Egypt Parliament to Consider Rejecting US Aid

Egypt Parliament to Consider Rejecting US Aid

By RT

March 12, 2012 “RT” — In the wake of the NGO funding scandal the Egyptian parliament is to consider cutting more than $1 billion in US aid along with putting the military-appointed interim government to a vote of confidence.

The move by the lower chamber of the parliament comes after the March 1 departure of six American defendants in the case, leading to accusations that US pressure had led to interference in the judicial process.

The People’s Assembly urged that the person who allowed the Americans to leave Egypt be put on trial and declared its desire to refuse massive annual aid from the United States, Al-Ahram daily reports.

“We hope that members of the American Congress listen carefully to the decisions of the Egyptian parliament – the parliament of the revolution -and know quite well that the Egyptian people will never accept tinkering with the sovereignty of Egypt or American assistance to be used to humiliate it,” parliament speaker Saad El-Katatni said as quoted by the paper.

Socialist El-Badri Farghali, said “Egypt should stop obtaining assistance from America because this is not assistance from America to Egypt but from Egypt to America, and we want to uncover the names of all those who were involved in receiving money from this assistance.”

However, the move by the recently-elected parliament could have only symbolic significance as the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which heavily relies on the US aid, will most likely veto it.

Also on Sunday the lower chamber called for putting the interim government of Kamal El-Ganzouri to a vote of confidence saying that it should be replaced with a coalition government that reflects the make-up of the Islamist-dominated parliament. This came after four cabinet ministers briefed the legislators on the case.

The minister of justice, Adel Abdel-Hamid, who attended the Sunday session told the lawmakers that the issue of lifting the travel ban on the Americans is now a matter of investigation by the Supreme Council of Justice.

The trial of NGO workers suspected of illegally using foreign funding and fomenting unrest has plunged US-Egyptian relations to their lowest point in 30 years.

 

Advertisements

Leaked Email: Pentagon Admits Plan To Direct Terror Attacks Inside Syria

Leaked Email: Pentagon Admits Plan To Direct Terror Attacks Inside Syria

US is preparing to “commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns” to topple Assad

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, March 6, 2012

A shocking email leaked as part of the Wikileaks Stratfor data dump reveals that the Pentagon is planning to direct terror attacks and assassinations inside Syria in a bid to topple President President Bashar al-Assad.


The email, written by Reva Bhalla, Stratfor’s Director of Analysis, contains details of a December 6 Pentagon meeting attended by members of the USAF strategic studies group along with four military officers at the Lieutenant Colonel level, “including one French and one British representative.”

Bhalla was told by the military officials that, despite official claims to the contrary, foreign troops from NATO powers were already on the ground in Syria.

“After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces,” states the email.

Bhalla goes on to describe how the mission of the undercover commandoes is hypothetically to “commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces [Assad’s support base], elicit collapse from within.”

In other words, the Pentagon, along with other NATO powers, have already directed Special Forces troops stationed inside Syria to carry out terrorist attacks and assassinations in an effort to topple President President Bashar al-Assad.

The email states that such actions should be ready within a 2-3 month time period. Bhalla describes how a destabilization campaign was favorable to air strikes because unlike Libya, “Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much denser.”

Some would argue that far from merely planning such attacks, the United States and other NATO powers are already using the Al-Qaeda- affiliated terrorists airlifted out of Libya into Syria to do the job for them. These terrorists have been blamed for bloody attacks that have killed both Syrian regime officials and innocent civilians, including a bombing last month in Syria’s second city of Aleppo which killed 28 people.

Footage has also emerged of western-looking troops carrying out indiscriminate attacks using rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Carrying out terrorist attacks to destabilize governments is not a conspiracy theory, it is a widely acknowledged form of covert warfare. Only last month NBC News reported that Israel was paying terror groups to carry out bombings and assassinations in Iran in a bid to weaken the regime in Tehran.

  • A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Reports of foreign troops entering Syria have been circulating for months.

Last month Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile revealed that British Special Forces were inside Syria “operating with rebel forces under cover in the Syrian city of Homs just 162 kilometers from Damascus.”

According to the report, the foreign units are not engaging in direct combat but are acting in an advisory capacity, while also relaying requests for arms outside of the country.

