troops, unless there was a “tangible threat” to the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina, which is far from the case.
The House of Saud remains on overdrive, showering tons of cash over WAHHABI and Deobandi preachers to bullhorn their war; that includes a delegation of ulema visiting Riyadh. Support has already duly poured from Pakistan-based hardcore groups that trained with al-Qaeda and fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan; after all they are all funded by Wahhabi fanatics.
Followers of the Houthi movement attend a protest against the Saudi-led air strikes in Sanaa on 05 April 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)
Meanwhile, in the front lines, a real game-changer may be ahead, with the Houthis already firing missiles across the border at Saudi oil installations. Then all bets are off – and the possibility that long-range missiles have been pre-positioned becomes quite credible.
That scenario would mean a foreign intel agency luring the House of Saud into its own Vietnam quagmire in Yemen, setting them up for a barrage of missiles hitting their pumping stations and oil fields, with catastrophic consequences for the global economy. It’s crucial to remember that the Grand Armada Run Amok (GARA) assembled by Riyadh happens to account for no less than 32% of global oil production. This cannot possibly end well.
Everyone in Yemen has an AK-47, not to mention RPGs and hand grenades. The terrain is guerrilla heaven. History spells out at least 2,000 years of hardened tribes fighting foreign invaders. Most Yemenis hate the House of Saud with a vengeance; a majority follows what the Houthis announced in late February, that the House of Saud and the US were planning to devastate Yemen.
The Houthi rebellion includes both Sunnis and Shi’ites – thus totally debunking the Saudi narrative. When they captured the Yemeni National Security Bureau, which was basically a CIA station, the Houthis found a wealth of secret documents that “compromised” Washington’s Yemeni chapter of the war on terra. As for the Saudi Army, it’s a joke. Besides, it employs a huge contingent of – you guessed it – Yemeni soldiers.
“Operation Decisive Storm” – yet another Pentagon-style illegal war – has already plunged Yemen into the twin plagues of civil war and humanitarian disaster. The remains of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and most of all ISIS/ISIL/Daesh (who hate the Houthis and all Shi’ites with a vengeance) couldn’t be happier. The ‘Empire of Chaos’ couldn’t give a damn; the more widespread the chaos, the better for the Pentagon-defined Long War (on terra).
Over five years ago I wrote that Yemen is the new Waziristan. Now it’s also heading towards the new Somalia. And soon it may become the House of Saud’s Vietnam.
ZIONISM and WAHHABISM: The Twin Cancers Destroying the Middle East (and their Dark Origins)…
Posted: 07 November 2014 in (All Things) CULTURE, (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS, HISTORY (From a Certain Point of View)
This is something I’ve been meaning to post about ever since starting this blog; it’s a subject immenselyimportant to our current global situation and international climate and it’s an angle largely avoided in mainstream journalism.
It is a fascinating, though rather grim, story, spanning the First World War, the creation of the states of Israel, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and taking in Lawrence of Arabia, the fall of Gadaffi in Libya, the Syria Civil War and Rise of Islamic State, among other things. It’s a story of long-term manipulation, insidious indoctrination, andsecret, ‘mythical’ works of literature.
These two ideologies – Wahhabism in Islam and Zionism which is linked primarily to the Jewish religion – may seem like unrelated entities on the surface of it…
But these two idealogies are largely responsible for the situation in the Middle East today; a situation that doesn’t just effect the Middle East, but as we’ve seen more and more since 9/11, effects the US, Europe, the West and probably the entire world.These two idealogies are responsible for and bound up in decades of violence, war, suffering and manipulation. These two idealogies are, it can be demonstrated, flip-sides of the same coin. And these two idealogies can both be traced back to the same approximate era – roughly 100 years ago, during the events of the First World War.
What has been the legacy of both Zionism and Wahhabism in the world? And what is the truth about their origins? To begin with, an abbreviated history (for those of you unfamiliar) of the origins of first Zionism and then Wahhabism…
‘Der Judenstaat’, the Balfour Declaration and the Origins of Zionism…
‘Zionism’ is a complicated term to define in some ways, all the more so for the sheer amount of exaggeration and misinformation around on the web; there’s political Zionism, which is bound up in serving the interests of the state of Israel. There’s religious Zionism, which refers to Jewish or Christian interest in the state of Israel in terms of fulfilling Biblical prophecy or “divine will”. These two schools of Zionism could in some instances be entirely separate; people can be political Zionists without being religious Zionists or even vice-versa (such as Christian organizations who are Zionist for the sake fulfilling perceived Bible texts).
Zionism is just as Christian as it is Jewish.
But the point is that the aim of Zionism originally was the restoration of the Jewish Homeland in what was then Palestine; a goal that was accomplished comprehensively in 1948 in the shadow of the Holocaust (though it had its roots as an international movement from the time of the First World War). Beyond that point, the continued operation of Zionism can be regarded as a political movement aimed at furthering the interests nationally and internationally of that artificially created nation and at ensuring the security and protection of the state of Israel. Many conspiracy theorists and anti-Zionist commentators also as a matter of course link Zionism – both religious and political – with an altogether-less-reliable concept of a ‘global Jewish conspiracy’ to control the world; as that particular area is more speculative than demonstrably historical, I’m steering clear of it as far as this post
So if we avoid for now any pseudo-history or speculative theories, Zionism in its mainstream form is believed to have originated withTheodor Herzl in 1896; a Jewish writer living in Austria-Hungary, he published Der Judenstaat or The Jews State.
In it he argued that the only solution to the “Jewish Question” in Europe was the creation of a state for the Jewish people (this was decades before a certain someone else came up with their own “solution” to the “Jewish question” in Europe). Anti-Semitism was so widespread in Europe that Herzl saw the creation of a national sanctuary for his people as the only long-term answer. And so Zionism was born; or at least this is the mainstream version of events – others, I know, will contest that and offer arguments for a much older origin. Of course if we’re talking about religious Zionism as opposed to political Zionism, then the origin is much older; it didn’t go by that name, but the notion that the land of Israel had always belonged to the Jewish people spiritually or that it was promised to the Children of Israel by the Biblical God is an ancient one (and of course nosound basis for 20th century nation-building).
It was the Colonial Powers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, particularly Great Britain, that actively pursued the Zionist agenda under the guidance of powerful and wealthy British Jews such as Lord Rothschild, resulting in the famousBalfour Declaration. The British made war-time promises during World War I to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Although mass Jewish immigration to Palestine began occurring after the First World War, it wasn’t until after the Second World War and the Holocaust that the agenda was comprehensively fulfilled. Among many others, the prolific writer, researcher and speakerDavid Icke has written extensively about ‘Rothschild Zionism’, so I won’t get into that here, but simply advise you to seek out Icke’s works if you’re interested (he is the authority on that subject).
Another cornerstone of Zionist lore is the fabled book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, believed to be the blue-print for the ‘global Zionist conspiracy’; we’ll come back to that later in this post.
