People see the carnage in Paris, and cry, “When will this end?” The hard answer is that it is not going to end, not any time soon. We are living through the horrific consequences of decisions and actions taken long ago, as well as those of being taken right now. The currents and movements set in motion by these actions cannot be quelled in an instant — not by wishing, not by hashtags of solidarity or light shows on iconic buildings … and certainly not by more bombing, destruction, repression and lies, which are the main drivers of our present-day hell.
There will be no end to rampant terrorism soon because our leaders are not really interested in quelling terrorism. This is simply not a priority for them. For example, in the past 12 years they have utterly destroyed three largely secular governments (Iraq, Libya and Syria) and turned them into vast spawning grounds for violent sectarianism. They did this despite reports from their own intelligence services and military analysts telling them that the spread of violent extremism would almost certainly be the outcome of their interventions. But for our leaders — both the elected ones and the elites they serve — their geopolitical and macroeconomic agendas outweighed any concerns over these consequences. Put simply, to them, the game was worth the candle. They would press ahead with their agenda, knowing that it would exacerbate extremism and terrorism, but doubtless hoping that these consequences could be contained — or better yet, confined to nations seen as rivals to that agenda, or to remote places and peoples of no worth to our great and good.
Our leaders are not opposed to terrorism, neither as a concept nor as a practical tool. Over the past several decades, our leaders and their allies and puppets around the world have at times openly supported terrorist violence when it suited their aims. The prime example is in Afghanistan, where Jimmy Carter and his Saudi allies began arming and funding violent jihadis BEFORE the Soviet incursion there. In fact, as Carter’s own foreign policy guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has openly stated, the United States began supporting Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan precisely in order to draw the Soviet Union into the country. Despite fierce internal opposition in the Kremlin, the Soviets finally took the bait, and sent in troops to save the secular government it was backing from the fundamentalist rebellion.
Ronald Reagan continued and expanded this policy. The same type of men now in charge of ISIS and al Qaeda were welcomed to the Oval Office and praised by Reagan as “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.” They were given arms, money and training in terrorist tactics by our military and intelligence services. They were given textbooks — prepared, financed and distributed by the US government — to indoctrinate schoolchildren in violent jihad. The creation of this worldwide network of Islamic extremists was aimed at weakening the Soviet Union. This was the overriding geopolitical concern of the time. Any other consequences that might flow from this policy — creating a global infrastructure of sectarian extremism, seeding a radical minority with arms, funds and innumerable contacts and connections with state were considered unimportant. But we are now living with those consequences.
These are not the only examples of course. For instance, the United States supported — and went to war for — the KLA in Kosovo, a group that it had earlier condemned as terrorists for years. The cultish terror group MEK —which not only carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Iran but also murdered American government officials — is now honored and supported by top politicians from both parties in Washington. The United States now calls al Qaeda associates in Syria “moderate rebels” and provides arms to their allies. The United States is deeply involved in Saudi Arabia’s horrific attack on Yemen against the Houthis, who had been bottling up al Qaeda in the country. Now, thanks to US bombs and guidance — and participation in a blockade of Yemen that is driving the country to starvation — al Qaeda is thriving there again. The violent extremists that the West knowingly and openly helped in NATO’s destruction of Libya are now exporting weapons and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.
Again, in almost all of these cases, Western leaders were specifically warned by their own experts that their actions would exacerbate extremism and violence. And again, with this knowledge, they decided that their geopolitical agendas were more important than these consequences. This agenda — maintaining and expanding their political and economic dominance, and preserving the power and privileges that a militarist empire gives to those at the top — was more important than the security and welfare of their own people.
In this, they are as one with the leaders of ISIS and al Qaeda. They too know that the chief victims of their actions will not be the elites of the West but the ordinary Muslims going about their lives in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and elsewhere. But their own similar agenda — power, privilege, domination — outweighs any concerns for innocent human lives.
