Asghar Bukhari: The Beginning Of The End: Why The West Can Never Win
As the Western media marches the public into another war, in lock-step with the rhetoric of the political classes. This article will help you cut through the propaganda and understand the real reasons for war.
Even if you believe in going to war with ISIS, go with your eyes wide open.
The first reason the public are told, we need to go to war, is that this violent group is so barbaric, so utterly wicked, that we as Westerners have a moral duty to stop them — really?
If we look at the facts, we can see ISIS is no more barbaric than the dictators, the Western elites have backed, in their 100 year domination of the region.
In relatively recent history in the very region ISIS now threatens, in the 1953 coup of Mordad.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was installed as a monarch by Mi6 and the CIA. He immediately went about systematically killing and torturing anyone who opposed him.
When he was overthrown by a popular revolution, the West pushed Saddam Hussain to start a war with Iran, resulting in a million Muslims being killed.
Finding Saddam surplus to requirements, they tried to overthrow him. Using sanctions they starved and denied medical provisions to the Iraqi people. The UN reported that one and a half million children were malnourished, eventually half a million of those children would die.
As the award winning investigative journalist John Pilger noted:
“ It was like a medieval siege. Almost everything that sustained a modern state was, in the jargon, “blocked” — from chlorine for making the water supply safe to school pencils, parts for X-ray machines, common painkillers and drugs to combat cancer.
The British Government restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever. The Blair government, explained why. “The children’s vaccines”, they said, “were capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction”.
Under a bogus “humanitarian” Oil for Food Programme, $100 was allotted for each Iraqi to live on for a year. This figure had to pay for the entire society’s infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water. The majority of sick people could not even afford treatment. And make no mistake, this was deliberate. Von Sponeck the UN Coordinator said “I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable.”
Disgusted, Von Sponeck resigned as UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq. His predecessor, Denis Halliday, an equally distinguished senior UN official, had also resigned.”
“I was instructed,” Halliday said, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.”
When that failed to dislodge Saddam, they bombed Iraq back to the stone age. Starting a war that cost another million Muslim lives.
Hell On Earth
We created hell; murdered millions, brutalised the regions inhabitants and then blamed the people that emerged from its ashes for not acting like poets and philosophers.
Across the region we installed brutal dictator, after brutal dictator. None of them more sane or humane than ISIS! And Muslims kept finding that these men were always kept in place through violence.
ISIS then is everything to do with our policies — right down to its brutality. Try as we might to deny it. It is a brutal, violent, reaction to a brutal, violent, order. An order we keep in place.
The shocking fact is, that only weeks before they decided to bomb ISIS, both America and the UK confirmed their support for Israel and its right to defend itself from the people they were occupying. Even as it massacred 2,100 Palestinians civilians, 501 of them were children. In the end, over 11,000 men, women and children were wounded and 520,000 refugees were created as they tried to escape the vicious bombing of Gaza’s 1.8 million people, entrapped in an open-air prison with no escape.
ISIS in their wildest dreams could not compete with Israel’s arsenal of death, paid for by the American tax payer.
This moral case for war, was in fact nothing short of propaganda. Mark Curtis highlights in his book, Web of Deceit, how the British MoD had realised that public support for humanitarian wars — could help sell one.
The second argument is: If we do not attack them there, they will attack us here.
In fact the reverse is true. All terrorist attacks that have occurred against Western targets, have occurred, according to the terrorists themselves, because of Western foreign policy. Bin laden even laid out his reasons for fighting the West and every single point was linked to foreign policy. You can read more about this in the brilliant book ‘Imperial Hubris’ written by the CIA head of the Bin Laden Unit — Michael Scheuer.
If you really want to understand Muslim terrorism — read this book. He is one of the few non-Muslim white men who truly understand what is going on and has the courage to tell the truth despite attacks against him.
As the head of Al-Qaeeda stated clearly:
“This is about our security, contrary to Bush’s claim that we attack them for hating freedom. If we hated freedom, let him explain to us, why we don’t strike Sweden.” - Bin Laden Oct 2004
So if it is not about stopping terrorism, then why are they waging the a war against ISIS?
It is far less altruistic and far more obvious than the reasons they give to their corporate-media-duped public — but you have to go back into history to understand it.