Despite Britain’s official actions, however, neither public nor government opinion was unanimous in its support for the excessive commitment made by Britain to further the Zionist agenda. Winston Churchill, in a 1922 telegraph, is recorded to have written of “a growing movement of hostility against Zionist policy in Palestine,” adding that “it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.” This disapproval of political Zionism has continued for all the decades since and is even more widespread and vehement today than it was a century ago. While much of this is also bound up in anti-Semitism and anti Jewish propaganda, a lot of the opposition to Zionism is also from respectable, reputable sources.
Gandhi wrote in 1938; “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs…. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.”
And contrary to the view propagated by some that anti-Zionism is ‘anti-semitism’,Jewish speakers have at various points also spoken out openly against the Zionist agenda; among them, (Rabbi) Elmer Berger published The Jewish Dilemma, in which he argued that Jewish “assimilation” was still the best path for Jews in the modern world and not the segregation and siege mentality of the Zionist state; in his opinion Zionism itself was simply resigning to the prevailing racial myths about Jews and playing into them.
Orthodox Jews protesting against Zionism.
In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that designated Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination”. More contemporaneously, in 2010 the former BBC and ITN journalist Alan Hart published Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, while famous atheist-in-chief Richard Dawkins said in an interview (speaking about Zionism and the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in the US); “If atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” This is just a fraction of stated opposition to Zionism by ‘reputable’, ‘respectable’ people; I reference all of that here to illustrate the point that anti-Zionism isn’t just the preserve of ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. And again, let’s bear in mind the substantial number of Jews also opposed to Zionism.
It couldn’t be denied, even by the most ardent Zionist supporters, that the influence of political Zionism along with many of the actions/policies of the State of Israel have, aside from the long-term oppression of the Palestinian people, contributed massively to the polarisation of the Middle East and the growth of radicalism. The same can be said of the influence ofWahhabism in the region.
Wahhabism, like Zionism, isn’t some centuries old, time-honoured religious sect, but a relatively new political idealogy.
The Advent of Wahhabism, the Birth of Saudi Arabiaand the (Insidious) Spreading of the Message…
The modern roots of Wahhabism can be traced to Najd in Saudi Arabia and the 18th century theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Far from being regarded a legitimate interpretation of Islam, al-Wahhab was opposed even by his own father and brother for his beliefs. But the movement gained unchallenged precedence in most of the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Muhammad ibn Saud, which provided political and financial power for al-Wahhab’s idealogies to gain prominence.
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
This alliance gave birth to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; following the collapse of the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Sauds seized control of the Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula and a nation was founded on the tenets of al-Wahhab – the state-sponsored, dominant form of Islam in the birthplace of Islam.
My initial interest in this area of Arab history admittedly began fifteen years or so ago via theDavid Lean epic Lawrence of Arabia, starring the great Peter O’Toole. Through a love of that 1963 film I read first T.E Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom and then read several books concerning the exploits of T.E Lawrence and the Arab Revolt during the First World War, as well as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (referenced by today’s Islamic State/ISIS in its ‘manifesto’) and the actions of the British and French Colonial governments in regard to the Middle East after the war.
The setting up of the House of Saud as the royal family and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia occurred despite the fact that agreements had been made during the war to endorse and support not the Saudis but the Hashemites. It was the Hashemite Arabs, not the Saudis, that had launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottomon Turks and had been the most involved in the campaign. Yet it was the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi faction that gained the real power from the post-war situation.
The reason I bring all of this history up here is to point out that the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Royal Kingdom that the Middle East has been subject to in the passed century wasn’t the sole – or even thelegitimate – claimant to that immensely privileged, immensely powerful, position in the region.
And what has been the legacy of this Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Arabia and its influence?Well, the influence on Arabia itself and much of the surrounding region is incontrovertible. Aside from the fact that the Wahabi doctrines have been a major influence on extremism, Islamism and terrorism (Osama bin Laden himself was a Wahhabist), the idealogies have been methodically disseminated across the Islamic world for a hundred years via Saudi wealth funding ‘education’ and religious literature to universities and mosques everywhere from Egypt and Iraq to Pakistan and Indonesia. Worse, the Saudi-funded dissemination of Wahabist-inspired propaganda has for a long time been spreading beyond the Middle East and into Western societies, especially the Muslim communities in the UK.
A recent two-year study conducted by Dr Denis MacEoin, an Islamic studies expert who taught at the University of Fez, uncovered a hoard of “malignant literature” inside as many as a quarter of Britain’s mosques.
All of it had been published and distributed by agencies linked to the government of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
The leaflets, DVDs and journals were full of statements that homosexuals should be burnt, stoned or thrown from mountains or tall buildings, with adulterers and apostates (those who try to change their religion) proscribed a similar fate. Women were portrayed as intellectually inferior and in need of “beating when they transgressed”orthodox Islamic codes, while children over the age of 10 should be beaten if they did not pray. Half of the literature was written in English, suggesting it was targeted at younger British Muslims who don’t speak Arabic or Urdu. The material, openly available in many of the mosques, openly advises British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims.
This isn’t new information, of course. Investigative journalists have uncovered similar things on numerous occasions, while people who’ve actually grown up within the Muslim communities have been aware of such ideas and literature for a long time. Saudi-funded Wahhabist literature can be cited as a major influence (though not the sole influence) on the indoctrination of young British men alienated from mainstream society and on the seduction of men into extremist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS the world over. Worse in places like Pakistan where, unlike in the UK, most young men aren’t privileged with access to a high standard of education or to reliable sources of public information but do have plenty of access to religious schools and mosques, many of which teach from Saudi-funded literature.
Yet while the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq were subject to invasion (and the latter to deliberate destabilization), and the overthrow of the governments of Syria and Libya (two countries that had little, if any, influence on the growth of global Islamism or extremism) were openly encouraged and aided by the major Western governments, Saudi Arabia – no doubt partly due to its wealth and value to the US and its allies – has never at any point been subject to any threat or been held to international questioning over the cynical and methodical dissemination of extremist doctrines across the Muslim world.
World War I, the Wahhabists, the Hashemites,Lawrence of Arabia and the War in the Desert…
Going back to the First World War and history, it’s worth reminding ourselves again that the Saudis weren’t necessarily supposed to be the rulers of Arabia. The Hashemite, Hussein bin Ali, was the Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908 until 1917. The Arab Revolt of World War I consisted of Transjordanian tribes, along with other tribes of the Hijaz and Levant regions, fighting against the Turkish Empire on the side of Britain and her allies. The revolt was launched by the Hashemites and led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, not by the Saudis or Wahhabists. It was supported by Britain and the World War I Allies, who used the momentum of the Arab nationalists (who wanted independence) to further the broader war effort against Germany and her allies.
The definitive chronicle of the revolt was written by T. E. Lawrence who, as a young British Army officer, played a key liaison role during the revolt. He published the chronicle in 1922 under the title Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the basis for Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence himself was of course was one the most fascinating and iconic figures of the twentieth century; and while theSeven Pillars of Wisdom can be questioned for accuracy in some regards, even his detractors and enemies couldn’t refute the vital role played by the Hashemites in the revolt and it is a fact of history that the British government of the time promised the Hashemite Arabs far more than they delivered after the war.