This is the abysmal, despairing tragedy of our times. Our lives, and the lives of our children and descendants, do not really matter to our leaders; certainly not more than the agendas they pursue. And so despite the horrors we’ve seen in the past few weeks — and yes, the bombing of the Russian airliner, the mass murders in Beirut and Baghdad are every bit as horrific and grievous as the attack on Paris — nothing is likely to change. Our leaders are not even beginning to take the steps necessary to even begin addressing the consequences of their morally demented agenda and at last begin the long process of reversing the current of violence and extremism that assails us. Instead, at every turn, they are adding to the flow of death and madness, despite the stark, undeniable evidence of the consequences of their actions.
They say they are at war with terrorism. It’s a lie. They use terrorism and terrorists when it suits their agenda. They say they are “at war” with ISIS, an enemy which they tell us represents an existential threat to human civilization, and whose destruction is now our “highest priority.” It’s a lie. In a real war against such a threat, you would make common cause against the common enemy, even if you find your allies distasteful. Thus the mutually loathing capitalists of the West and communists of the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) made common cause against Nazi Germany.
If we were really “at war” with ISIS, if its military defeat really was an overriding concern, then the West would form a military coalition with Iran, Russia, Turkey, the Syrian government and others to carry out this goal. It is obvious that for the West, the overthrow of the Assad government is far more important than defeating ISIS or bringing the conflict in Syria to an end by diplomatic means.
Instead, our leaders give every indication that they will continue the policies that have brought us to this dark and evil place. With the near-total ignorance and amnesia of our media class, there is little hope that public opinion can be mobilized to insist on a new course. And so, at some point soon, we will see more iconic buildings bathed in the colors of a Western nation (but never one from the Middle East, whose peoples suffer more, by several orders of magnitude, from the decades of extremism fostered by the West). And this will go on, year after year, until we decide that human life, human dignity, human freedom are more important than our leaders’ agendas of greed and domination.
People see the carnage in Paris, and cry, “When will this end?” The hard answer is that it is not going to end, not any time soon. We are living through the horrific consequences of decisions and actions taken long ago, as well as those of being taken right now. The currents and movements set in motion by these actions cannot be quelled in an instant — not by wishing, not by hashtags of solidarity or light shows on iconic buildings … and certainly not by more bombing, destruction, repression and lies, which are the main drivers of our present-day hell.
There will be no end to rampant terrorism soon because our leaders are not really interested in quelling terrorism. This is simply not a priority for them. For example, in the past 12 years they have utterly destroyed three largely secular governments (Iraq, Libya and Syria) and turned them into vast spawning grounds for violent sectarianism. They did this despite reports from their own intelligence services and military analysts telling them that the spread of violent extremism would almost certainly be the outcome of their interventions. But for our leaders — both the elected ones and the elites they serve — their geopolitical and macroeconomic agendas outweighed any concerns over these consequences. Put simply, to them, the game was worth the candle. They would press ahead with their agenda, knowing that it would exacerbate extremism and terrorism, but doubtless hoping that these consequences could be contained — or better yet, confined to nations seen as rivals to that agenda, or to remote places and peoples of no worth to our great and good.
Our leaders are not opposed to terrorism, neither as a concept nor as a practical tool. Over the past several decades, our leaders and their allies and puppets around the world have at times openly supported terrorist violence when it suited their aims. The prime example is in Afghanistan, where Jimmy Carter and his Saudi allies began arming and funding violent jihadis BEFORE the Soviet incursion there. In fact, as Carter’s own foreign policy guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has openly stated, the United States began supporting Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan precisely in order to draw the Soviet Union into the country. Despite fierce internal opposition in the Kremlin, the Soviets finally took the bait, and sent in troops to save the secular government it was backing from the fundamentalist rebellion.
Ronald Reagan continued and expanded this policy. The same type of men now in charge of ISIS and al Qaeda were welcomed to the Oval Office and praised by Reagan as “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.” They were given arms, money and training in terrorist tactics by our military and intelligence services. They were given textbooks — prepared, financed and distributed by the US government — to indoctrinate schoolchildren in violent jihad. The creation of this worldwide network of Islamic extremists was aimed at weakening the Soviet Union. This was the overriding geopolitical concern of the time. Any other consequences that might flow from this policy — creating a global infrastructure of sectarian extremism, seeding a radical minority with arms, funds and innumerable contacts and connections with state were considered unimportant. But we are now living with those consequences.