According to Egyptian security officials, United States, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are also providing arms and training for Syrian rebels, dovetailing with former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ report that hundreds of NATO and US troops arrived on the Jordanian and Syrian border back in December for the purpose of training militants to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

NATO member Turkey is also reportedly arming terrorist groups to aid rebel fighters. Leaders of the Free Syria Army have also bragged about the claim that France and the United States have provided them with weapons and anti-aircraft missiles.

As we reported last week, during a BBC interview U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that the United States and Al-Qaeda were on the same side when it came to achieving regime change in Syria.

Just as in Libya, where the overthrow of Gaddafi was achieved through the use of Al-Qaeda groups, NATO and the United States are once again turning to terrorists as a means of achieving their geopolitical objectives in the region.

Indeed, as we reported back in November, some of the same Al-Qaeda terrorists who fought U.S. troops in Iraq were airlifted into Syria to aid rebels. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri’s has also publicly expressed support for Syrian rebel forces.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

October 15, 2011 “
Global Research ” Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the “long war” into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called “Son of Africa” has actually become one of Africa’s worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.

The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.

As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.

Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of “divide and conquer” being used to bring nations to their knees.


The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a “New Middle East”

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continuously divided the region.

For years, there have been advocates calling for a “New Middle East” with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.


The Manipulation of the First “Arab Spring” during World War I

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire. 

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.


The Yinon Plan

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.




Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008.
Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008.

 


Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters.
It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy.
Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006.




The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding  with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.


Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:

(1) ethno-linguistics;
(2) skin-colour;
(3) religion.

It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Israel and the African Continent

The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think-tank, is one example.

Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa. [1] Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. [2]

 


Israel and Libya

Libya had been considered as “a spoiler” which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.

The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO’s military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene. [3] U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.

Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy’s special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders [4]. A similar pattern (to that of Israel’s links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.

Despite the Transitional Council’s position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.

In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [5]

Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [6]

Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [7]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.

NOTES

[1] The Economist, “Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world,” February 4, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tova Lazaroff, “70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.

[4] Radio France Internationale, “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu,” June 2, 2011.

[5] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211

[7] Ibid.


ANNEX I: MAP OF DIFFERENT WORLD CIVILIZATIONS REFLECTING SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S MODEL


* These civilizational divisions and categories are incorrect. There are no clearcutting divisions between many of these so-called and supposedly “distinct civilizations.”


ANNEX II: MODEL OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS”


Copyright © Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2011

Where Have Libya’s Children Gone? Long Time Missing…

Franklin Lamb
Tripoli, Libya

The quality of life continues to cascade in certain areas of Western Libya while public anxiety noticeably rises over missing Libyan children as the first week of an unusually stressful Ramadan passes.

The shortage of gasoline has become acute and despite government efforts to curtail price gauging, one taxi driver told this observer yesterday that while the usual price of ‘benzene’ was 3.75 liters (one gallon) for $.40 (forty US cents) he is now having to pay as much as ” 4 dinars for one liter of petrol!” That is roughly the equivalent of 13 US dollars for a gallon of gasoline, a huge price surge in a country long accustomed to cheap, heavily subsidized fuel. “Informal economy” (black market) fuel arrives in car trunks from the Tunisian border and its increasingly common to see fellows with a make shift funnel trying to get more benzene into their vehicle tanks than they splash and spill on neighborhood streets.

 Tripoli residents trying to fuel a car on 8/5/11 with black market benzene—often spilling a fair bit in the process. Photo: flamb

Walking around the “medina” off Omar Muktar Street near my hotel yesterday afternoon, the angst over deteriorating conditions is apparent. Shops, like homes, are now subject to rolling blackouts and quickly become hot and stuffy, discouraging would be customers from entering. Some food stores have to discard milk and other perishable items given the up to 11 hour power cuts that send temperatures above 110F. One gentleman on Rashid Street in downtown Tripoli said his family had not had power for five days and the pump that supplies water to his apartment building stopped working so they lack two essential utilities.

NATO’s arguable act of piracy earlier this week in commandeering the fuel tanker ship Cartagena off the coast of Malta that was bringing gasoline to Tripoli and sending it instead to Rebel militia based close to Benghazi is yet again explained from NATO HQ as necessary for “protecting the civilian population of Libya.”

According to Libya’s Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim, “The age of piracy is coming back to the Mediterranean because of NATO.”

