The first reason the public are told, we need to go to war, is that this violent group is so barbaric, so utterly wicked, that we as Westerners have a moral duty to stop them — really?
French troops in Algeria showing off the heads of Algerian resistance fighters
If we look at the facts, we can see ISIS is no more barbaric than the dictators, the Western elites have backed, in their 100 year domination of the region.
In relatively recent history in the very region ISIS now threatens, in the 1953 coup of Mordad.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was installed as a monarch by Mi6 and the CIA. He immediately went about systematically killing and torturing anyone who opposed him.
When he was overthrown by a popular revolution, the West pushed Saddam Hussain to start a war with Iran, resulting in a million Muslims being killed.
Finding Saddam surplus to requirements, they tried to overthrow him. Using sanctions they starved and denied medical provisions to the Iraqi people. The UN reported that one and a half million children were malnourished, eventually half a million of those children would die.
As the award winning investigative journalist John Pilger noted:
“ It was like a medieval siege. Almost everything that sustained a modern state was, in the jargon, “blocked” — from chlorine for making the water supply safe to school pencils, parts for X-ray machines, common painkillers and drugs to combat cancer.
The British Government restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever. The Blair government, explained why. “The children’s vaccines”, they said, “were capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction”.
Under a bogus “humanitarian” Oil for Food Programme, $100 was allotted for each Iraqi to live on for a year. This figure had to pay for the entire society’s infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water. The majority of sick people could not even afford treatment. And make no mistake, this was deliberate. Von Sponeck the UN Coordinator said “I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable.”
Disgusted, Von Sponeck resigned as UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq. His predecessor, Denis Halliday, an equally distinguished senior UN official, had also resigned.” “I was instructed,” Halliday said, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.”
When that failed to dislodge Saddam, they bombed Iraq back to the stone age. Starting a war that cost another million Muslim lives. We created hell; murdered millions, brutalised the regions inhabitants and then blamed the people that emerged from its ashes for not acting like poets and philosophers.
Across the region we installed brutal dictator, after brutal dictator. None of them more sane or humane than ISIS! And Muslims kept finding that these men were always kept in place through violence.
ISIS then is everything to do with our policies — right down to its brutality. Try as we might to deny it. It is a brutal, violent, reaction to a brutal, violent, order. An order we keep in place. Just another dead Muslim child. Killed by Israel on a beach in Gaza.
The shocking fact is, that only weeks before they decided to bomb ISIS, both America and the UK confirmed their support for Israel and its right to defend itself. Even as it massacred 2,100 Palestinians civilians, 501 of them were children. In the end, over 11,000 men, women and children were wounded and 520,000 refugees were created as they tried to escape the vicious bombing of Gaza’s 1.8 million people, entrapped in an open-air prison with no escape.
ISIS in their wildest dreams could not compete with Israel’s arsenal of death, paid for by the American tax payer.
This moral case for war, was in fact nothing short of propaganda. Mark Curtis highlights in his book, Web of Deceit, how the British MoD had realised that public support for humanitarian wars — could help sell one. The second argument is: If we do not attack them there, they will attack us here.
In fact the reverse is true. All terrorist attacks that have occurred against Western targets, have occurred, according to the terrorists themselves, because of Western foreign policy. Bin laden even laid out his reasons for fighting the West and every single point was linked to foreign policy. You can read more about this in the brilliant book ‘Imperial Hubris’ written by the CIA head of the Bin Laden Unit — Michael Scheuer.
If you really want to understand Muslim terrorism — read this book. He is one of the few non-Muslim white men who truly understand what is going on and has the courage to tell the truth despite attacks against him. “This is about our security, contrary to Bush’s claim that we attack them for hating freedom. If we hated freedom, let him explain to us, why we don’t strike Sweden.” - Bin Laden Oct 2004
So if it is not about stopping terrorism, then why are they waging the a war against ISIS?
It is far less altruistic and far more obvious than the reasons they give to their corporate-media-duped public — but you have to go back into history to understand it.
For 100 years Western Elites have tried to keep the Muslim world from forming into a rising and possible rival power again.
They never forgot the conquest of Spain and their humiliating defeats, at the hands of a united Muslim Empire. So after the first world war, they decided as the British Prime Minister Lloyd George famously said ‘to make Islam innocuous’.
So when they had a chance to recreate the Muslim world, they created a structure in the Middle East that was inherently flawed. With inbuilt tensions amongst the communities and so constantly on the verge of fragmenting.
They manufactured lines in the sand, that cut through ancient communities. Sects were pitched against each other. All this was done to ensure the new nations, would always be internally fragmented and destabilised. The only way to keep them together was through repression. Hence the reason why they needed a dictator or a strongman. These strongmen of course were always dependant on the West to maintain the balance of power.
