Sunday, March 01, 2015

Islamic Terrorism - On the Increase?

*******
Jihadi John: Another rich terrorist who didn’t need a job
Islamic terrorism: Labelled as extremism, a meaningless term for an administration engaged in a meaningless response to Islamic terrorism
By Jeff Crouere 
February 27, 2015

In a recent interview, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that to fight terrorism, “we need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs….”
In other words, we can fight terrorism with a jobs program, a sort of a stimulus program for the jihadists.  If we only have enough shovel ready jobs for the jihadists, there will be no terrorism. How amazingly naïve and how terrifyingly stupid, but this is the mentality that is prevalent throughout the Obama administration.
The history of Islamic terrorism is replete with examples of very rich Muslims, such as Osama Bin Laden, who join the jihad and kill for one basic reason and it is not the lack of a job. They kill the “infidels” because of their commitment to their Islamic faith, their interpretation of Islamic doctrine and their desire to serve Allah. It is why so many Islamic terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” when they kill innocent people.
Harf either does not understand the threat we face or is purposely ignoring the threat, but, either way, it is troubling. Her “jobs” theory took another hit this week with the revelation of the identity of “Jihadi John,” the masked man seen in Islamic State videos beheading innocent hostages. According to multiple media and governmental sources, the masked man is Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old Kuwaiti, who moved to London with his family at an early age. 
In London, he attended fine schools, was raised in an upper middle class neighborhood and received a degree in computer programming from the University of Westminster in 2009. In fact, he found employment as a computer programmer, but that job did not stop him from becoming radicalized.
According to Shiraz Maher of the King’s College radicalization center, Emwazi may well have travelled to Syria in 2012, later joining the Islamic State. In Maher’s view, Emwazi’s route to terrorism was not caused by a lack of economic opportunities. He said Emwazi’s case is similar to other jihadists, who are “by and large upwardly mobile people, well educated.”  The disclosures about Emwazi and the vast majority of Islamic terrorists should debunk the theory held by Harf and others in the Obama administration “that these guys are all impoverished, that they’re coming from deprived backgrounds.” 
Emwazi joined the Islamic State to commit terrorist acts and kill “infidels.” He was not looking for a job; he was looking for a religious crusade. He was motivated by religious fervor, not financial considerations.
Back in 2010, the British government recognized that Emwazi was becoming radicalized and prevented him from traveling to Tanzania. Reports indicate that the government was concerned that Emwazi was going to join the Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.
Incredibly, some pro-Muslim activists criticized how the British government dealt with “Jihadi John” and blame his terrorist activity on supposed “mistreatment.” In reality, he was only targeted for surveillance due to his radical associations. If the government could have stopped him from traveling to Syria in 2012, possibly he would have been unable to join the Islamic State.
At the current time, “Jihadi John” is not using his computer programming degree; he is engaged in 7th century barbarism, beheading innocent hostages who have the misfortune of being captured by the Islamic State.
Unfortunately, at a time of great crisis, the country is being led by an administration that does not want to recognize this reality and refuses to admit the threat emanating from Islamic terrorism or even call it by its name. They prefer the title of “extremism,” a meaningless term for an administration engaged in a meaningless response to Islamic terrorism.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA.  He is the host of a Louisiana-based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday, and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station; and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at Ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
*******

Saturday, February 28, 2015

The Cuban Revolution Was a Long Time Ago!

*******

The Cuban Revolution, the U.S. Imposed Economic Blockade and US-Cuba Relations

Global Research, February 27, 2015
Url of this article:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cuban-revolution-the-u-s-imposed-economic-blockade-and-us-cuba-relations/5433797