These are not the only examples of course. For instance, the United States supported — and went to war for — the KLA in Kosovo, a group that it had earlier condemned as terrorists for years. The cultish terror group MEK —which not only carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Iran but also murdered American government officials — is now honored and supported by top politicians from both parties in Washington. The United States now calls al Qaeda associates in Syria “moderate rebels” and provides arms to their allies. The United States is deeply involved in Saudi Arabia’s horrific attack on Yemen against the Houthis, who had been bottling up al Qaeda in the country. Now, thanks to US bombs and guidance — and participation in a blockade of Yemen that is driving the country to starvation — al Qaeda is thriving there again. The violent extremists that the West knowingly and openly helped in NATO’s destruction of Libya are now exporting weapons and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.
Again, in almost all of these cases, Western leaders were specifically warned by their own experts that their actions would exacerbate extremism and violence. And again, with this knowledge, they decided that their geopolitical agendas were more important than these consequences. This agenda — maintaining and expanding their political and economic dominance, and preserving the power and privileges that a militarist empire gives to those at the top — was more important than the security and welfare of their own people.
In this, they are as one with the leaders of ISIS and al Qaeda. They too know that the chief victims of their actions will not be the elites of the West but the ordinary Muslims going about their lives in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and elsewhere. But their own similar agenda — power, privilege, domination — outweighs any concerns for innocent human lives.
This is the abysmal, despairing tragedy of our times. Our lives, and the lives of our children and descendants, do not really matter to our leaders; certainly not more than the agendas they pursue. And so despite the horrors we’ve seen in the past few weeks — and yes, the bombing of the Russian airliner, the mass murders in Beirut and Baghdad are every bit as horrific and grievous as the attack on Paris — nothing is likely to change. Our leaders are not even beginning to take the steps necessary to even begin addressing the consequences of their morally demented agenda and at last begin the long process of reversing the current of violence and extremism that assails us. Instead, at every turn, they are adding to the flow of death and madness, despite the stark, undeniable evidence of the consequences of their actions.
They say they are at war with terrorism. It’s a lie. They use terrorism and terrorists when it suits their agenda. They say they are “at war” with ISIS, an enemy which they tell us represents an existential threat to human civilization, and whose destruction is now our “highest priority.” It’s a lie. In a real war against such a threat, you would make common cause against the common enemy, even if you find your allies distasteful. Thus the mutually loathing capitalists of the West and communists of the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) made common cause against Nazi Germany.
If we were really “at war” with ISIS, if its military defeat really was an overriding concern, then the West would form a military coalition with Iran, Russia, Turkey, the Syrian government and others to carry out this goal. It is obvious that for the West, the overthrow of the Assad government is far more important than defeating ISIS or bringing the conflict in Syria to an end by diplomatic means.
Instead, our leaders give every indication that they will continue the policies that have brought us to this dark and evil place. With the near-total ignorance and amnesia of our media class, there is little hope that public opinion can be mobilized to insist on a new course. And so, at some point soon, we will see more iconic buildings bathed in the colors of a Western nation (but never one from the Middle East, whose peoples suffer more, by several orders of magnitude, from the decades of extremism fostered by the West). And this will go on, year after year, until we decide that human life, human dignity, human freedom are more important than our leaders’ agendas of greed and domination.
14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization
By: Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN
Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 3:41 pm.
Africa-France-relationship. Did you know many African countries continue to pay colonial tax to France since their independence till today!
When Sékou Touré of Guinea decided in 1958 to get out of french colonial empire, and opted for the country independence, the french colonial elite in Paris got so furious, and in a historic act of fury the french administration in Guinea destroyed everything in the country which represented what they called the benefits from french colonization.