In September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the “Sharif of Mecca”. Hussein had been declared ‘King of the Arabs’ by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. And after the Turkish Caliphate was abolished, Hussein declared himself Caliph, “King of the Hejaz”, and King of all Arabs (malik bilad-al-Arab).
However, Hussein was ousted and driven out of Arabia by theSauds; a rival clan with whom the Hashemites already had bad history, having earlier fought against them due to radical religious differences (primarily the doctrines of al-Wahhab). Though the British had supported (and utilised) Hussein from the start of theArab Revolt, they decided not to help Hussein repel the Saudi attacks, which eventually seized the key cities of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah.
The hope of a Hashemite-ruled Arabia was gone, though Hussein continued to use the title “Caliph” even in his exile.
In the aftermath of the war, the Arabs had found themselves freed from centuries of Ottoman rule, but instead were then under the colonial rule of France and the United Kingdom (despite British war-time promises that this would not be the case). When these colonial mandates eventually ended, the sons of Hussein were made the kings of Transjordan (later Jordan), and Syria and Iraq. However, the monarchy in Syria was short-lived, and consequently Hussein’s son Faisal instead presided over the newly-established state of Iraq. But these were mere conciliatory offerings compared to what had originally been intended and desired by the Hashemites; it was the Saudis who were the real winners, being installed into a powerful kingdom that has lasted to this day and shows not the slightest sign of weakening.
“The Memoirs of Mr Hempher” and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…
Zionism and Wahhabism have both demonstrably been divisive, destructive forces in the region (and beyond). Zionism has led to the plight of the Palestinians as well as ensuring that the modern State of Israel is perceived in an entirely negative way and is the least popular nation on earth. While Wahhabism has inspired an immeasurable amount of extremism, terrorist idealogies, indoctrination and the toxic polarisation of societies.
We can look at the influence of Wahhabism in the world at this stage in time and legitimately call it a ‘cancer’. But what about at its root? What about the source? Given the prevalent view in conspiracy theory lore of the “Zionist conspiracy” behind the Balfour Declaration and so much of what has transpired since, is it possible that Wahhabism, which began to gain momentum at around the same time, was also something much more than it appeared to be even at the time?
Is it possible Wahhabism wasn’t the product of some quaintly rustic Arabian desert preacher, but something far more cynical?
The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East (also known asConfessions of a British Spy) has long been regarded as a forged document; the document, purporting to be the account of an 18th-century British agent, “Hempher”, of his instrumental role in founding Wahhabism as part of a conspiracy to corrupt Islam, first appeared in 1888 in Turkish. It has been described as “an Anglophobic variation” on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Most conspiracy researchers know about the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was regarded as blue-print of the perceived “Jewish conspiracy”. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, like Confessions of a British Spy, has long since been dismissed by mainstream sources as a ‘forgery’ or hoax.
The Protocols has been widely translated and disseminated and is still regarded as factual and historical in much of the Muslim world, informing a great deal of the prevailing Middle-Eastern view of “the Jews” and “the Zionists”. Secular writers and researchers, including the likes of David Icke, also believe the Protocols to be a genuine, factual book and not a hoax at all; someone like Icke cites the nature of global events in the passed century-plus as supporting evidence for the Protocols validity, given how much of it is claimed to correlate to what was written. Those who refute the validity of the book, however, cite it as a massive contributing cause of anti-Semitism and ‘Jew hatred’ in Muslim societies and beyond, not to mention the notorious book having been a recurring theme in the Nazis anti-Jewish world-view.
Unfortunately the Nazis, like many in Muslim societies today, were intemperates, incapable of separating ‘Zionism’ as a political force from ‘Jews’ as a race; the reality is that, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is/was a legitimate historical item, the Zionism it depicts is no more representative of Jews as a people than Wahhabism is of the global Muslim community – which is to say that only a relatively small percentage of Muslims in the world are knowingly agents of Wahhabism, and likewise in regard to the Jewish community and Zionism. But conspiracies of the kind we’re talking about operate at an insidious, often unperceived, level; that is to say the number of Muslims and the number of Jews unknowingly subject to Wahhabism and Zionism respectively is much higher.
But what of Confessions of a British Spy? Is it mere coincidencethat both these political idealogies, both originating around the same time, both of which have ensured the long-term toxicity of the Middle East, both also happened to have books claiming to reveal their true origins and agendas – both of which were later dismissed by mainstream commentators as ‘forgeries’?
Was Confessions of a British Spy telling the truth? Was Wahhabism founded by outside agencies as a long-term plan to ‘corrupt Islam’? Is it just a coincidence that this is EXACTLY what Wahhabism appears to have done over the course of a century – corrupted the Islamic religion to the point where it is now widely regarded by many non-Muslims as a source of evil and ill in the world? Islam, let’s remember, wasn’t always regarded with the kind of stigma it now has, but rather the opposite; Islamic societies are historically perceived as having been intellectually and even scientifically enlightened at a time when Christianity in the West was characterised by inquisitions, torture, mass persecutions, execution pyres and utterly ridiculous doctrines and proclamations. Historical accounts tell of the brutality of Christian Crusaders and the comparative nobility of Salahuddin and the Muslim armies.
The slow degradation and polarisation of Islamic societies is something that has only been happening in the last hundred years or so (as the growth of Wahhabism has done its work, like a slow-acting virus with a long incubation period). And it’s only in the lastten to fifteen years that the influence of Wahhabist doctrines has become a prominent international issue.
In regard to Confessions of a British Spy being a hoax; maybe it was. But you’d wonder why someone would create a hoax document to slander a then-minor religious sect that wouldn’t have any great relevance until almost a century later?
9/11, the Collapse of Islam and the ‘Clash of Civilisations’…
Moving on, why did King Hussein’s Western allies not help the Hashemites when they were being driven from Arabia by the Sauds after the First World War? And why, for decades, have the US, Britain, France and other world powers not made any issue over the Saudis’ funding of extremist literature and idealogies? And yet we seem more than eager to jump in when there’s a chance to overthrow the Great Jamahiriya in Libya or Assad in Syria – both non-Parliamentry democracies, yes, but both relatively idyllic societies when compared to Saudi Arabia (although not anymore, of course) and neither of them being a major factor in the indoctrination of young minds across the world for the spread of terrorism, but rather for direct democracy and Universal Well Being [read the GREEN BOOK, and the Great Universal Green Charter of Human Rights, 12 June 1988].
Why were the Saudis not brought to task when all of the 9/11 hijackers were known to originate from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq? The list of curious questions goes on and on. And without digressing too much here, it should be borne in mind that one of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories is the Phillip Marshall theory that the WTC attack was a US/Saudi plotand not a mere al-Qaeda operation (Marshall, for those not aware of him, was found dead – along with both his children – from gunshot wounds to the head in his home, in one of the most suspicious deaths imaginable). Two central and recurring features of most 9/11 conspiracy research are the possible involvement of Saudi agencies and the possible involvement of Mossad/Israel in collusion with US agencies.