fidel et Che

The victory of the Cuban revolution over the forces of U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista meant that January 1, 1959 marked the first time in 467 years that Cubans were not subjected to serfdom and exploitation by a foreign power. Spain was the first country to exercise dominion over Cuba beginning in 1510, up until the Spanish-American War of 1898. During this period, Spain engaged in the exploitation of Cuban natural resources and subjected the native population to forced labour. The Spaniards essentially distributed the “land and indigenous labourers” amongst themselves1. Both African slaves, which were originally introduced to the island by the Spanish, and the native population were forced to endure “harsh working conditions suffered under colonists”2.
The Spanish-American War, which culminated with the expulsion of Spain in 1898, did not bring emancipation to the Cubans that had been fighting for their independence. Instead, this victory only substituted one oppressor for another, as the U.S. transformed Cuba into a neo-colony. From that point forward, the U.S exercised imperial power over the island, exploiting its resources, and dictating Cuba’s domestic and foreign policies. During this time, the Cuban economy was highly dependent on the U.S., as “74% of Cuba’s exports were destined for the US, while 73% of its imports came from the US...the all-important Cuban US sugar export market and price were controlled in Washington” (Ritter, 2010, p. 3). In fact, “[b]y the 1950s, the U.S. controlled 80 percent of Cuban utilities, 90 percent of Cuban mines, close to 100 percent of the country’s oil refineries, 90 percent of its cattle ranches, and 40 percent of the sugar industry”3. Havana also became a popular tourist destination where foreigners, particularly Americans, could indulge in gambling and prostitution.
The Revolution enabled Cuba to become independent of U.S. imperial power. One of the first acts of the new government was to nationalize foreign enterprises and utilities in addition to instituting a series of land and agrarian reforms. Washington retaliated by imposing a comprehensive commercial, economic and financial embargo in 1962, which blocked virtually all trade between the two countries and banned U.S. citizens from travelling to Cuba. The U.S. administration regarded the trade embargo as the best mechanism to achieve its objectives, which were aptly summarized by Lester D. Mallory, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, on April 6, 1960:
“The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship... every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba... a line of action which... makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”4
On December 17, 2014, nearly 55 years after the U.S. imposed its commercial and financial blockade against Cuba, President Barack Obama surprised the world by announcing his intention to enter into negotiations aimed at re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is widely believed that this step, which will include re-opening the U.S. embassy in Havana, will pave the way for an end to the embargo and eliminate certain travel restrictions on Americans looking to visit the island. In fact, some progress has already been made with regards to travel restrictions, as Americans are now able to use their debit and credit cards on visits to Cuba. Additionally, as of December 2014, Washington allows Americans to visit Cuba for the following 12 reasons5:
“family visits; official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; journalistic activity; professional research and professional meetings; educational activities; religious activities; public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; support for the Cuban people; humanitarian projects; activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes; exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials; and certain authorized export transactions.”6
On February 19th, approximately two months after Obama’s announcement, Cuban vice president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, met with nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Havana. Subsequently, a second meeting will be held in Washington on February 27th. This upcoming meeting holds considerable interest for citizens of Cuba, as many of them expect this meeting to be followed by an announcement of plans to lift the embargo7, partially or completely, on the part of the Washington administration. In reality, however, it is unlikely that the embargo will be lifted unless the Cuban government agrees to meet certain preconditions mandated by Washington. For example, “lawyers are scrambling to determine whether normalized relations with Cuba will create an opportunity to get compensation for lost properties [5,9138 US companies’ expropriation by the Cuban government after 1959 revolution] now estimated to be worth nearly $7 billion9”. Further complicating matters is the fact that that lifting the embargo would require an act of congress; however, if Congress were to vote against eliminating the embargo, President Obama still retains the option of using his “executive power will” to bypass them and force the issue10.