Three thousand French left the country, taking all their property and destroying anything that which could not be moved: schools, nurseries, public administration buildings were crumbled; cars, books, medicine, research institute instruments, tractors were crushed and sabotaged; horses, cows in the farms were killed, and food in warehouses were burned or poisoned.
The purpose of this outrageous act was to send a clear message to all other colonies that the consequences for rejecting France would be very high.
Slowly fear spread trough the african elite, and none after the Guinea events ever found the courage to follow the example of Sékou Touré, whose slogan was “We prefer freedom in poverty to opulence in slavery.”
Sylvanus Olympio, the first president of the Republic of Togo, a tiny country in west Africa, found a middle ground solution with the French.
He didn’t want his country to continue to be a french dominion, therefore he refused to sign the colonisation continuation pact De Gaule proposed, but agree to pay an annual debt to France for the so called benefits Togo got from french colonization.
It was the only conditions for the French not to destroy the country before leaving. However, the amount estimated by France was so big that the reimbursement of the so called “colonial debt” was close to 40% of the country budget in 1963.
The financial situation of the newly independent Togo was very unstable, so in order to get out the situation, Olympio decided to get out the french colonial money FCFA (the franc for french african colonies), and issue the country own currency.
On January 13, 1963, three days after he started printing his country own currency, a squad of illiterate soldiers backed by France killed the first elected president of newly independent Africa. Olympio was killed by an ex French Foreign Legionnaire army sergeant called Etienne Gnassingbe who supposedly received a bounty of $612 from the local French embassy for the hit man job.
Olympio’s dream was to build an independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant country. But the French didn’t like the idea.
On June 30, 1962, Modiba Keita , the first president of the Republic of Mali, decided to withdraw from the french colonial currency FCFA which was imposed on 12 newly independent African countries. For the Malian president, who was leaning more to a socialist economy, it was clear that colonisation continuation pact with France was a trap, a burden for the country development.
On November 19, 1968, like, Olympio, Keita will be the victim of a coup carried out by another ex French Foreign legionnaire, the Lieutenant Moussa Traoré.
In fact during that turbulent period of African fighting to liberate themselves from European colonization, France would repeatedly use many ex Foreign legionnaires to carry out coups against elected presidents:
– On January 1st, 1966, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, an ex french foreign legionnaire, carried a coup against David Dacko, the first President of the Central African Republic.
– On January 3, 1966, Maurice Yaméogo, the first President of the Republic of Upper Volta, now called Burkina Faso, was victim of a coup carried by Aboubacar Sangoulé Lamizana, an ex French legionnaire who fought with french troops in Indonesia and Algeria against these countries independence.
– on 26 October 1972, Mathieu Kérékou who was a security guard to President Hubert Maga, the first President of the Republic of Benin, carried a coup against the president, after he attended French military schools from 1968 to 1970.
In fact, during the last 50 years, a total of 67 coups happened in 26 countries in Africa, 16 of those countries are french ex-colonies, which means 61% of the coups happened in Francophone Africa.
Number of Coups in Africa by country
Ex French colonies Other African countries
Country Number of coup Country number of coup
Togo 1 Egypte 1
Tunisia 1 Libye 1
Cote d’Ivoire 1 Equatorial Guinea 1
Madagascar 1 Guinea Bissau 2
Rwanda 1 Liberia 2
Algeria 2 Nigeria 3
Congo – RDC 2 Ethiopia 3
Mali 2 Ouganda 4
Guinea Conakry 2 Soudan 5
SUB-TOTAL 1 13
Congo 3
Tchad 3
Burundi 4
Central Africa 4
Niger 4
Mauritania 4
Burkina Faso 5
Comores 5
SUB-TOTAL 2 32
TOTAL (1 + 2) 45 TOTAL 22
As these numbers demonstrate, France is quite desperate but active to keep a strong hold on his colonies what ever the cost, no matter what.