Some frustrated shop keepers just shutter their shops and seek relief at the beach or take a nap waiting for sundown and their Ramadan Iftar (feast) to begin. But lack of electricity even affects its preparation. (ed. note: 15 minutes ago NATO reportedly bombed the public beach near my hotel as three other bombs landed nearby—targets unknown)

Every time a bomb blast is heard, a chorus of passersby and kids invariably point toward the bomb site and watch the rising white or black smoke (the color depending on the type of bomb or missile) and some shout, “F— NATO! F—Obama!” Etc.

If a foreigner is confronted by angry citizens who may blame Americans for NATO’s bombing, a sure fire way to quickly reduce crowd tension is for the foreigner to make the peace sign and make a fist with his other hand and chant a few times: “Allah! Mohammad! Muammar! Libye! Abass!” (God!, Mohammad!, Qadaffi!, Libya!, that’s all we need!”) The locals appreciate the sentiment and pre-teens often join the popular chant and dance.

As of the morning of 8/7/11 NATO statistics show that since 3/31/11, NATO forces have launched 18,270 sorties, mainly against Western Libya, including 6,932 bomb/missile strike sorties. Last night (8/6/11) there were 115 sorties including 45 bombings of which 12 were in central Tripoli starting a 10 p.m.

To their great credit, some Congressional staffers on the US Senate Armed Services Committee who liaise with the Pentagon, have acted on constituent complaints and have criticized NATO’s incomplete description of its bombing of Libyan civilians.

For example earlier this week NATO reported its bombing of the village on Zlitan, about 160 miles east of Tripoli in the Western Mountains as follows: “In the vicinity of Zlitan:1 Ammunition Storage Facility, 1 Military Facility, 2 Multiple Rocket Launchers.”

However, still absent from this particular NATO report on its website is the fact that its bombing attack killed the wife and two children of Mustafa Naji, a local Zlitan physics teacher. Mustafa’s wife Ibtisam, and their two children, Mohammad 5 and Muttasim, were pulverized. Once again, NATO said it could not confirm any claims of  “accidental killings” but would recommend an investigation.

As was apparent one week after UNSCR 1973 was adopted, NATO is the instrument of the Obama administration’s policy of regime change in Libya. NATO has virtually assumed the “rebels” command and control function in Libya’s civil war. This afternoon, Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmoudi claimed that most of the rebel leadership has left Libya and he challenged them to hold a meeting during Ramadan. Mahmoudi claims that NATO is using Islamic extremists because they are more reliable in carrying out NATO orders as it seeks to break the civilian population’s will to resist, similar to Israel’s bombing campaign targeting the civilian population of Lebanon during the July 2006 war.

WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN?

Names and dates of birth of Libyan children missing from the orphanage at Misrata. Photo: flamb 8/4/11

Also of growing public and government concern in Western Libya is the whereabouts of 53 female and 52 male children aged one to 12 years and another group ranging from 12 to 18 years, both part of a government run home for orphans and abused children that until February was operating in Misrata, now under rebel control. According to several reports over the past three months and testimony presented last Thursday evening to the international media gathered at the Tripoli Rexis Hotel, by the        General Union for Civil Society Organizations.

 Libyan NGO’s invited foreigners to a conference last week seeking help finding the 105 children missing from Misrata

The 105 children, part of more than 1000 missing, were “kidnapped” by rebel forces as they entered Misrata and went on a killing   spree, some of which has been documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International among other groups. There is no question that the children are no longer in their sheltered facility. But from there what became of them remains a mystery.

The Libyan government claims the youngsters were kidnapped by rebels who went on a rampage in late February. Several reports from eyewitnesses claim that the children were last seen being put onto either a Turkish, Italian, or French boat. More than one witness claimed to have observed some of the children being sold in Tunisia. On his tweeter page, the local Russian Telesur reporter said that “several sources have affirmed that the 105 children were taken out of the country in a ship that could be Turkish, French or Italian.”

Libyan Social Affairs Minister Ibrahim Sharif told reporters in Tripoli this week that, “We want the truth and we hold those countries responsible for the well-being of these children who are neither soldiers nor combatants.” Sharif added that a rebel doctor captured by government troops testified that some of the orphans had been taken to France and Italy.

Misrata’s history as a main 18th-19th century North African slave trading port,  is a fact that today partially explains tensions among the one third of Libya’s population that is black. Most are descendants of slaves and many live in Western Libya in villages now fighting the Misrata and Benghazi based rebels. Their concern for the disappeared children is especially acute.