It is well-known that the U.S. embargo has had tremendous consequences on the development of the Cuban economy. According to Havana, the direct economic damages to Cuba attributable to the embargo would exceed $1.1 trillion11 since 1962, “taking into account the depreciation of dollar against gold”12, with specific damages including the loss of earnings, monetary and financial restrictions, and social damages with regards to health, education, culture, the availability of food, etc. Additionally, “the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard, agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing.”13
Despite its longevity and severity, the embargo was not particularly effective in achieving its objectives, as summarized by Lester D. Mallory. Cuban Socialism still managed to be lauded for a number of notable achievements, including attaining full employment, providing universal health care services and universal access to free education, and achieving higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, lower child malnutrition, and lower poverty rates compared to any other Latin American country (Navarro, 2014, Vandepitte, 2011). In fact, a 2014 study published by the World Bank confirmed that Cuba’s education system is comparable to those of Canada, Finland, and Singapore14. In the past, the World Bank also recognized that Cuba’s international “success in the fields of education and health, with social services that exceeds those of most developing countries and, in certain sectors, are comparable to those of the developed nations”15. Furthermore, based on estimates from the United Nations Development Program, Cuba is ranked third in Latin America in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI)16. More precisely, according to the United Nations Human Development Report 2014, “Cuba’s HDI value for 2013 is 0.815— which is in the very high human development category—positioning the country at 44 out of 187 countries and territories17”.
In addition to its success in areas of human development, Cuba has also been active in providing practical foreign aid in the form of sending highly-trained specialists, such as teachers, doctors, and engineers, to developing countries where they are needed. Since 1959, Cuba has been sending doctors to countries in Latin American and Africa that are unable to meet the health care needs of their citizens on their own; this is a practice for which the island is particularly well-regarded. Currently, “around 50,000 Cuban health professionals work in 66 countries worldwide18”. Recent examples of such assistance include sending Cuban doctors to West African countries during the recent Ebola outbreak and to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010 where they were largely credited with ending a cholera outbreak19. Additionally, Cuba also helps combat doctor shortages by providing free medical school to students from various developing countries. Havana’s Latin American Medical School20 is “the largest medical school in the world”21; since 2005, this institution has produced approximately 23,000 doctors and another 10,000 graduates are expected in the near future22.
Despite Cuba’s many social achievements, the United States has made many attempts to undermine the island’s revolution since the very beginning through propaganda, sabotage, and terrorism, including the planning and support of the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. Fidel Castro was depicted as a military dictator who oppressed the individual freedoms of Cuba’s citizens. In addition to anti-Cuban propaganda, the U.S. government also engaged in direct sabotage aimed at weakening the socialist government, including “chemical and biological warfare against Cuba”, hundreds of attempts by the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the imposition of many economic and political sanctions that eliminated access to credit and loans from international banks and prevented free trade from flourishing (Blum, p.186-193).
Barack Obama’s efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba have, in some circles, been interpreted as an admission that Washington’s repeated attempts to destroy the island’s socialist government over the last five decades have failed. However, the possibility exists that this move could be part of a larger strategy aimed at undermining Cuban socialism and dominating the island. History has shown that Washington is not averse to intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to further its own interests; this includes a long list of instances where the U.S. facilitated the overthrow of governments that did not fully commit to their dictates, including Guatemala (1953-1954, 1960), Indonesia (1957-1958, 1965, 1975), the Dominican Republic (1960-1966), Chile (1964-1973), Cambodia (1955-1973), Laos (1957-1973), the Congo (1960-1964), Greece (1964-1974), Bolivia (1964-1975), Zaire (1975-1978), Iraq (1990-1991), and Afghanistan (1979-1992).
These and many other examples of successive American governments intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to destabilize governments that they viewed as even moderately socialist (incorrectly on some occasions) allows for some suspicion about the sincerity of the stated U.S. intentions for its re-engaging with Cuba.