Putting that to one side, however, the point is that when we look at the history of the Middle East, it becomes increasingly difficult not to wonder if the divisions, general toxicity, and the wars and apocalyptic scenarios that are reaching their apex here at the beginning of the 21st century may have been orchestrated far back in history, having always been intended to reach this point. That is the view many have of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – that the supposedly ‘hoax’ document actually made this clear to a large extent.
The more one studies the history, the more one wonders if the truth about Wahhabism and its origins may be a similar tale; and not just a similar tale, but a concordant operation, with these two idealogies – Wahhabism and Zionism – both operating hand-in-hand to create the toxic conditions in the region that we have today.
It is worth noting also that the conspiracy hinted at in Confessions of a British Spy still enjoys some level of currency in parts of the Middle East, particularly Iraq, where it is considered by many to be as legitimate as Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
But aside from Wahhabism merely ‘corrupting’ Islam from within and Zionism corrupting both Israel and the perception of Jews in the region (and beyond), Wahhabism and Zionism were from the very beginning two idealogies that were always going to be diametrically opposed and would almost inevitably clash at some stage in the future. The paradigm we now witness in the Middle East is perceived by a sizeable portion of those involved (on all sides) as both a ‘clash of civilisations’ and an Armageddon-type conflict between the “Islamic World” (or more accurately theIslamist world-view inspired by Wahhabism) and the “Zionist powers”. Organisations like Islamic State/ISIS view the “Zionist powers”, of course, not just as Israel, but as America (which is seen to be Israel’s patron and armer), Britain (seen as the Colonial power that ensured Israel’s existence) and several other Western powers.
It is worth noting too that as much as the US is seen as propping up Israel, it is also seen as permanently propping up the Saudi regime; much to the displeasure of other nations and leaders in the region (such as al-Qathafi and Assad, to name just two). Both the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be regarded – and are regarded by many in the Middle East – as artificial states imposed upon the region and kept in place by Western powers (primarily the US) for the purposes of a long-term agenda.
The 21st Century and the Bitter Legacy of Wahhabismin the Islamic World…
The influence of Zionism has been written and talked about at tremendous length elsewhere for many decades (both accurately and exaggeratedly, depending on the source), but the Wahhabi doctrines can be seen to be behind most of the extremist, Islamist movements of the passed several decades, including al-Qaeda and now Islamic State. It would be impossible to calculate how many minds, how many young men, across the world have been indoctrinated by Wahhabi influences.
That influence is largely invisible to those observing events from the outside and can be regarded almost as indoctrination by stealth. While no one has ever denied the existence of Wahhabism or its prevalence in Saudi Arabia, it has only been in recent years that the extent of Wahhabi material circulating around the Muslim world has started to be understood. While Saudi religious influence can’t be cited as the sole force behind the rise of fantacism and extremism in the Middle East and much of the Islamic world beyond, it is a central factor, along with US foreign policy and the State of Israel; and if all of those factors were to be viewed operating in concert with one another and taken as one then it would obviously be the principal driving force behind events in that part of the world.
Even if you wanted to cite other causal factors instead – for example, populations being oppressed by various dictatorships – the argument could be made that those dictatorships have historically been propped up by either Saudi or US influence (or both) at some time or another (though NOT the direct democracy of the Great Jamahiriya initiated by Mu’ammar a-Qathafi – and look how that ended up for him). If we look at the historic events of the CIA-led (so-called’) Arab Spring, some tend to forget that Bahrain, for example, had its own popular protests by civilians asking for basic rights and liberties. Those protests were crushed and received no support or actions of solidarity from the US and other Western powers; yet the Powers That Be went out of their way to assist in the destruction of the Great Jamahiriya with their mentor, Colonel al-Qathafi in Libya and were on the brink of trying to do so with Assad in Syria (or actually did try to do so, according to some sources).
Unsurprisingly, the GREAT JAMAHIRILYA and Assad’s Syria were/are two democracies with no sympathy or love for the Saudi Wahhabists. And the same can be said for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Whereas the leadership of Bahrain has full Saudi support. Even more ridiculous, the Saudis were themselves being ‘consulted’ by Western powers on what to do about the ‘al-Qathafi problem’ (just as they are now being consulted on what to do about Assad and Syria, and just as they were a major influence on the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq).
It is curious that while regimes were collapsing or being attacked elsewhere in the region (even the Mubbarak regime in Egypt), the Saudi regime never appeared to be in the least bit of trouble, despite being hated by so many of its neighbours and despite being even more oppressive than the other regimes accused of being ‘undemocratic’.
According to social scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz, even the term “Wahhabi” is often used by its opponents “to denote foreign influence”, particularly in countries where they are “a small minority of the Muslim community, but have made recent inroads in “converting” the local population to the ideology”. Through this long-term method of infiltration, foreign nations can be interfered with, movements stirred up and regimes damaged or even toppled. Muammar al-Qathafi certainly knew about Wahhabists – and hated them with a vengeance. So did Saddam Hussein, who is now gone. The Iranians aren’t too fond of them either and have subsequently been on Saudi Arabia, Israel and America’s enemies list for a long time, the subject of a long-term vilification campaign.
It is difficult for someone like me to look at the international conspiracy that was conducted against Colonel al-Qathafi, and not wonder what alliance of forces and interests were truly behind it and why. That subject could warrant a whole essay in itself, but by the same token it becomes difficult to look at the crisis that has torn apart once-peaceful Syria, and not wonder the same thing, not to mention Iraq and the rise of Islamic State. It is established fact that the Saudis and their satellite states have been funding and orchestrating the ultra-violent terrorists in Syria since the very beginning of that conflict (and it’s evident that Israel too has been involved in aiding the Syrian rebels).
In conclusion, it is beyond the powers of this blogger to comment decisively on whether either The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or The Memoirs of Mr Hempher are both 19th century hoaxes or genuine historic items that expose the true origins of two of the most destructive, toxic idealogies of the 20th and 21st centuries. What can be observed with utter objectivity, however, is the substantial role both idealogies have played in creating the harsh, apocalyptic-looking conditions we have in the Middle East and much of the world beyond today. Once you’ve familiarized yourself with the history, you cannot help but view the bitter sectarianism, wars, divisions and bloodshed of today without perceiving the large shadows of Zionism and Wahhabism looming over them.
The bleak picture is of a societal and political cancer seeded at the dawn of the 20th century and reaching its deadliest point at the beginning of the 21st.
When you read the next report or news item about Islamic State atrocities in Iraq, the bloodshed in Syria and the methodical destruction of Syrian culture and society that has occurred in the last three years, the destabilization of Libya or IDF bombings of the Gaza Strip, among other things, consider that all of this (and more) may have been orchestrated over a hundred years ago; an agenda that pre-dated the First World War and that may bring about the Third.
Posted: 05 April 2015
As the Saudi-led coalition continues to drop bombs on Houthi targets in Yemen, involving outside forces and interests once again in a Middle Eastern civil war, there are several points and questions that emerge from behind the narrative of ‘Operation Decisive Storm’.