Both had a vested interest in keeping the prevalent order for any re-awakening would not only depose these leaders but challenge the order itself.
Vitally, the strongmen and the West needed to erase, any sense of a common, Muslim political identity — a pan-Islamic Muslim identity. By changing the peoples understanding of their past historical identity and implanting racial and nationalistic identities in its place — they fragmented the one unifier — Islam. Without a unifying identity — the Muslim world would never have a common struggle again. It could never unite.
The other major benefit of course, was it allowed them to steal its wealth — primarily oil.
This 100 year old game, was finally falling apart. From the Western strategists point of view, Tony Blair's real mistake and the real reason why they hate him, was that he had weakened the very order he was supposed to uphold.
By taking out the strongman in the region — the tensions built over a century — exploded.
Some analysts like Jonathan Cook in his excellent book ‘Israel and the Clash of Civilisations’ argued that Western Elites, along with Israel, did this on purpose. They had been planning to implement an even more radical carve up of the Middle East, a ‘Sykes-Picot’ version 2.
The book explains that they intended to carve up the current Middle Eastern nations into even smaller - weaker states (note the fragmentation of Libya and Iraq, after Western intervention).
But the growing momentum of groups taking to Jihad was threatening this.
The US found themselves facing forces, that were stronger than their puppet states and ones who would not play by the rules — their rules!
Western policy makers had two options.
The first was to stay out of the region and see the plan it had worked on, for over a century, fall apart. Leading to the embryonic rise of a Muslim Empire and the demise of cheap oil — The second was to go to war.
It was simple mathematics, a no brainer — that’s why we are going to war. It is as simple as that. Everything else, dear reader — is propaganda.
So why do I say the most powerful military powers in the World cannot beat a small group of armed zealots in the form of ISIS/L?
Simply this — they are not fighting ISIS/L. They are just another extreme manifestation of the root problem. They are fighting the IDEA that has grown in the minds of millions of Muslims. That idea is simple:
That the current western order is unjust and that peaceful ways of changing that order have been crushed, leaving only one option — to take up arms. Muslims had decided to revolt.
The West had one small window to stop this — the Arab Spring. Instead they undermined it. Leaving no option for many young men but take up armed struggle. It was a catastrophic mistake. It was only a matter of time that armed revolution would spread (war propagandists call this ‘Jihadist ideology’) — because they don’t want the public to understand it.
We now have two options open to us — leave the region alone and allow Muslims to make a destiny that is not dictated by the Western powers — or war
es it is true that if they leave the region, armed groups will rule for a while, some of them backward and barbaric - but overtime these would be replaced by state builders and mature into real civilisations. All revolutions are bloody, but eventually, all new states mature — even the Mongol’s changed over time.
There is, if we are honest — only one way to stop a violent reaction. Change the factors that have caused that reaction.
All talk of ‘jihadists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘extremists’, ‘Islamists’, ‘hate preachers’ or any other politically manufactured ‘unspeak’ is the war propagandists way of making sure you never understand this simple, concrete, insoluble — fact:
They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we deny theirs.
“How is it right for you to occupy our countries and kill our women and children and expect to live in peace and security? … the equation is clear: you are killed as you kill us and are kidnapped as you kidnap us…” Bin Laden Oct 2010
I leave you with a man who says it so much better than I can — Ron Paul
It does not come as a surprise that the Western led media create a blackout on the atrocities being committed by the countries in the Satanic Coalition fighting the 'War on ISIS'. We have been bombarded with the actions ISIS have carried out, using professional 'Hollywood' directing that has only benefited the Western agenda and had a detrimental effect on the aspirations of the Ummah to live under the System of Allah (swt).
Why is it that the 57 killed by Jordanian missile attacks, 12 of which were children, has not been uttered in mainstream news? What about the 8 killed by Egypt's intervention Libya, 4 of which were children between the ages of four and seven?
It is because the media is used to sway public opinion, thwart opposition narrative and embolden supporters of the Satanic Coalition. As Muslims we should be more politically astute when making our judgment upon realities as today it is not easy to formulate a valid opinion without being influenced by Western propaganda.
At the same time it does not mean we are supporters of ISIS who have only willingly or unwillingly closely aligned themselves to the Greater Middle East Initiative by demonizing core fundamental Islamic concepts such as the Sharia of Allah (swt) being established, the non-recognition of borders and nationalities, the application of the Hudood (laws) and the divine method to establish an Islamic Society.
In light of Obama's speech on the 18th March 2015 to 60 nation leaders, it has become clear that the West seek to destroy the notion of Islamic authority, and that anyone or any group seeking authority in the name of Islam should be attributed to ISIS and combated the same way they are doing it today.
Let us not be of those who make judgment having only heard one side, especially when that side of the story is of the wrongdoers. Ameen.