For example, after its official re-opening, the U.S. Embassy in Havana could serve as a location for the planning and staging of strategies designed to facilitate the reversal of Cuban social, political and economic policies. Furthermore, there is also speculation that the motivation for re-establishing relations with Cuba could be to counter recent developments in the political and economic organization of Latin American and Caribbean nations, which have facilitated greater roles for China and Russia in the region.
Over the course of the last decade, Latin American and Caribbean nations have come together to create a number of economic and social organizations including: the Bolivarian Alliance for Our Americas (ALBA) in 2004; the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2008; and, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in December 2011. ALBA, which was originally created by Venezuela and Cuba and currently counts 11 nations among its members, aims to establish a common regional currency (the Sucre) that could eventually replace the U.S. dollar in international trade transactions. UNASUR, which was created primarily through the efforts of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with support from Brazil’s Lula da Silva and Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner, currently boasts 12 member countries. In addition to establishing a common currency, this organization also aspires for a common passport and parliament for its members, modelled on the European Union. Finally, CELAC includes 33 Latin American and Caribbean nations representing over 600 million people; it seeks deeper integration and greater cooperation among its member countries.
In 2010, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales described CELAC as follows:
“A union of Latin American countries is the weapon against imperialism. It is necessary to create a regional body that excludes the United States and Canada. …Where there are U.S. military bases that do not respect democracy, where there is a political empire with his blackmailers, with its constraints, there is no development for that country, and especially there is no social peace and, therefore, it is the best time for prime ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean to gestate this great new organization without the United States to free our peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean.”23
Venezuela’s late president, Hugo Chávez added the following at the 23rd Rio Group summit:
“Now here, in Mexico, a document, a commitment, the creation of a body of Latin America and the Caribbean, without the USA, without Canada (…) Now we can say from Latin America, from Mexico (…) we have revived the dream and project of Bolívar.”24
The U.S. regards the creation of such organizations that strengthen links between Latin American and Caribbean nations as strategic threats. CELAC, for example, essentially serves the same function as the Organization for American States (OAS) but excludes the U.S. and Canada from participating. Furthermore, CELAC members will be receiving US$ 250 billion in investments over the next decade from China. The U.S. will likely not look favourably upon the prospect of losing access to the natural resources and enormous consumer market in this region to a key economic rival like China.
In addition to China, Russia is also gaining prominence as a significant economic player in the region. In July 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Cuban officials granting Rosneft, an oil company that is majority owned by the Russian government, the rights to explore and extract hydrocarbon reserves located off of the island. During his meetings with Raul Castro and former leader Fidel Castro, which produced this agreement, Putin also “wrote off 90 percent of the more than $30 billion in Soviet-era debt Cuba owed Russia25”. Perhaps Obama should consider following the Russian President’s lead and offer his Cuban counterparts a gesture of goodwill by forgiving the potential compensation that could be sought by U.S. companies for property lost on account of the revolution.
The increasing prevalence of China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean represents a real danger to Washington’s future diplomatic, political and economic power and influence on a global scale. The strategic importance of these regions to the United States is clearly reflected in the Monroe Doctrine, which was established by the administration of President James Monroe in 1823 and stated “that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention26”. Based on the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially regards Latin America as the U.S.’s “backyard”, such Russian and Chinese advances in these regions could also be interpreted as acts of aggression, even though the nature of their involvement is quite different in comparison to the colonial ambitions of countries like Spain and Portugal in the early 19th century.
As long as Cuba exercises caution, does not lose sight of its own interests, and retains a certain degree of control when entering into negotiations with Washington, whether it be on February 27th or during any subsequent meetings, then it is entirely possible for the island to re-establish economic, financial and diplomatic ties with the United States without completely dismantling socialism and the benefits associated with it. Re-establishing diplomatic relations with Washington does not necessitate a clash with the aspirations of the revolution, because socialism does not require a closed commercial state, nor does it reject reforms aimed at revitalizing or strengthening the existing system.