The Rise Of A Muslim Empire
For 100 years Western Elites have tried to keep the Muslim world from forming into a rising and possible rival power again.
They never forgot the conquest of Spain and their humiliating defeats, at the hands of a united Muslim Empire. So after the first world war, they decided as the British Prime Minister Lloyd George famously said ‘to make Islam innocuous’.
So when they had a chance to recreate the Muslim world, they created a structure in the Middle East that was inherently flawed. With inbuilt tensions amongst the communities and so constantly on the verge of fragmenting.
They manufactured lines in the sand, that cut through ancient communities. Sects were pitched against each other. All this was done to ensure the new nations, would always be internally fragmented and destabilised. The only way to keep them together was through repression. Hence the reason why they needed a dictator or a strongman. These strongmen of course were always dependant on the West to maintain the balance of power.
Both had a vested interest in keeping the prevailing order, for any re-awakening would not only depose the Western backed leaders, it would challenge the order itself.
It was not just land, the strongmen and their Western backers needed to erase any sense of a common Muslim political identity — a pan-Islamic Muslim identity. By changing the people's understanding of their past historical identity and implanting racial and nationalistic identities in its place — they fragmented the one unifier — Islam. Without a unifying identity — the Muslim world would never have a common struggle again. It could never unite. The order could be maintained in the long run, as long as this worked.
The other major benefit of course, was it allowed them to steal its wealth — primarily oil.
However, the Iraq blunder meant this 100 year old game, was finally falling apart. From the Western strategists point of view, Tony Blair's real mistake and the real reason why they hate him, was that he had weakened the very order he was supposed to uphold.
Other analysts like Jonathan Cook in his excellent book ‘Israel and the Clash of Civilisations’ argued that Western Elites, along with Israel, did this on purpose. They had been planning to implement an even more radical carve up of the Middle East, a ‘Sykes-Picot’ version 2.
The book explains that they intended to carve up the current Middle Eastern nations into even smaller - weaker states (note the fragmentation of Libya and Iraq, after Western intervention).
Either way, by taking out the strongman in the region — the tensions built over a century — exploded.
But the growing momentum of groups taking to Jihad was threatening this.
The US found themselves facing forces, that were stronger than their puppet states and ones who would not play by the rules — their rules!
Western policy makers had two options.
The first was to stay out of the region and see the plan it had worked on, for over a century, fall apart. Leading to the embryonic rise of a Muslim Empire and the demise of cheap oil — The second was to go to war.
It was simple mathematics, a no brainer — that’s why we are going to war. It is as simple as that. Everything else, dear reader — is propaganda.
Why the West Cannot Beat ISIS/L
So why do I say the most powerful military powers in the World cannot beat a small group of armed zealots in the form of ISIS/L?
Simply this — they are not fighting ISIS/L. They are just another extreme manifestation of the root problem. They are fighting the IDEA that has grown in the minds of millions of Muslims. That idea is simple:
That the current western order is unjust and that peaceful ways of changing that order have been crushed, leaving only one option — to take up arms. Muslims had decided to revolt.
The West had one small window to stop this — the ‘Arab Spring’ in reality a Muslim revolution. Instead they undermined it. Leaving no option for many young men but take up armed struggle. It was a catastrophic mistake. It was only a matter of time that armed revolution would spread (war propagandists call this ‘Jihadist ideology’) — because they don’t want the public to understand it.
We now have two options open to us — leave the region alone and allow Muslims to make a destiny that is not dictated by the Western powers — or war
Yes it is true that if they leave the region, armed groups will rule for a while, some of them backward and barbaric - but overtime these would be replaced by state builders and mature into real civilisations. All revolutions are bloody, but eventually, all new states mature — even the Mongol’s changed over time.
There is, if we are honest — only one way to stop a violent reaction. Change the factors that have caused that reaction.
All talk of ‘jihadists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘extremists’, ‘Islamists’, ‘hate preachers’ or any other politically manufactured ‘unspeak’ is the war propagandists way of making sure you never understand this simple, concrete, insoluble — fact:
They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we deny theirs.
“How is it right for you to occupy our countries and kill our women and children and expect to live in peace and security? … the equation is clear: you are killed as you kill us and are kidnapped as you kidnap us…”
Bin Laden Oct 2010
I leave you with a man who says it so much better than I can — Ron Paul