While Libya has had perhaps the most strictly enforced child protection laws in the Middle East and Africa, people here remember clearly that France was at the center of a scandal in 2007 when aid workers from the Zoe’s Ark charity attempted to fly 103 children out of Chad, which borders Libya to the south, who they said were orphans from neighboring Sudan. International aid staff later found that the children were in fact Chadian and had at least one living parent. People here fear a similar fate for the Libyan youngsters.

Also on people’s minds in Libya is what happened two years ago in Haiti when “orphans,” according to local authorities, were kidnapped.  Given the epidemic of human trafficking in this region, especially of children, fears are well founded.
NATO has not replied to inquiries demanding information about the disappeared children nor has UNICEF, Save the Children or Secretary of State Clinton’s office. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has agreed to demand that the White House order an immediate investigation and of course any human rights advocate could raise this issue in the West and demand an urgent inquiry from her/his government.

The Libyan government as well as both the Roman Catholic Papal representative Bishop Giovanni Martinelli, and Father Daoud of the Anglican Church of Christ the King, in Tripoli have demanded that the UN investigate and find the children.

As for the National Transition Council, its spokesman denied charges that they have sold the children and claim that the Libyan government in Tripoli have all the children and that they are using them as human shields at the now five times bombed Bab al Azizya complex in central Tripoli. No known human rights organization or journalist who has investigated this claim has reported seeing any sign of the children at Bab al Azizya. The General Union noted above, has photos and names and ages of all the missing children and have widely publicized them.

More than a dozen social welfare organizations, women’s groups and Libya’s Lawyer syndicates have launched an intensive media and public involvement campaign to find the children who have now been missing for nearly six months.

Franklin Lamb is in Libya and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

London riots: Divine justice?

What happened in London last night – the torching of private property, wanton destruction, looting and generalized violence, was lamentable and unacceptable. Yet does it not provide a perfect answer from God, underlining the sheer hypocrisy with which western governments view and conduct policy, especially when we draw lines of comparison with Libya?

 So, let us draw parallels and see how the UK authorities come out of this. On Thursday, the British police shot dead a man in the street. Tensions escalated during Friday and on Saturday night, some 300 youths congregated outside the local police station in the London area of Tottenham in a peaceful demonstration which got out of hand as members of the public from other areas of London and beyond ran amok in the streets, torching buildings and vehicles as they went on a looting spree.

 Now let us imagine that for months – nay, years…I repeat, years, foreign powers had been arming and aiding not 300, but rather, 30,000 (thirty thousand) Islamist fanatics, who, equipped with heavy machine-guns, tanks, self-propelled artillery and anti-aircraft munitions, ran amok in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Bristol. If the police shot dead one man in Tottenham, if the police shot dead the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, because he, er… “looked Asian” back in 2007, what would they do with 30,000 marauding thugs? Why, according to the British Government, evidently nothing, they would just stand back because “the people were deciding”.

So why the brouhaha about Tottenham? But wait a minute, the police did react, against unarmed civilians! And if one civilian death is the result of a two-day incident involving 300 people, then we can extrapolate the figure of 100 civilian deaths at least, in the early hours of a general uprising, more or less exactly the real figures now coming out of Benghazi, and among these were Gaddafi supporters. Interesting.

 Now let us imagine these “unarmed civilians” being attacked by the British police were actually heavily armed, had links to Al-Qaeda, were led by a convicted terrorist, were going around slashing people’s throats in the streets, were torching government property and ransacking public offices. Let us imagine someone placed a stash of Viagra tablets on the floor of a police station and another stash of condoms inside the cells of Scotland Yard HQ, and then some American Congresswoman could claim there was proof of mass rape by the British authorities.