Undertaking efforts to revitalize the Cuban economy is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Cuba has been trying to rejuvenate its socialist system since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Soviet Union provided Cuba with a great deal of support since the triumph of the revolution and was credited with playing a crucial role in its survival. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant Cuba lost its most important trading partner, which accounted for approximately 80% of the island’s exports and imports at that time; Cuba also had to do without the generous subsidies it received from the socialist block. Consequently, the U.S. also took this opportunity to introduce new measures to further strengthen the blockade, namely the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act in 1996. As a result, Cubans experienced significant hardships and a pronounced decrease in their living standards in what became known as the “Special Period” during 1990 – 1995. During this time, the Cuban economy essentially collapsed and its inhabitants experienced severe shortages in basic supplies, including food and medicine, resulting in malnutrition and associated health problems. In response, new measures were taken to restructure the Cuban economy, especially in the area of tourism. Many of the hotels and resort chains that are joint ventures with Spanish and Canadian companies are outcomes of the reforms that were implemented in response to the “Special Period”.
Re-establishing diplomatic relations with Washington and the movement towards free market policies will not diminish Cuba’s standing as a symbol of the global anti-imperialist movement. In reality, programs aimed at gradually liberalizing prices, privatization, abolishing the ration system, and eliminating the dual currency have been underway for about a decade. That means the model that was conceived in the early years of Cuban revolution has been evolving in order to meet the changing needs and desires of the Cuban people, which have also been evolving with developments in the international political, economic and social arenas. In other words, policies designed to revitalize the socialist system by reducing reliance on social engineering were being put in place since 1991. History has shown that granting too much power to a central planning authority, in terms of organizing the social, political and economic activities of a state, has the potential to engender a situation where constant interference on the part of the government becomes inevitable. In fact, it could be argued that social engineering and the American embargo were the two main enemies of the Cuban revolution. A more open economy can provide buyers, sellers, and producers in the marketplace with greater freedom with which to co-ordinate their activities voluntarily and achieve common goals and ends for society without the need for constant interference on the part of state authorities. The current progress made in terms of re-establishing a normalized relationship with Washington might witness further progress in Cuban’s socialist system. Hopefully, this can be achieved through a cautious and sensible approach that will ensure Cubans never return to the serfdom that preceded the 1959 revolution.
Notes:
7. October 2014, despite the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution calling for the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba to be lifted for the 23rd consecutive year, Washington once again elected to maintain its embargo.
8. These companies include “ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola, Freeport-McMoRan, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, Goodyear, Firestone, General Motors, Owens-Illinois, Avon Products, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and many others” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-economic-sanctions-against-cuba-the-failure-of-a-cruel-and-irrational-policy/7024).
16. “The HDI is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living... a long and healthy life is measured by life expectancy. Access to knowledge is measured by: i) mean years of education among the adult population, which is the average number of years of education received in a life-time by people aged 25 years and older; and ii) expected years of schooling for children of school-entry age, which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entry age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child’s life. Standard of living is measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2011 international dollars converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) rates” http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CUB.pdf)
20. “The University of Toronto has 850 medical students and Harvard University has 735. ELAM has twelve times more students than those two schools combined: 19,550.” (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/06/02/cubatrained_doctors_making_difference_around_the_world.html)