Yes, this is a proxy war between between the Saudi-aligned powers and Iran and yes, ‘Iran’ has morally supported the Houthi ‘rebels’ in Yemen; but there’s more going on than that.
Within just the first few hours of these current Saudi-led attacks in Yemen, the raids hit positions in the country’s capital Sanaa and reportedly flattened a number of homes near the international airport — killing at least 18 civilians and wounding 24 others, according to Yemen’s Health Ministry. Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya News reported that the kingdom had deployed 100 fighter jets, 150,000 soldiers and other navy units in what is being called Operation Decisive Storm.
Just days before the Saudi bombing operations began, US officials confirmed Washington had evacuated its remaining personnel from Yemen, including about 100 special operations forces,because of ‘deteriorating security’. This withdrawal marked a further reversal in America’s longstanding operations against Al-Qaeda in Yemen, which just recently President Obama had been rather oddly declaring a great success. But then those kinds of grand statements utterly divorced from reality are to be expected; we could all laugh at George W. Bush’s statement about the great “success” of the Iraq War or Obama’s congratulations to Libyans for their ‘great victory for democracy’ in the 2011 ‘uprising’, were it not for the fact that none of of is funny.
Most extraordinary of all, The Washington Post reported on March 17th that the Pentagon had‘lost sight of’ some 500 million dollars worth in ‘counter-terrorism aid’ given to Yemen. That’s quite a big thing to have ‘lost sight of’. Those with reasonably-functioning memories will recall how reminiscent this might be of ISIS/ISIL’s appropriation of millions of dollars’ worth of American military hardware at the outset of their invasion of Iraq last summer – something that the US appeared to do nothing to prevent.
Again, let’s just process this information: “the Pentagon is unable to account for more than464.08€ million in U.S. military aid given to Yemen.” This means essentially military equipment and offensive weaponry, among other things. Where has all of that stuff gone?
Is, in fact, all of this missing US military aid due to end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda, just as that vast amount of US military property ended up in the hands of ISIS/ISIL last summer? And is this Saudi-led campaign in the process of essentially strengthening Al-Qaeda in Yemen?
After years of deep involvement in the country (under the auspices of a prolonged ‘counter terrorism’ programme), the US decided to withdraw its personnel from Yemen just days before the Saudi-led attacks begun. This, again, is reminiscent of the US withdrawal from Iraq: after a decade of interference in Iraq, US military personnel were completely withdrawn from the country, and almost before those personnel had even set foot back in the Land of the Free, the psychopaths of ISIS/ISIL were riding in-convoy into the freshly evacuated (and defenseless) Iraq from Syria and began an unprecedented reign of terror. The US and its allies have subsequently shied away from putting ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq to stop this reign of terror, despite the fact that it had ‘boots on the ground’ for 10 years in Iraq right up until just before the ISIS/ISIL psychopaths moved in.
So again, is Yemen being handed to Al-Qaeda on a plate just as Iraq was handed to ISIS/ISIL (which, as it happens, was beloved by numerous analysts to in fact simply *be* ‘Al-Qaeda in Iraq’ anyway with just a simple name-change)? Is the Saudi-led coalition now bombing Yemen in order to protect Saudi Arabia’s and America’s Al-Qaeda asset in the region?In fact, a more accurate description than ‘protecting’ Al-Qaeda might be ‘saving’ Al-Qaeda in Yemen.
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is held to be the most active remaining strain of the extremist network; where Al-Qaeda has been in decline elsewhere and ISIS/ISIL has been in ascendancy as the dominant new ‘brand’ of militant Islamism, Yemen and AQAP has remained the al-Qaeda brand’s key stronghold.
And in addition to al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL also has a presence in Yemen now, which has been established since December and which complicates the scenario even further, making it even more dangerous a situation.
Let’s look at this situation in Yemen properly; the Houthi rebels, claimed to be spiritualy and morally backed by Iran, are, among other things, engaged in campaign *against* al-Qaeda in Yemen. The recent Houthi siege of the presidential palace, which was a precursor to Saudi intervention in the country, was predicted by analysts to be a move foreshadowing an even more important showdown set to play out 74 miles east of the capital Sanaa and in the al-Qaeda stronghold of Mareb,where the bulk of the country’s gas reserves are concentrated. Two things immediately become clear when we observe what’s now happening; (1) the Saudi-led assaults on the Houthi rebels will vastly diminish the Houthi’ ability to combat al-Qaeda or to decisively push Al-Qaeda out of the picture (as was reportedly on the verge of happening), and (2) that missing 464.08€ million dollars’ worth of US military aid may be finding its way to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and allowing Al-Qaeda to launch a major offensive against the Houthi at some time in the near future and make itself dominant in the country.
So while the Saudi-led attacks, fully backed by the US, can be said to be aimed on one level at ‘maintaining stability’ and at curbing Iranian interference, these attacks are also attacks targeted at the enemies of Al-Qaeda in Yemen; and this coinciding with the Jar Jar Binks style ‘loss’ of464.08€ million worth of American ‘military aid’ that is either going to end up in the good and worthy hands of the Houthi ‘rebels’ or the evils of al-Qaeda. If I was a betting type, I’d put my shekels on AQ being the beneficiaries of that whopping big whoopsy.
And if you think the idea of the US and its allies militarily intervening to defend al-Qaeda is dubious, just cast your mind back to the farce (sorry, I mean ‘intervention’; no, sorry, I mean War Crime) in Libya in 2011, where NATO forces destroyed Libya’s infrastructure, tried everything to assassinate Mu’ammar al-Qathafi (thank-goodness, unsuccessfully), and essentially provided air-support for the al-Qaeda takeover of Libyan cities and territories: don’t be naive about any of that – that al-Qaeda takeover of Libyan towns and cities was *planned* and abetted by NATO.
The fact that just in the last couple of days it has emerged that al-Qaeda has managed to break out an unspecified number of its members from a Yemeni prison (under the chaotic conditions caused by the Saudi air-strikes) clearly demonstrates the level of danger in Yemen while these Saudi-led attacks are going on: those with good memories might recall that incidents
very similar to this occurred in Libya in the early days of the 2011 (so-called) ‘uprising’, where there were orchestrated jail-breaks of al-Qaeda and other terrorist prisoners that the ‘Great Jamahiriya’ had behind bars.
But there’s still more to this situation now in Yemen. A story on RT’s website reports that the Houthi Shiite rebels had just obtained secret Yemeni intelligence documents with details about US-backed counter-terrorism operations, including the names and locations of informants, this being originally reported in the Los Angeles Times which cited American officials as the source. The documents were apparently stolen when Houthi fighters took over the office of Yemen’s National Security Bureau in the country’s capital Sanaa, which was closely cooperating with the CIA on various ‘anti-terror missions’. The compromised files reportedly influenced President Obama’s decision to evacuate remaining US personnel from Yemen last weekend, including the 1,000 special operations forces.
