There's a must read piece by Professor Peter Dale Scott over at Global Research:
The pattern of U.S. collaboration with Muslim fundamentalists against more secular enemies is not new. It dates back to at least 1953, when the CIA recruited right-wing mullahs to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in Iran, and also began to cooperate with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. But in Libya in 2011 we see a more complex marriage of convenience between US and al-Qaeda elements: one which repeats a pattern seen in Bosnia in 1992-95, and Kosovo in 1997-98. In those countries America responded to a local conflict in the name of a humanitarian intervention to restrain the side committing atrocities. But in all three cases both sides committed atrocities, and American intervention in fact favored the side allied with al-Qaeda.
The cause of intervention was fostered in all three cases by blatant manipulation and falsification of the facts.
You can read the whole piece here.
While over at antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo writes:
As in the Balkans, where US-trained and-funded “Kosovo Liberation Army” guerrillas fought alongside al-Qaeda’s legions and NATO forces, so the same alliance is fighting to “liberate” Libya.
As I’ve said before on numerous occasions, one of the biggest myths in international affairs is that the US and its western allies are implacably opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. They aren’t. The corporate/financial elite and lobby groups who determine our foreign policy will work alongside any group of extremists to achieve their goals when they feel that it's in their interest to do so.
7 comments:
Lizzie Phelan and Sukant Chandan are reporting for Press TV from Libya right now:
http://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/libya-photo-diary/
Many Americans are genuinely bewildered that Muslims have such negative opinions of America after America came to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait.
Many Americans said or thought something to the effect of "Saddam Hussein was the greatest killer of Muslims in a very long time, launching war against both Iran and Kuwait. Muslims should be happy we removed him from power." These Americans made the mistake of thinking that Muslims share their values, which they don't.
I'm still bewildered as to why the US is supporting the rebels in Libya, but I'm just not used to seeing the words "US-Al Qaeda Alliance" in a sentence together.
The neo-cons no 1 enemy is Europe: with its roots in Apostolic Christianity, Hellenism, the Roman Republic, the Enlightenment and the Renaissance it has an identity which shows up the shallowness of the blend of military authoritarianism and plutocracy that marks the US Empire. I would say a ‘humanist’ identity had that word not been misappropriated by atheist fanatics.
The Russian film director Nikita Mikhailkov pointed out that the Russian Orthodox Church was his country’s major bulwark against Macdonalds, which (I am not exaggerating) must seem like blasphemy to the neo-liberal fanatics.
No wonder then that they joined forces with the Saudis to support the Chechen ‘rebels’ who are so gifted at massacring school kids.
No wonder they hate Pat Buchanan who wrote ‘Orthodox Russia should be our ally’.
No wonder indeed, that they pointedly didn’t attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11.
No wonder that they bombed Serbia not because Serbs admittedly committed some atrocities, but because they wanted to create a Christian Social democracy.
Sure, the neo-cons have differences with the Islamists, but they both share a greatly reductive notion of human nature, complete vulgarity and a hatred of Europe.
Sadly, many leading Western European politicians are borderline neo-cons, though I suspect the people in general are increasingly at odds with their elected representatives.
Douglas :
"...I'm just not used to seeing the words "US-Al Qaeda Alliance" in a sentence together."
That's the Naked Lunch, mate: " the moment when everyone sees what's on the end of every fork".
Nice article, thanks for the information.
Nato denies civilians killed in Libya strike
ZLITAN, LIBYA – Libyan officials said yesterday dozens of civilians had been killed in a Nato strike on a cluster of farmhouses east of Tripoli, but the alliance said it hit a legitimate military target.
etc
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0810/1224302181564.html
NATO denies killing civilians…BUT how do they know? Did they send a team to investigate..what would be the reception in tripoli iof one NATO member turned up on thr streets to check out their slaughter? So we know NATO is lying.
Juan Cole ends his career by copulating with a devil!:
I don't know exactly when Juan Cole morphed into Paul Wolfowitz.
"Professor Cole “answers” WSWS on Libya: An admission of intellectual and political bankruptcy": "This is the kind of response one would expect from someone who is drunk."
Cockburn: "This is one of the greatest humiliations of NATO in its history (also, to be petty, a terrific smack in the eye for the analytic and political acumen of a prime propagandist in progressive circles for the rebels, Prof. Juan Cole, whose blogs on Libya have been getting steadily more demented.)"
Cole: "The UN allies won’t allow Qaddafi to take the east and massacre and imprison thousands, however much Alexander Cockburn, the Tea Party, and the World Socialist Web site would like to see that happen, or at least they object to practical steps to prevent it."
Meanwhile, NATO continues to slaughter completely innocent civilians (it is so bad that even Ban Ki-Moon is 'deeply concerned)', making Gaddafi extremely popular, and Cole will never get his reputation back. Never.
I think the funniest of Cole's postings is his attempt to downplay and rationalize the murder by the rebels of their chief military leader.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2011/08/uninformed.html
What ever happened to Juan Cole? How did he sink to being a foot soldier for NATO?
Post a Comment