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Are We Being Brain Washed By the Media?

*******
Buy Illuminati 3 at Amazon
*******
 
American Viper -- Are Americans Too Stupid to be Free?
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 2, 2015
(left, Interviews with audience shows the movie is extremely effective as brainwashing.)
Movie proves the Illuminati can turn any nation into the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany
"Military men are dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns of foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair


Watching American Sniper was an ordeal. The Clint Eastwood move is a repugnant manipulative psy op that is turning Americans into unthinking killers.  Remember, the Nazis were very popular in Germany.
The movie's underlying premise is that soldiers like sniper Chris Kyle were defending home and hearth by murdering, maiming and displacing millions of innocent Iraqis.  Courageous Iraqis who defended their country were "savages" who needed to be stopped before they attack the US, as on 9-11.
"If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here," Kyle says. In one scene, Kyle kills a woman and a child who are about to throw a grenade at a convoy.  These don't look like terrorists. They look like courageous patriots. 
There is no evidence Iraq was even remotely connected to 9-11. In reality, 9-11 was perpetrated by the US and Israeli governments and intelligence services as a pretext for aggression. These governments are controlled by the Masonic Jewish central bankers who are eliminating all obstacles to their one world government tyranny.
Are Americans too stupid to be free? The jury is out. On the one hand, this paint-by-numbers movie is a huge hit grossing over $250 million since its release on Christmas Day.
On the other hand, if people realized that almost everything they are told by movies and TV is a lie, they might start thinking for themselves and listening to their own souls.
As Paul Craig Roberts wrote recently: "Facts no longer play a role in American political life...A matrix has been created, an artificial reality that channels the energies and resources of the country into secret agendas that serve the interests of the ruling private interest groups and neoconservative ideology. The United States government and the American people cannot contend with reality, because they do not know what the reality is...In effect, America is both blind and deaf. It lives in delusions. Consequently, it will destroy itself and perhaps the world."
"FAMILY"
I really hated the way the movie used "family' to make Kyle look good (as a husband/father) and legitimize his atrocities. The movie spends almost as much time in maternity wards as on the battlefield. I was relieved they didn't present him as a devout Christian too. Kyle's rationale for killing 260 Iraqis is he was "saving his guys" and the only thing that haunts him is not saving more.  Kyle's public stand against gun control is not mentioned. That doesn't fit with the Illuminati Jewish banker agenda.
Kyle and a friend were murdered two year ago today at a rifle range by a "deranged" Marine veteran whom they were mentoring, named Eddie Ray Routh.  Chris Kyle might have been murdered, as Pat Tillman was, because he was perceived as a political threat. People with mental problems are often used as programmed assassins.
craft-knights.jpg(Masonic and Templar references in Craft name and logo)
After retiring from the Navy in 2009, Kyle and partners started Craft International, the private security contractors implicated in the Boston Marathon false flag. Kyle was President of this company. Freemasonry is referred to as "the Craft." Kyle's wife is suing his partners for robbing the till and for unauthorized use of the company logo which Kyle designed, and is widely seen in the movie. 
Chris Kyle's father taught him that there were three kinds of people in the world: wolves, sheep and sheep dogs. The role of the sheep dogs was to protect the sheep.
In fact, "sheep dogs" like Chris Kyle are working for the wolves. Sheep dogs and sheep had better wake up before it's too late.
 *******
 
*******
Also See:
The New World Order is Getting Closer!
(Part 1)
10 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/new-world-order-getting-closer.html
and
(Part 2)
28 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/new-world-order-is-getting-closer-part.html
and

The End of the United States!
02 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/what-do-you-think-is-it-end-of-united.html
and
Humanity Caught in a Diabolical Conspiracy! 

30 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/04/humanity-is-under-occult-attack-by.html
and
ID Cards - Soon Everyone will have One!

03 September 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/09/those-pesty-id-cards-everyone-will-have.html
and
"New World Order/One World Government" is for Real! It's on Our Doorstep!
20 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/one-world-government-is-for-real-its-on.html
and
Religion of the New World Order 

16 December 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/12/religion-of-new-world-order.html
and
Is There a New World Order?

18 November 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/11/is-there-new-world-order.html
and
What do You Know About the Power Elite?

24 November 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/11/what-do-you-know-about-power-elite.html

and
Can Social Control Be Denied?
(Part 1)
18 June 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/06/can-social-control-be-denied.html
and
(Part 2)
28 October 2013

http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/10/can-social-control-be-denied-part-2.html
and
(Part 3)
17 June 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/06/can-social-control-be-denied-part-3.html
 and
Who Controls the Media!
25 February 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/02/who-controls-media.html
and
 The Media is Controled by Mega-Corporations!
(Part 1)
31 July 2013
and
(Part 2)
19 December 2013
and
Manchurian Candidate - Is It for Real?
20 September 2011
 and
Social Engineering - Really?
28 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/social-engineering-really.html
and
Are You a Victim of Mind Control?
(Part 1)
21 September 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2007/09/manipulation-of-minds.html
and
(Part 2)
03 June 2013
and
What Really Happened at the Boston Marathon?
22 April 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/04/what-really-happened-at-boston-massacre.html
and
Silenced by Execution, FBI Responsible!
31 May 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/05/fbi-bandits-executed-friend-of-boston.html
and
What's Not Being Told About Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School?
(Part 1)
19 December 2012
and
(Part 2)
*******

 

 


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

What Did Happen in Libya?