The evacuation from Yemen of course seriously undermines America’s operations ‘against’ al-Qaeda in the region and might even be perceived as quitting the job; this being after years of repetitive drone-strikes and targeted assassinations that have effectively turned half of the civilian population against the US and its allies due to the various instances of civilian casualties and ‘collateral damage’ (as is the case in Pakistan). This report about the seizure of the National Security Bureau building emerged mere hours before Saudi Arabia announced it had launched military operations against Yemeni Houthis.
A question arises: did these Houthi ‘rebels’, who seized the office, discover something particularly damning in regard to the US and the CIA’s operations? Something that provoked the rapid and complete withdrawal of US personnel and the immediate, surprise bombing operations by the Saudis and allegedly nine other countries? Given that there could be any number of particularly dirty CIA secrets regarding its activity in Yemen and in the broader region and its dealings with al-Qaeda, one has to wonder. There is also the implication that intelligence gleaned from this raid by the Houthi might have also found its way to Tehran. This situation now also has the potential to escalate into something much broader and much worse. It’s already further destabilising the already destabilised Middle East, but direct Saudi-led military assaults are a major provocation against Iran at a time where Iran is seen to be making some progress towards a reconciliation of sorts with the US.
If you’re confused already, try getting your head around this. The Houthis are enemies of al-Qaeda and are engaged in a campaign to destroy Al-Qaeda in the Yemen.
al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 and various other terrorist attacks on the West. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and research demonstrates that Saudi agent were heavily involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. al-Qaeda receives significant funding from within Saudi Arabia, which happens to be one of America’s and the West’s closest allies. Iran is an enemy and target of al-Qaeda and is supporting the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, as well as being directly engaged in battle against ISIS/ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. Iran, like Syria and like pre-invasion Iraq, has never attacked America or orchestrated terrorist activity against it. Yet Iran is labelled the ‘rogue state’ or ‘terrorist state’, the Saudis and Gulf States are permanently supported, and the Saudis with US backing are now directly attacking the Houthi. Does that make any moral sense?
The only thing that could be argued is that it is perhaps aimed at maintaining stability in the region and thus is invested in propping up the Saudi regime and trying to curtail the rise of Iranian influence for that reason. However, the ‘maintaining stability’ argument falls completely flat once we remind ourselves of what NATO did in Libya, what the US-led coalition did in Iraq and what the various states covertly tried to do in Syria. All of that was the exact opposite of ‘maintaining stability’ and was in fact a policy of engineering chaos and conflict. The US invaded a country – Iraq – and aggravated a sectarian conflict, giving excessive power to one sect over the other, and then left: by any logic, that is an utterly insane policy and it pretty much invited the kind of horrific backlash we’ve since seen in Iraq.
Iran has condemned the Saudi intervention in Yemen, warning against “short-sighted games” by outside countries that would only lead to “bloodshed” and further loss of life. The Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Military action from outside of Yemen against its territorial integrity and its people will have no other result than more bloodshed and more death.” Calling for “urgent dialogue” among the Yemeni factions, he added “We have always warned countries from the region and the West to be careful and not enter short-sighted games and not go in the same direction as al-Qaeda and Daash,” he said, ‘Daash’ being a common, derogatory Arab term for ISIS/ISIL.
As Yemen now becomes the latest land in the region to slide into civil war, what is entirely acknowledged by all parties is that this is another proxy war between Iranian/Shiite influence and Saudi/Sunni influence in the region, with the civilians caught in the middle.
This now becomes the fourth simultaneous civil war going on in the region along with Syria, Iraq and Libya, with also Egypt arguably already sliding towards its own internal sectarian crisis. A better reading of the situation, however, would be view to all of these crises as facets of the same broader ‘civil war’ arguably occurring within Islam between the Sunni and Shia sects and within the regional Geo-political landscape between Saudi influence on one hand and Iranian on the other.
We’ve already seen how much spillover from the ‘intervention’ in Libya impacted life in Syria and how much spillover from the Syria conflict carried into Iraq, for example; the fighting in Yemen could easily spill over into neighbouring countries including Saudi Arabia itself, which could even eventually threaten Islam’s Holy Cities. The unfettered, loose canon that is ISIS/ISIL would also have the potential to involve itself in these conflicts and make matters even worse. That is a key point to bear in mind here: while the main party to benefit from the Saudi-led assaults in Yemen is Al-Qaeda, one of the main parties to benefit from all of this chaos and sectarian fighting in general is ISIS/ISIL, which can *thrive* in these kinds of environments, just has it has thrived in Iraq and Syria.
These Proxy Wars have become an absolute catastrophe. One might ask who the Saudis are to complain about Iranian backing of Houthi rebels when the Saudis and the Gulf States openly backed Sunni and Salafist rebel groups fighting to overthrow the Syrian government? What Iran is doing in Yemen isn’t right – wouldn’t be right, if all things were as they should be – but virtually all other powers involving themselves in the Middle East (Saudi, the Gulf States, Israel, the US, NATO) have been arming and aiding proxy militias and terrorists, almost exclusively Sunni/Salafist in nature, all of which are a direct threat to Iran and to Shia populations and interests. In this context, Iran is left with practically no choice but to do the same. It isn’t right, and it isn’t in the interests of Yemen as a country or the people, but this is the situation that has been created in the Middle East and Iran can be said to be merely playing by the rules that the Saudis, the Gulf States, NATO and others have created.
Of course there’s even more going on here too and, as ever, it may involve natural resources.This piece by F. William Engdahl should be read in its entirety, providing a fascinating insight into Yemen’s strategic and resource-based interest to various powers. In 2010, Engdahl wrote: ‘In addition to its geopolitical position as a major global oil transit chokepoint, Yemen is reported to hold some of the world’s greatest untapped oil reserves. Yemen’s Masila Basin and Shabwa Basin are reported by international oil companies to contain “world class discoveries.” France’s Total and several smaller international oil companies are engaged in developing Yemen’s oil production. The evidence suggests that the Pentagon and US intelligence are moving to militarize a strategic chokepoint for the world’s oil flows…’
Of course, none of this is of any help to the average Yemeni citizen, stuck in poverty and with no one seeming to be acting to improve their quality of life or the country’s economy, and now facing a major humanitarian problem. Yemen is a dismally poor country; the poorest in fact in the Middle East, despite its apparent richness in natural resources. Those resources are almost certainly a factor in the chaos sweeping the country.
It also becomes increasingly difficult to look at these situations – in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, and the broader regional struggle between the Saudis and Iranians – and not see the actualization of the famous Albert Pike prediction concerning the Third World War, which would be brought about by deliberate agitation of the Zionists and the Muslim world. Some refute the legitimacy of the influential Freemason Albert Pike’s letter, considered by some to be a forgery; but real or not, it seems to very neatly foresee what would come to pass over the course of three global conflicts, two of which have already occurred.