Why is it that the mainstream media does not tell us of the scores of people that the Satanic Coalition are killing on this 'War on ISIS'?
Al-Koni offered his condolences to the families of the victims in the city of Darnah who were bombed by the Egyptian fighter jets which left eight people dead including four children between the ages of four and seven.
He said: "The Egyptian military intervention is completely unacceptable" stressing that Egypt's President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi carried out the air strikes in Libya to absorb the Egyptians' anger after the execution of the Copts.
"The Egyptian attack is fruitless because terrorism cannot be fought with aircrafts, only the Libyans can defeat it on the ground and in coordination with the country's social components including the tribes and families, because they know who is involved in terrorism. They are best to protect their areas from terrorism," he explained.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that Israel would continue to "stand by Egypt in the war against terrorism, which poses a threat to the entire Middle East".
Speaking to reporters ahead of his meeting with US Senator David Perdue in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said: "Today, the forces of militant Islam are on the march throughout the Middle East. Islamic State just barbarically massacred 21 Egyptian civilians in Libya."
"Our hearts go out to the families and to the people of Egypt facing this horrible savagery. And Israel will continue to stand side-by-side with Egypt in the battle against terrorism, which threatens us all," he added.
US talk of an imminent ground offensive in Iraq against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) emerged as Jordan’s role has transformed into what looks like an advanced military base.
Since the US-led international coalition against ISIS was first announced at a Jeddah conference last September, its operational dynamics and goals have become ever more clear. One of the first things to transpire was that different strategies were being employed in Syria and Iraq. A few days ago, the coalition’s coordinator, retired US General John Allen, announced that a ground campaign will begin against ISIS in Iraq “within weeks” under Iraqi leadership while “the coalition will provide major firepower.” He pointed out that “coalition forces are preparing 12 Iraqi brigades, which have been receiving training and arms to pave the way for the ground operation.”
What is new about Allen’s pronouncements, which were made during an interview with Jordan’s official Petra news agency, are that they publicize the (rough) timing of the offensive. Talk of training and preparation for a ground offensive has been heard since the campaign to “liberate” the areas under ISIS control began late last summer. US newspapers wrote at length about these plans and about cooperation with Iraqi tribes. In addition, Washington had urged the Iraqi government to adopt draft laws (such as the national guard) and governance models suitable for expanding the spectrum of forces participating in the “liberation” operations, specifically in the Anbar province.
Since ISIS’ expansion in northern Iraq, liberating the city of Mosul became a predicament for the Iraqi government in terms of determining the forces that will participate and the human and military resources required for such an operation. Iraqi political sources say: “The Iraqi government agrees, generally speaking, with the idea that liberating the central and southern areas surrounding Baghdad should be undertaken by the government along with the Volunteer Forces while liberating the western areas should be the responsibility of local forces with US support.”
Iraqi sources argue that “the ground offensive which is being talked about cannot be dissociated from the reality of US military return to Iraq after its departure in 2011.” They add: “What is being said about the presence of some 3,500 US consultants in the field to assist Iraqi forces is inaccurate. The real figure for weeks now could be as high as 10,000, most of them combatants.”
This news coincides with announcements by US officials that, by Wednesday, the White House is going to ask Congress for a new authorization to use force against ISIS. This paves the way for lawmakers to vote for the first time on this campaign that has actually been ongoing for six months. The draft resolution that the US administration will send to lawmakers will be the first time the president seeks a formal authorization to use military force to fight ISIS.
Reports of burning the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh to death spurred Jordan to assume a larger military and media role within the so-called war against ISIS. In recent days, Amman dramatically increased its aerial raids against the group while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) reversed a decision to suspend its involvement in coalition strikes. UAE sent a squadron of F-16s to Jordan “conducting air strikes yesterday morning against ISIS positions.”
If you don’t believe me, just look at the US military budget President Obama has proposed for FY2016. At $585.3 billion, it would if approved by Congress represent an increase in spending of $24.9 billion, or about 4%, over the 2015 budget, and that is despite a decline in what, since the Bush/Cheney years, has euphemistically been called Overseas Contingency Operations spending, or spending on actual wars. The proposed OCO budget for 2016 in this “peace” president’s budget is “just” $50.9 billion, down about $13.3 billion from 2015 thanks to what the president, in one whopper offered during his State of the Union address, called the “end of combat” in Afghanistan (that war is actually continuing, with some 12,000 US troops expected to remain stationed in that country indefinitely).
The thing about OCO funding is that it is really not predictive of anything. It could soar way beyond that $50.9-billion level, for example, in a flash if the US follows through and escalates the war in Ukraine — especially if Russian troops are drawn directly into that conflict and the US responds by upping its own involvement.
Just another dead Muslim child. Killed by Israel on a beach in Gaza.