In March 2008, former French President Jacques Chirac said:
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power”
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that:
“Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”
At this very moment I’m writing this article, 14 african countries are obliged by France, trough a colonial pact, to put 85% of their foreign reserve into France central bank under French minister of Finance control. Until now, 2014, Togo and about 13 other african countries still have to pay colonial debt to France. African leaders who refuse are killed or victim of coup. Those who obey are supported and rewarded by France with lavish lifestyle while their people endure extreme poverty, and desperation.
It’s such an evil system even denounced by the European Union, but France is not ready to move from that colonial system which puts about 500 billions dollars from Africa to its treasury year in year out.
We often accuse African leaders of corruption and serving western nations interests instead, but there is a clear explanation for that behavior. They behave so because they are afraid the be killed or victim of a coup. They want a powerful nation to back them in case of aggression or trouble. But, contrary to a friendly nation protection, the western protection is often offered in exchange of these leaders renouncing to serve their own people or nations’ interests.
African leaders would work in the interest of their people if they were not constantly stalked and bullied by colonial countries.
In 1958, scared about the consequence of choosing independence from France, Leopold Sédar Senghor declared: “The choice of the Senegalese people is independence; they want it to take place only in friendship with France, not in dispute.”
From then on France accepted only an “independence on paper” for his colonies, but signed binding “Cooperation Accords”, detailing the nature of their relations with France, in particular ties to France colonial currency (the Franc), France educational system, military and commercial preferences.
Below are the 11 main components of the Colonisation continuation pact since 1950s:
#1. Colonial Debt for the benefits of France colonization
The newly “independent” countries should pay for the infrastructure built by France in the country during colonization.
I still have to find out the complete details about the amounts, the evaluation of the colonial benefits and the terms of payment imposed on the african countries, but we are working on that (help us with info).
#2. Automatic confiscation of national reserves
The African countries should deposit their national monetary reserves into France Central bank.
France has been holding the national reserves of fourteen african countries since 1961: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.
“The monetary policy governing such a diverse aggregation of countries is uncomplicated because it is, in fact, operated by the French Treasury, without reference to the central fiscal authorities of any of the WAEMU or the CEMAC. Under the terms of the agreement which set up these banks and the CFA the Central Bank of each African country is obliged to keep at least 65% of its foreign exchange reserves in an “operations account” held at the French Treasury, as well as another 20% to cover financial liabilities.
The CFA central banks also impose a cap on credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20% of that country’s public revenue in the preceding year. Even though the BEAC and the BCEAO have an overdraft facility with the French Treasury, the drawdowns on those overdraft facilities are subject to the consent of the French Treasury. The final say is that of the French Treasury which has invested the foreign reserves of the African countries in its own name on the Paris Bourse.
In short, more than 80% of the foreign reserves of these African countries are deposited in the “operations accounts” controlled by the French Treasury. The two CFA banks are African in name, but have no monetary policies of their own. The countries themselves do not know, nor are they told, how much of the pool of foreign reserves held by the French Treasury belongs to them as a group or individually.
The earnings of the investment of these funds in the French Treasury pool are supposed to be added to the pool but no accounting is given to either the banks or the countries of the details of any such changes. The limited group of high officials in the French Treasury who have knowledge of the amounts in the “operations accounts”, where these funds are invested; whether there is a profit on these investments; are prohibited from disclosing any of this information to the CFA banks or the central banks of the African states .” Wrote Dr. Gary K. Busch
It’s now estimated that France is holding close to 500 billions African countries money in its treasury, and would do anything to fight anyone who want to shed a light on this dark side of the old empire.
The African countries don’t have access to that money.
France allows them to access only 15% of the money in any given year. If they need more than that, they have to borrow the extra money from their own 65% from the French Treasury at commercial rates.
To make things more tragic, France impose a cap on the amount of money the countries could borrow from the reserve. The cap is fixed at 20% of their public revenue in the preceding year. If the countries need to borrow more than 20% of their own money, France has a veto.