Again, looking at US policy in Iraq, it seemed more or less *designed* to agitate, amplify or otherwise play upon the sectarian divisions between the Sunni and Shiia populations: creating that situation may indeed have been one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq in the first place. Subsequent inconsistencies and lapses in logic regarding policy in the region might be viewed in the same way; fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen while arming and aiding Al-Qaeda in Libya, fighting (or so it is claimed) Islamic State militants in Iraq while funding Sunni rebels and extremists in Syria, empowering and propping up Shia forces in Iraq while attacking Shia groups in Yemen and demonising Iran... the list of illogical, contradictory policies and actions goes on and on. Which either suggests an extraordinary level of incompetence or it suggests an orchestrated agenda. The US inexplicably installed a Shia government in Iraq to govern a Sunni majority; more than that they trained and funded what were essentially Shia ‘death squads’ to terrorise Sunnis in Iraq (at the worst stage of which some 3,000 civilians a month were turning up dead on the streets), creating a sectarian war in the country.
It’s clear that a sectarian conflict was orchestrated in Iraq and probably in Syria too. Yemen looks as if it is being used in the same way. In terms of ‘playing off’ the Sunni and Shia populations against each other in various Middle-Eastern countries, it serves to keep the region and the societies in a continual state of destabilisation, inviting continual foreign intervention and involvement and ensuring that those societies don’t have the means to prosper, to build or to control their own resources: any such society that takes control of its own destiny and attains anything approaching self-sufficiency is sabotaged from the outside and put back into a state of dependency – thus the ‘intervention’ in Libya and the proxy war in Syria.
But more than that, as the author and researcher David Icke repeatedly observed; “The Middle East is the center of the third global conflict they want to create; what they’re doing is creating the circumstances in the Middle East to create this conflict.” One can hardly observe the crises continuously unfolding in the region now and see anything other than this prediction being played out.
The Burning Blogger of Bedlam PODCAST: ISIS and the Destruction of Iraq, al-Qathafi and Africa, the Corporate Media and More…
Posted: 17 March 2015
Posted: 16 March 2015
Vladimir Putin may be holding a substantial and explosive trump-card, should the US and NATOcontinue to push and provoke Russia in regard toEastern Ukraine.
The word has in fact been going around for a while now that Russia’s besieged President may be intending to release satellite imagery that would definitively reveal the Bush-era US government’s role in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center: showing definitively that 9/11 was a false-flag operation by treasonous elements of America’s national security community.
Some have even suggested that this threat from Putin may in fact have been what has prevented NATO from going any further than it already has. According to the Veteran’s Today article, written by the Vietnam veteran and global intelligence expert Gordon Duff, a key revelation in the data is that the US had supplied Israel with surplus nuclear weapons that were later unaccounted for. Among other things, this data is expected to demonstrate that (1) none of the airliners allegedly used in the 9/11 attacks crashed where we were told they did, and (2) that it was extremely high-energy weapons that were used to bring down the World Trade Center in controlled demolitions.
Says Duff in the VT article; ‘We have a very solid confirmation on this. Back during the 1980s Israel showed her inventory of Davy Crockett tactical nuclear warheads to one of our editors, who at the time was a senior NATO intelligence official. These early “micro-nukes” were taken out of US inventory in 1978 and “disappeared.”
You could argue that full disclosure of this data would be a suitable response to the highly questionable so-called ‘satellite imagery’ of alleged Russian military incursions into Eastern Ukraine that Russia’s opponents have been citing as a justification for NATO action against Putin’s government, along with various other spurious ‘proofs’ of Russian violations that have been used over the passed year or so, not least of which was the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17: a crime that our governments and their corporate media concubines were blaming on Putin seemingly before the plane had even hit the ground. But as soon as that plane went down, US, UK and Ukraine officials went to town, throwing up fabricated ‘evidences’ at every opportunity, from fake satellite images to forged radar reports. Frankly, if Putin does possess this ‘9/11 bombshell’, then the US establishment and NATO has had it coming for a while.
The mainstream media was perfectly happy to casually throw that MH-17 accusation around as if it was proven fact, despite the reality that there was no proof to back it up. Yet the evidence was of course in circulation from the very beginning that Kiev and not Moscow had more likely been behind the shooting down of the Malaysian plane. But, as with the popularly upheld fiction of ‘Gadaffi Killing His Own People’ in 2011, the media simply adopted a collective view of the situation and propagated it without bothering to report or investigate any of the alternatives.
In this Storyleak piece about MH17, Michael Thomas notes; “The entire region has been very closely monitored by the US, NATO, and Russia by satellite and radar throughout the entire conflict. Therefore it is implausible that there was a missile fired at MH17. Clearly, the satellite imagery/data and radar signatures would corroborate such a missile attack. The US, NATO and Ukraine have all failed thus far to produce this authentic evidence… because it does not exist.”
So could Putin be holding this 9/11 trump-card as a sort of deterrent to hold off any further US/NATO provocation? The fact is that 9/11 scepticism is so widespread by now that the existence of such inflammatory data isn’t all that shocking to many people; however, there is a big difference – an earth-shaking, game-changing difference – between independent filmmakers, researchers, journalists, analysts or theorists talking about the 9/11 conspiracy and the falseness of the War on Terror and the President of a major world power openly declaring 9/11 to have been an orchestrated false-flag operation and providing the data to back it up. As far as making the accusation is concerned, it’s been done by a world leader before, specifically Iran’s Mehmood Ahmedinijad in the UN; but he simply accused US and Israeli Zionists of orchestrating the 9/11 attack without providing any material evidence. What Putin is alleged to be doing is very different; though it does also, according to the information currently circulating, heavily implicate Israel in the attack. Of course, Israeli involvement in 9/11, like the alleged involvement of the Saudis,isn’t a new accusation either.
Kevin Barrett, writing on the Veterans Today site, writes a particularly interesting piece on the several reasons why the Neo-Cons’ carefully-orchestrated ‘new Pearl Harbour’ failed and on how timing may be essential for Putin in regard to this 9/11 data; “First, the “direct external threat,” alleged Arab and Muslim extremism, was bogus. The Arab and Muslim world, with its vast energy reserves and economic growth potential, should have been a US ally, not an enemy. And the religious element in Arab-Muslim civilization was especially conducive to friendship with the US, since the US and the Islamic nations are the last monotheistic cultures on earth. It would have been in the US strategic interest to be a strong ally of the Muslim world against European secularism, Russian and Chinese post-communism and Hindu extremism. The deal should go something like this: America protects the genuine independence, including the religious values, dignity and autonomy, of its fellow monotheists; and in return gets a say (though not total control) in oil pricing and policy. But thanks to a false flag that turned the US against Islam and Muslims, America chose precisely the wrong enemy.”
Writes Barrett, “While Israel has benefited mightily from the US war on Islam, America has been digging its own grave by wasting its substance, even its sanity, on a fight against a phantom. The Neo-Conservatives, whose top priority has always been Israel, are in a panic. Their only hope is to flee forward into ever-bigger wars. That is why Netanyahu is so desperately lobbying for a war on Iran that would set the Middle East, and perhaps the whole world, on fire. And that is why such neo-conservatives as Victoria Nuland are pushing for a war with Russia that would in all likelihood go nuclear.”