 Then let someone call in the UN to bomb the crap out of Britain for five months because unarmed civilians were being attacked, to bomb the British armed forces fighting against this scourge so that the Islamist fanatics could gain ground, let us imagine the international media carried out an orchestrated campaign involving a blackout of the truth and the dissemination of lies, blaming the British authorities for atrocities it did not commit, blaming the RAF for sorties it did not fly…

Let us imagine the leaders of this UN clique of cowards, bombing British civilians from 30,000 feet for 5 (five) long months claimed that this was not about removing Cameron and Hague, then claimed that it would be better if they went, then claimed “They have to go”. Then the British people could decide whether they were allowed to remain in Britain but of course, exile in Burkina Faso would be more appropriate (perhaps not, I insult the good Burkinese people)…

 Let us imagine that the British Armed Forces put up a struggle and Cameron and Hague and The Queen appeared on State TV (whose antennae were bombed systematically), let us imagine that the equivalent of 20 million Britons took to the streets supporting their dearly beloved leaders (and only a handful of Islamist extremists were actually against them) and let us imagine their defiance was heralded by the British people who vowed to fight on the beaches and shores and cities and hills and villages and promised solemnly never to surrender…

 Let us imagine that in face of this defiance, the UN coalition of cowards started lashing out in frustration, calling for the destruction of civilian structures to break the will of the British people, and bombed the main water supplies, bombed hospitals, bombed centres for handicapped children, bombed children’s schools and in a wanton criminal act of first-degree murder, targeted the house of David Cameron, murdering his family in cold blood because they thought he was there. How would David Cameron feel?

 In fact, given the behaviour of God-fearing Christians in Libya, I tend to side with Allah and the good Moslems trying to celebrate Ramadan as cowardly Christian crusaders try to kill them, destroy their civilian structures and impose foreign values on their society with a top-down approach. I only hope and pray that the clique of nations involved in this outrage reap what they have sown, tenfold.

 By this, I mean that I hope that what they have wished and meted out to others comes back to them multiplied by ten. After all, they claim they are acting in goodwill. So…Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar!

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

Bahrain Hires US Company to Change Negative Image

Bahrain is seeking the help of a US-based public relations firm to change its image which was damaged after its brutal crackdown on peaceful anti-government protests in the country.

 The Manama government has hired Qorvis Communications in Washington DC for a monthly fee of $40,000 hoping the firm would improve the image of Al Khalifa’s monarchy, AllVoices.com reported. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia along with big companies like Adobe and Amazon.com are reportedly among the firm’s customers.

The Doctors Without Borders group was the first target of the firm. The group announced that its office in the Persian Gulf sheikhdom had been attacked by the Saudi-backed Bahraini forces and one of its employees had been arrested. The company slams the high profile humanitarian group in a statement for treating Bahrainis “without any license issued by the health ministry.”

 Tens of people were killed by Bahraini security forces during the crackdown on peaceful demonstrations and thousands have been arrested over charges of plotting against the monarchy. The brutality used by Saudi-backed Bahraini forces and the government’s infringement of human rights has severely been criticized by  Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

How 10,000 Protestors Multiply Overnight to be 500,000

The Hama Affair

By Pierre Piccinin

 

This July, I travelled to Syria, with the purpose of finding out for myself the origins of the present political conflict.

I was able to roam the country at liberty, from Dera, Damascus, Homs, Hama, Maraat-an-Numan, Jisr-al-Shigur, on the Turkish border, even Deir-ez-Sor, all places where the media had signalled outbursts of violence.

I was able to witness the different internal struggles, some of which were violent and had completely different objectives from those of the democratic pacifists. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, seeks to bring about an Islamic republic, which in turn terrifies the Christians and most other minorities.

Yet, outside the scope of my research, I was surprised that the image of Syria, portrayed by the Western media as a country undergoing full scale revolution, does not correspond in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation.

Indeed, the large-scale protest movements have run out of steam, this due in part to the repression, so that these days the protests only number a few hundred at most, usually focused around mosques, bearing the mark of Islamist influence.

Therefore, it is only in the city of Hama, cultural stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood, under a state of siege, that full scale protests are to be found.

Centre of a violent revolt, in 1982, which was crushed by Hafez al-Assad, father of the incumbent President, Hama is today surrounded by heavy armor. This said, the government have decided against a bloodbath, for fear of repercussions from the international community.

On Friday 15 July, I entered Hama. Very quickly I found myself surrounded by the youths in control. Upon presenting my Belgian passport the situation calmed down: ‘Belgicaa! Belgicaa!’; as the only foreign observer on the ground, they escorted me through the protestors. The highlight of which was reaching the top of a high rise, from which I took a series of snapshots, revealing the extent of the debacle.

On Asidi square, at the bottom of the large El-Alamein Avenue, prayer had finished, to the sound of thousands of people appearing from all across the city, uniting under a shout of defiance ‘Allah Akbar!’