Terror Inc. and the War on Libya

By Mark Taliano
Global Research, January 26, 2015
“Human rights” or “democracy” have nothing to do with current wars of conquest except that these words are used as cover to hide institutionalized mass murder and theft. In fact, human rights and democracy are usually the first casualties of any invasion.
The “West”, however, understands the value of these words to sell wars which invariably destroy “non-compliant” secular governments in favour of divisive fundamentalist regimes.
Human lives are superfluous to the overriding imperial agendas. In fact, imperial strategists prefer that target countries become internally divided, even when division exacts a huge toll in innocent lives.
It’s all very illegal, but the West is not overly concerned with international sanctions. The West isn’t particularly perturbed by the consequent rise of fundamentalism either, because it uses fundamentalist proxies such as al Qaeda and ISIS – or neo-Nazis — to globally implement their agendas of destruction.
The pre-planned invasion of Libya is a case in point. Prior to the invasion — ironically billed as a “humanitarian Intervention” — Libya’s government, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, boasted significant achievements, including the following:
*The highest standard of living in Africa
*Human Development Index (HDI), a measure of health, education, and income, ranked above the regional average
* Free public health care, and free public education
* 89% adult literacy rate (with girls outnumbering boys by 10% in secondary and tertiary education)
* Subsidized, affordable food
* Homelessness all but wiped out
Given these very positive metrics, how did the West sell its so-called “humanitarian intervention”? Simple. It created a false narrative that demonized Gadaffi as it promulgated lies and media fabrications.
Associate university professor and author, Maximilian C. Forte rebuts the arsenal of lies promulgated by the West in “The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya” . Here is the list of evidence-free accusations:
  • Genocide
  • Gadaffi is “bombing his own people”.
  • “Save Benghazi”
  • African mercenaries
  • Viagara-fueled mass rape
  • Gaddafi – the Demon
Freedom Fighters – the Angels
Significantly, the west supports the “rebels” – long-time enemies of Gaddafi – who are basically al-Qaeda/ISIS, the same mercenaries that are currently in Syria.
So, what are the underlying reasons for the destruction of Libya and its people plus the subsequent empowerment of al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists? Dr. Michel Chossudovsky argues in “Operation Libya And The Battle For Oil” that oil is the “Trophy”:
“An invasion of Libya under a humanitarian mandate would serve the same corporate interests as the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The underlying objective is to take possession of Libya’s oil reserves, destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country’s oil industry, namely transfer the control and ownership of Libya’s oil wealth into foreign hands.
The National Oil Corporation (NOC) is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies. (The Energy Intelligence ranks NOC 25 among the world’s Top 100 companies. – Libyaonline.com).”
Chossudovsky explains further that looting of Libya’s finances would be another goal:
“The financial stakes as well as “the spoils of war” are extremely high. The military operation is intent upon dismantling Libya’s financial institutions as well as confiscating billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks.”
The aftermath of the overthrow of the Jamahiriya-Gaddafi rule has unfolded as expected. Abayomi Azikiwe explains in “Libya War Continues Three Years After Gaddafi Assassination” that there is on-going destabilization, with warring factions battling for control.
Washington and NATO are no doubt pleased. They have weakened a once strong, secular Libya –that was (significantly) a model for other African countries — by imposing their will, to the detriment of humanity, and in favour of Islamic Fundamentalism.
The resulting carnage dims future prospects for countries that strive to break free from parasitical, imperial agendas, even as it empowers proxy armies such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Washington’s stated goal of conducting a “war on terror” is actually a “war for terror” that is responsible for the slaughter of multitudes, all beneath the false veneer of humanism, freedom, democracy, or any number of other lies.
Mark Taliano, Public Editor, Daily Clout

*******