Writes Barrett; “World War III is the last desperate hope for the neoconservatives and their Likudnik allies. Such a war would usher in martial law, enable the suppression (or at least continued obfuscation) of the truth about 9/11, and save the neo-cons from treason trials and Israel from dismantlement. Though Putin doesn’t want to play his ace in the hole, the 9/11 truth card, until he absolutely has to, the moment of truth may have finally arrived.”
He continues, “As soon as it becomes absolutely clear that the US is never going to back off from its attempt to turn Ukraine into a hostile NATO base; that the economic war on Russia has reached a point of no return; that the neoconservative “flight forward” into World War III is inevitable… at that point, no sooner and no later, Putin will slap his 9/11 truth card down on the table and let the chips fall where they may.”
This ‘trump card’, if it can be called that, is a tricky business, however; if Putin had played it too early in the conflict he would’ve been committing to an unnecessary and unpredictable risk with unknown consequences. Whereas, as Barrett notes, “if he waits too long, the move will lose its impact”. By “too long”, the inference is of course once World War III is already underway and war-time censorship and martial-law conditions are in operation. “Strategically”, argues Barrett, “Putin needs to play his 9/11 truth card now.”
But whether it would actually change the world is unclear. Even should he play that card, there’s a real possibility the claim and the accompanying data will simply be discredited by the mainstream governments and by the establishment media, the US government would of course refute any such accusation and with even the so-called satellite data dismissed as forgery. The global establishment-media has a tried-and-tested success-rate when it comes to maintaining a false narrative and using that narrative to push on with preexisting agendas, regardless of how much information comes out to refute that narrative; the illegal invasion of Iraq and the so-called ‘intervention’ in Libya being examples of this. After all, when the corporate media and the Western governments decided to make an end of Muammar Gadaffi, they simply put out their false narrative of the Libya situation and went ahead and did it, regardless of the fact that Amnesty International had investigated in Libya and found no evidence to support the establishment-media’s claims that Gadaffi had been killing his own people.
Having said that, Russia is a very different situation to both Libya and Iraq, partly because the Russians seem to have lots more friends and sympathisers in alternative media and independent journalism than Mu’ammar al-Qathafi or Libya did, meaning that so many more people are trying to expose the truth about Ukraine than were trying to expose the truth about the Libyan uprising. This is also partly because the Libyan nightmare unfolded and concluded very quickly and NATO got its way before any real investigation could be carried out, whereas the Ukraine crisis has been drawn out a lot longer, with various false narratives and attempted false-flags having failed to fully accomplish the anti-Russian agenda.
It’s also of course because Russia has far more influence economically and is also able to put out a substantial counter-propaganda programme via RT and other avenues and is able to engage in an info-war with the US/NATO in a way that someone likeGadaffi couldn’t dream of doing.
The growth of the 9/11 ‘truth movement’ has been rapid in recent years, compared to during the immediate few years after the World Trade Center attack when many more people scoffed at the ‘conspiracy theorists’ and labelled 9/11 questioning as some kind of ‘distasteful’ exercise (essentially the same way absolutely all mainstream journalism in the sixties outright ridiculed any questioning of the official story of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, many specifically calling such questioning a ‘disrespect to Jackie Kennedy’).
9/11 has been the defining event of 21st century; in all its shock and tragedy it is the event that determined the political and international tone and course for the decade-plus that followed. Almost all significant international political developments and conflicts of this century so far and in all their divisiveness and toxicity can be defined as post-9/11; from Guantanamo Bay, the growth of radical Islamism, and the Invasion of Iraq, to the War in Syria, the ‘disposal’ of Colonel al-Qathafi, 7/7, the deterioration of Pakistan, the vast expansion of the NSA and the surveillance industry, ongoing issues of civil liberties and increased surveillance, and so much else besides.
But as far back as 2006 a New York Times poll indicated that up to 84% of US citizens didn’t believe the official 9/11 story, with a CNN poll putting the figure as high as 89%.
All around the world the view has grown massively that the official 9/11 story is a lie and that the attack was in fact an enormous, world-changing false-flag conducted by the Neo-Con establishment as a means of both hijacking the US government and military establishment and of initiating endless war for corporate and Geo-political purposes; it was the necessary ‘new Pearl Harbour’needed in order for preexisting plans and agendas to be carried out. Plans that included, among other things, the decimation of Iraqi and of Iraqi society and the callous orchestration of a global ‘clash of civilisations’.
There have been an enormous amount of 9/11 conspiracy videos, books and films, of course; some better in quality than others. One effect of being exposed to so much 9/11 material over the years is that you inevitably become almost numb to it and you almost start to forget (1) how devastating the 9/11 attack actually was in human terms and (2) how extraordinarily evil those behind it had to have been. It doesn’t surprise me at all that even now so many people prefer to believe the official story of what happened, clinging to it almost like a security-blanket; that’s perfectly understandable, just as it was after the Kennedy assassination. After all, who, given achoice, would like to believe that powerful elements of their own government brutally gunned down the President, and who would like to believe that an extraordinarily powerful and extraordinarily amoral cabal within the government mass-murdered thousands of its own citizens in order to embark on an apocalyptic Geo-political rampage in which millions of people would die or have their lives ruined forever?
Sometimes with matters like this I find myself wishing I was one of the mainstream crowd and could hold to a ‘safer’ world-view too; but then I come across a film like this below and I remember why I could never be comfortable choosing ignorance and why I will always choose the red pill. This film below, by the way, is one of the best, most exhaustive, pieces of 9/11 film-making I’ve yet come across.
This data that’s in Russian hands, however, could potentially furnish the 9/11 truth-seeking arena with entirely new elements and information: moreover, it may prove to be information of the irrefutable kind. More to the point, it may also represent an enormous shift in the international paradigm; the truth about 9/11 has been lurking in the shadows of international politics and dealings like a gi-normous elephant in the room for over a decade, everyone mostly skirting around it for fear of upsetting the entire world order’s stability. By revealing that elephant, Putin might alter the rules radically. One long-time 9/11 researcher even suggested on Pakalert Press that with this action “the US government will likely collapse” and that “the world will never be the same when nations everywhere see this report.” Something of that kind might happen; and it wouldn’t just be the US, but Israel, and various countries and governments that have colluded with the Neo-Con agenda, that could be in trouble.
However, it is a highly unpredictable situation, almost impossible to anticipate. In a worst-case scenario it could provoke the US military-industrial complex and establishment into drastic action and could result in enormous turmoil.
It could be argued that the sorts of people who’d be convinced by Putin’s 9/11 data are the sorts of people who already think 9/11 was an inside-job and who already don’t subscribe to the corporate-media narrative of the Ukraine crisis; while those beholden to the mainstream narrative in both regards will remain beholden to it and will therefore not be swayed by this new revelation. But actually, regardless of who believes it or doesn’t, the very act on Putin’s part of releasing the data and calling out the US government’s 9/11 inside-job would represent an absolute point of no return in Washington/Moscow relations: and that in itself might make a vast escalation of conflict inevitable. It all remains to be seen what happens with this.