Former French President Jacques Chirac recently spoke about the African nations money in France banks. Here is a video of him speaking about the french exploitation scheme. He is speaking in French, but here is a short excerpt transcript: “We have to be honest, and acknowledge that a big part of the money in our banks come precisely from the exploitation of the African continent.”
#3. Right of first refusal on any raw or natural resource discovered in the country
France has the first right to buy any natural resources found in the land of its ex-colonies. It’s only after France would say, “I’m not interested”, that the African countries are allowed to seek other partners…….Continued click the link below.
AFRICANGLOBE – The West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) is an organization of eight West African states. It was established to promote economic integration among countries that share the Communauté Financière d’Afrique (CFA) franc as a common currency. The currency is issued by the Banque Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (BCEAO), located in Dakar, Senegal, for the members of the UEMOA. The union administers the West African CFA franc, now a Euro-pegged currency that is used in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Read More…
Sylvanus Epiphanio Olympio (6 September 1902 – 13 January 1963) was a Togolese politician who served as Prime Minister, and then President, of Togo from 1958 until his assassination in 1963. . He was assassinated during the 1963 Togolese coup d’état.
A great illustration on how corporations take control of countries, and how capitalism drives the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. Made by Studio Joho who have allowed me to upload their video.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power” and that Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that: “Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”.
The CFA franc, used by 14 African countries, was created in 1945 by a decree signed by Charles de Gaulle [EPA]
A hoard of cash sits in the Bank of France: $20 billion in African money held in trust by the French government and earning just 0.75 percent interest. Now economists and politicians from 14 Central and West African countries say they want their funds returned and an arrangement dating back to the days of France’s colonial empire ended.
France holds the money to guarantee that the CFA franc, the currency used in the 14 nations, stays convertible into euros at a fixed exchange rate of 655.957. The compulsory deposits started more than half a century ago, when the then-colonies had to place all their financial reserves in the French Treasury. The deposit requirement has dropped over the decades: Today the African members entrust 50 percent of their reserves to Paris. Source..
Three weeks ago, a rumour emerged that the CFA franc – two closely-related currencies used by 14 countries in western and central Africa – would be devalued by 35 per cent on January 1, 2012.
As a result, anxiety is taking hold of the 140 million citizens of francophone Africa. The devaluation could create a liquidity crisis and cause inflation rates to soar. Although the two governors of the central banks of Western and Central Africa have dismissed the rumour, the fact that French authorities and African heads of state failed to comment fuels peoples’ fears and could result in a massive financial outflow.
The eurozone crisis and France’s struggle to maintain its credit rating deepened fears that devaluing the CFA franc could be indirectly used as. Source
François Mitterrand
French Complicity in the Crisis in Central African Republic
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power.”
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that ‘Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century’ (François Mitterrand, Présence française et abandon, 1957, Paris: Plon).”
African Countries whose Official Language is French
In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its former colonies. Source:
US Media Shows Footage of Russian Airstrikes Passed Off as American Nana’s Commentary:
It appears that everyone is rejoicing in Russia’s efforts to cause the downfall of “ISIS” which is ironically being call DAESH for some reason and it’s notable that the “ISIS” people hate that name and would rather be called “IS” but that is not really the crux of this commentary.
Yes, Russia has entered with flying colors, the so-called “War On Terror” and supposedly that is a good thing but for some reason it does not feel good at all. In fact, it is reminiscent of what happens when you exterminate roaches. You may definitely get them out of your house or apartment, but they migrate, pardon the pun, to the house next door, or the apartment above or below, only to wait out their time for when they can return. We have seen this throughout history over and over and over again. Where do these dissidents actually go in the long run? Without justice there’s no peace but is justice merely the bombing of the militants? Can you actually “kill” them all? Why do Militants exist in the first place? Drugged up, gunned up and escaping poverty, these Mercenaries are of a certain ilk that cannot be destroyed by bombing their predecessors. In fact, those they kill will become heroes to their progeny.
We are we so short sighted when it comes to resolving our differences that we impose death and destruction instead of mediation and resolve? Why haven’t those countries that support the militants after seeing the damage come to an agreement to cease and desist in propping them up? Do they have two faces? One that appears to be against them militants and one that is hidden that supports them because they help their imperial plans?