That same night on July 15, I received news feeds from the AFP announcing a million protestors all over Syria, of which 500,000 in Hama alone.

In Hama however, they could not have been more than 10,000.

This ‘information’ was even more absurd due to the fact that the city of Hama counts only 370,000 inhabitants.

Of course, there will always be a margin of error and numbers do vary with sources, estimations are never quite so straightforward.

Yet, in this case, it was not a simple estimation: this is blatant disinformation, propaganda at its finest. 500,000 protestors can shake the very foundations of a regime, 10,000 however are of no consequence.

Furthermore, all the ‘information’ regarding the Syrian situation has been twisted similarly for months now.

So what sources does AgenceFrancePresse (AFP) cite?

The same which crops up systematically throughout the media and has now become a monopoly in its own right, regarding the Syrian protests: the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

Behind this superficial veneer of respectability and professionalism, hides a political organisation based in London, its president none other than Rami Abdel Raman, a man who has consistently sided against the Baath regime, who is loosely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Therefore, for many months now, the Western media have diffused an edited reality, corrected by a single source which nobody has deemed it necessary, it seems, to question.

This portrayal of a Syria in full scale revolution and of a Baath party on the brink do not correspond in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation; that the government hold control and what is left of the protests have in effect splintered and become considerably marginalized.

However, the consequences of this latest case of disinformation regarding Syria are far reaching: the lessons of Timisoara, the Gulf War or events in Yugoslavia haven’t been learned. Still, European media continue to be lured into basing reports on loosely assembled news reports and risk depicting a virtual reality for their readers/viewers.

Yet, when the media fail their duty of assembling genuine information, it is democracy itself which is in danger.

 

Pierre Piccinin is a professor of history and political science in Brussels.

 

 

Pakistani-Led Army Supports Bahrain’s Crackdown

Thousands of Pakistani soldiers will provide Bahrain with military backup to crackdown Bahrainis’ anti-government protests.

Many Pakistanis are reported to join Bahrain military forces since the uncommon advertisements of “urgent-requirement” started appearing in Pakistan media. The advertisement read:  “For service in Bahrain National Guard, the following categories of people with previous army and police experience are urgently needed,” a member of Bahrain National Guard said. At least 2,500 Pakistani troops came to Bahrain for helping Bahrain’s government, Al Jazeera reported.

 Saudi Arabian soldiers were the first foreign forces that moved to Bahrain and now Pakistani troops are supposed to aid crackdown protesters who seek equal rights after many years of tyranny. The Saudi Arabia- Pakistan common interest in the Middle East led Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Reza Gilani to support the Saudi stance in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. He told Prince Bandar that Pakistan would stand by Riyadh for regional peace, Shia Post reported.

Pakistan exports its servicemen to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain while the country itself suffers from insecurity and violence and it needs its own troops to settle down peace within their country. Many poor Pakistanis join the army just for a job without paying attention to what they are supposed to do. But definitely the Pakistani government knows what is going on and the silence is not justifiable.

Norway, the Newest Victim of Islamophobia

When the news about the terrorist attacks in Norway which left more than 92 people dead and many injured, shocked the world, the speculations about potential suspects also began to soar.

Not surprisingly, the majority of the western media’s initial report on the attacks linked it with Islamist extremism, suggesting an Islamist terrorist group might have been behind the violent incidents.

Colin Randall in The National writes that Le Figaro which is a conservative French newspaper reported that speculations on the identity of the culprits “turned logically” towards Islamist terrorists.

The BBC and Sky News followed the suit and continued with the Islamophobic commentaries, with their correspondents and experts telling the audience that the violent attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda operatives.  They explained to people that Norway was targeted because of it being a member of NATO and even that the Norwegian Jihadist had plans to attack New York and London subways through their international links!

Despite the emerging evidence that suggested the attacker was a blond Norwegian, the largest UK tabloid, the Sun did not give up  spreading Islamophobia by  a report on an “‘Al-Qaeda’ Massacre” in Norway, published on its front page. It said “the Norwegian ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator suggested that he was a local convert.”

The New York Times, another western outlet, attributed the bombing to a Jihadist group that never existed. Later the NY Times tried to cover up the lies they fed to the public earlier:

“Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible. In 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan.

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.”