I do think they have gotten in a little over their heads this time. This is not 50 years ago, 100 years ago. Technology has advance so much in the past 20 years that for sure these folks can communicate quickly and with ease across wide swaths of the planet and mobilize within days. Guerrilla warfare is second nature to them. Boots on the ground is their clarion call. They are not flying through the air with bombs and missiles and yet they are hard to exterminate. Why is this? What do they want, and why do they fight so hard for it?
Am I being too sensitive to think that these folks have families and loved ones? Am I being to naive to think of the karmic and spiritual impact of killing thousands more, destroying more territory and infrastructure and as one journalist mentioned, hiking the price of oil? Is this what this is really all about or has this “War On Terror” become a flashpoint for the whole world to get a piece of the action, either for or against the terrorists.
Our world and its global politics is in a shambles. It’s a marriage made in hell, where nobody really wins but that doesn’t stop the fighting. And of course, it’s Russia’s turn to avenge its demise in Afghanistan via the help, support and assistance of the Mujahideen funded by the US. Shortly after which, Russia’s control over a large area and several countries came to a screeching halt. Countries left the USSR and Russia was left weak and ineffectual in a region in which it had reigned supreme for decades, posing as a Global power and threat to the tiny US military might. Russia has done what the 33rd Hexagram in the I Ching Oracle talks about. It retreated and gained in strength so that it could come back even more powerful on the international scene and take back control or at least gain some Western Allies.
How ironic is that? Now the West is supporting Russia and while the US propaganda machine and talking heads attempted to vilify Russia at every opportunity, the fact that Russia has taken out more IS militants in a few months than the US and its allies have done in 4 years is notable. It reminds me of how I would tell my children (sons) to go clean up their room and hours later it looked like nothing had been done, and yet I could go in there and within 30 minutes get the job done.
In essence, Russia has made the US and NATO look like chumps in this “War On Terror.” But is that a good thing?
I feel very uneasy about this. Part of it has to do with the whole barbarism of war and bombing and blowing shit up. But the other part has to do with the reign of destruction and its impact on the ethereal level. That level that we cannot see with our naked eye but that part of reality that tells us that we are all connected. So every death and destruction and destitution and abandonment that hits those folks hits us too even if we don’t see it or experience it personally. So I am wondering if drawing Russia into this, well I guess they didn’t exactly draw them in, Russia has had enough of the BS playing around and supporting the militants and in fact, it is getting quite close to home and affecting Russia’s sovereignty and while other countries look the other way as this occurs, Russia saw the shenanigans that the US and its allies pulled with the Ukraine and that was a bit too much and taking things a bit too far.
As one journalist mentioned, the US is not even part of that part of the world, so why are they even meddling in the business of those people? The US considers itself apart of the West but in actuality it is not. This explains the adage the US and it’s Western allies because quite frankly, the US is in North America and pretty darned far from the European Nations. It cannot be part of the EU and frankly Russia has more right to be.
Russia is flexing its muscles, it is pulling away from the USD, it is forming a strong alliance with Brazil and China, it supporting Syria and standing with it against a gas pipeline going through its country to the West. It is making a comeback!
Yet, it feels ominous to me. I am not sure if Putin is NOT part of the NWO (which I call the Old World Order with a New Face). I am not sure if this new presence of Russia on the scene is going to bring these terroristic threats and creations of terroristic threats to a close or if, like roaches, they will simply escape to a quiet arena and begin strategizing for their next assault. Will the US and the 40 other nations that have been funding IS and other groups simply stop and give up their plan for world hegemony or will they devise another plan, create an alternative, design another scare to strike fear into the heart of the masses. Is it now time for the so-called “Last Card” the “Alien Threat?”
Although Putin is doing the “Job” in Syria, I am reticent to applaud it. Personally, I cannot imagine living somewhere that has been bombed tens of thousands of times!!! Maybe if Putin works with his allies to help rebuild Syria so that the Syrian people can come back home, I may feel a little better about this, but I am having a hard time adjusting to this level of violence and seeing it as a good thing.