This is how they justified spreading the false reports and speculations during the first hours after the attacks. At the end of this cover-up, NY Times quoted Brian Fishman who was introduced as a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington as drawing an irrelevant conclusion:

“One lesson I take away from this is that attacks, especially in the West, are going to move to automatic weapons,” Fishman is quoted.

Other mainstream media also either tried to justify their false interpretations or removed their previous posts!

But as the reality began to surface, the story the mainstream media were spreading was proved wrong. It was disclosed that the suspect was a 32 Norwegian man with far-right pro-Israel and anti-Muslim thoughts who, in his own words, wanted to save Europe from Islamization. That is why he pleaded not guilty despite admitting the responsibility for the terrorist attacks, saying what he did was necessary.

 Breivik was said to belong to a Swedish neo-Nazi internet forum. He reportedly was a supporter on the anti-Islam PVV movement of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. In his confessions after arrest, Breivik has claimed being linked to the English Defense League (EDL) which also has Islamophobic positions.

His anti-Muslim and anti-multiculturalism ideas and beliefs can easily be seen in the comments he made in a document titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. Here are some of his comments:

-For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies…(page 2-3)

-What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?

-Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.)…(page 7)

He then says in the book that he follows the Vienna School of Thoughts, which opposes multiculturalism and Islamization, and describes it:

“To sums up the Vienna school of thought:

-Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)

-Against Islamization

-Anti-racist

-Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)

-Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries

– Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity

– To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)

– Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists…”(page 20)

He adds in his manifesto that other cultural conservatives should be influenced so that they “come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line.” (Page 41)

Bruce Bawer, whose ideas had influenced Breivik, stated that the manifesto can be divided into two halves. In the first half Breivik “indicts the European cultural elite for permitting Islam to take root in Europe”, and in the second half he “outlines in extreme detail how he and his fellow anti-jihadists can acquire weapons, ammunition and body armor and thereupon proceed to use ‘terror as a method for waking up the masses’ to the danger posed by Islam.”

The recent rise of the far-right in Europe is one of the reasons behind Breivik’s horrible decision to kill his countrymen.

According to the CNBC.Com, “On February 4, 2011, several thousand supporters of the English Defense League (EDL), a far-right group which purports to oppose ‘Islamic Extremism in the UK’, gathered in the town of Luton, some 30 miles north of London…. the town reportedly played host to activists from Europe – including established groups from Denmark, France and Germany, and newer ones, from Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.”

In June 2010, Geert Wilders, a notorious anti-Islam campaigner in the Netherlands, won 24 seats in the Dutch parliament and in September the Swedish far-right party, the Sweden Democrats surprisingly gained 20 seats in parliament.

Same year in October, “German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a speech to a conference of junior Christian Democrats that the country’s ‘multikulti’, or multiculturalism, had ‘utterly failed'”.

France also implemented anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies by deporting Roma population from the country and by banning women from wearing full-face veils in public places.

It can be concluded to a great extent, that the increase in Islamophobic and anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration rhetoric used in the mainstream media has paved the way for violent actions to erupt. It gives confidence to people with ideas like Breivik’s and makes them believe that using violence would be justified to prevent the society from what they consider as going the wrong way.

David Lea, European analyst at political risk consultancy Control Risks also believes that the extremist policies taken by European governments to an extent create the political atmosphere in which people like Breivik can operate.”I think it shifts the center of the political discourse in a country sufficiently to create the room for outliers, who can then attract support on the basis of what they write on the internet,” he to the CNBC.

Any time a terrorist activity is reported from a European state, finger of suspicion are first directed towards the Muslim population in the country; this is a result of Islamophobia and also a cause of it and it breeds nothing but resentment, violence, fear, and suspicion.

Europeans will hopefully see less of cases like Breivik’s if their governments understand that implementing extremist laws and spreading extremist ideas that target a group of the society only gives way to violence.

The Norway massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism

By Alex Kane

Details on the culprit behind yesterday’s massacre in Norway, which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of at least 91 people, have begun to emerge.  While it is still too early for a complete portrait of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, there are enough details to begin to piece together what’s behind the attack.

Although initial media reports, spurred on by the tweets of former State Department adviser on violent extremism Will McCants, linked the attacks to Islamist extremists, it was in fact an anti-Muslim zealot who committed the murders.  An examination of Breivik’s views, and his support for far-right European political movements, makes it clear that only by interrogating the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism can one understand the political beliefs behind the terrorist attack.

Breivik is apparently an avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel.  Breivik’s political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site document.no, which author and journalist Doug Sanders put up.

Here’s a sampling of some of Breivik’s comments:

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called “moderate Muslims”.

There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?

Now it unfortunately already cut himself with Marxists who have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work asprofessors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.

For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies…(page 2-3)

What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?

And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70’s. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?

Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.)…(page 7)

We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments based on anti-racism. This has proven to be very successful which explains why the modern cultural conservative movement / parties that use the Vienna School of Thought is so successful: the Progress Party,Geert Wilders, document and many others…(page 13)

I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna school of thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.

The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).

To sums up the Vienna school of thought:

-Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)

-Against Islamization

-Anti-racist

-Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)

-Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries

– Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity

– To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)

– Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists…(page 20)

Daniel Pipes: Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists Have Been praying for.

The following summarizes the agenda of many kulturmarxister with Islam, it explains also why those on death and life protecting them. It explains so well why we, the cultural conservatives,are against Islamization and the implementation of these agendas… (page 27)

We must therefore make sure to influence other cultural conservatives to come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line. When they reach this line, one can take it to the next level…(page 41)

Breivik’s right-wing pro-Israel line, combined with his antipathy to Muslims, is just one example of the European far-right’s ideology, exemplified by groups such as the English Defense League (EDL).  The EDL, a group Breivik praises, along with the anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, share with Breivik an admiration for Israel.

Anti-Muslim activists and right-wing Zionists share a political narrative that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a “clash of civilizations,” one in which Judeo-Christian culture is under attack by Islam.  Israel, in this narrative, is the West’s bulwark against the threat that Islam is posing to Europe and the United States.  The nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism was clearly on display during last summer’s “Ground Zero mosque” hysteria, which culminated in a rally where Geller and Wilders addressed a crowd that included members of the EDL waving Israeli flags.  

This comment by Breivik is one example of the twisted way in which Islamophobia and a militant pro-Israel ideology fit together:

Cultural conservatives disagree when they believe the conflict is based on Islamic imperialism,that Islam is a political ideology and not a race.

Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect themselves against the Jihad.

Kulturmarxistene refuses to recognize the fact that Islam’s political doctrine is relevant and essential. They can never admit to or support this because they believe that this is primarily about a race war – that Israel hates Arabs (breed).

As long as you can not agree on the fundamental perceptions of reality are too naive to expect that one to come to any conclusion.Before one at all can begin to discuss this conflict must first agree on the fundamental truths of Islam’s political doctrine.

Most people here have great insight in key Muslim concepts that al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxister refuses to recognizet hese concepts.They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so erodes the primary argument that Israel is a “racist state” and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah)

Breivik’s admiration for the likes of Daniel Pipes is also telling, and should serve as a warning that, while it would be extremely unfair and wrong to link Pipes in any way to the massacre in Norway, Breivik’s views are not so far off from some establishment neoconservative voices in the U.S.  For instance, both Pipes and Breivik share a concern with Muslim demographics in Europe.  In 1990, Pipes wrote in the National Review that “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Pipes was appointed by the Bush administration to the U.S. Institute of Peace, and sits on the same board than none other than the Obama administration’s point man on the Middle East, Dennis Ross.

Pipes’ and Breivik’s concern about Muslim and Arab demographics also recall the remarks of Harvard Fellow Martin Kramer, who infamously told the Herzliya Conference in Israel last year that the West should “stop providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status…Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have.”

Adding to the Israel/Palestine angle here is the fact that the day before the attack on the island of Utoya, a Palestine solidarity event was held there.

Why Breivik, and his accomplices if he had any, would attack young Norwegians remains unclear.  But it probably had something to do with Breivik’s belief that European governments, and the Norwegian government, were run by “Marxists” allied with Islamist extremists who were bent on destroying Europe through “multiculturalism.”

Of course, support for Israel and its current right-wing policies do not automatically translate into support for extremist right-wing violence.  But Palestinians, and the larger Arab and Muslim world, know far too well the consequences of Islamophobia and far right-wing Zionism.  Now, it seems that Norwegians do too.  While much remains to be learned about the attacks in Norway, it has exposed the dangerous nexus of Islamophobia, neoconservatism and right-wing Zionism, and what could happen when the wrong person subscribes to those toxic beliefs.