21:18 21.11.2015(updated 03:54 22.11.2015) Get short URL
Topic:
PBS NewsHour, a daily US television news program shown on the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), used footage of Russian airstrikes against ISIL targets, claiming that they were US airstrikes, an Information Clearing House article revealed.
Earlier this week, the US government said it would intensify anti-ISIL airstrikes and bomb the terrorist organization’s oil infrastructure, which is ISIL’s primary source of income.
After that, on November 16, the US military said it destroyed 116 trucks carrying illegal oil in ISIL-controlled territories.
“On Monday, 295 trucks were in the area, and more than a third of them were destroyed, United States officials said. The A-10s dropped two dozen 500-pound bombs and conducted strafing runs with 30-millimeter Gatling guns. The AC-130s attacked with 30-millimeter Gatling guns and 105-millimeter cannons,” the New York Times colorfully described the US military operation that allegedly took place on November 16.
Well, it sure sounded like a major anti-ISIL operation in the wake of the Paris attacks. But so far, these are just claims, not backed by any evidence.
Two days later, on November 18, the Russian Air Force destroyed 500 oil trucks that had been illegally transporting oil from ISIS-controlled territories.
Unlike the US Air Force, which didn’t provide any video evidence from their alleged operation, the Russian Defense Ministry promptly released videos of what exactly happened to terrorists and how the operation unfolded.
On November 19, PBS NewsHour ran a program on ISIL and “showed” how their oil trucks were destroyed by US airstrikes.
It’s all fine and dandy, but the US public broadcaster used the footage of Russian airstrikes, passing them off as US airstrikes, without revealing the true source.
“For the first time the US is attacking oil delivery trucks,” the voice-over said between 2:30 — 2:35, while showing a clip of exactly the same video published by the Russian Defense Ministry the day before.
The PBS shows footage of Russian airstrikes against ISIL targets, passing them off as US airstrikes. The PBS program neither mentioned the Russian military operation nor revealed the source of the footage.
What the US channel did was just outright lying, because millions of viewers would certainly think the video footage showing the explosions of oil trucks was from US airstrikes about which the New York Times ran an article on Monday.
About 500 terrorists’ fuel trucks that had been illegally transporting oil from Syria to Iraq were destroyed by Russian aviation in a few days, Col. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said. “Just in the first few days, [Russian] aviation destroyed about 500 fuel tankers. This greatly hampered the militants’ possibility to illegally export energy resources and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling.”
“Just in the first few days, [Russian] aviation destroyed about 500 fuel tankers. This greatly hampered the militants’ possibility to illegally export energy resources and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling.”
14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization
By: Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN
Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 3:41 pm.
Africa-France-relationship. Did you know many African countries continue to pay colonial tax to France since their independence till today!
When Sékou Touré of Guinea decided in 1958 to get out of french colonial empire, and opted for the country independence, the french colonial elite in Paris got so furious, and in a historic act of fury the french administration in Guinea destroyed everything in the country which represented what they called the benefits from french colonization.
Three thousand French left the country, taking all their property and destroying anything that which could not be moved: schools, nurseries, public administration buildings were crumbled; cars, books, medicine, research institute instruments, tractors were crushed and sabotaged; horses, cows in the farms were killed, and food in warehouses were burned or poisoned.
The purpose of this outrageous act was to send a clear message to all other colonies that the consequences for rejecting France would be very high.
Slowly fear spread trough the african elite, and none after the Guinea events ever found the courage to follow the example of Sékou Touré, whose slogan was “We prefer freedom in poverty to opulence in slavery.”
Sylvanus Olympio, the first president of the Republic of Togo, a tiny country in west Africa, found a middle ground solution with the French.
He didn’t want his country to continue to be a french dominion, therefore he refused to sign the colonisation continuation pact De Gaule proposed, but agree to pay an annual debt to France for the so called benefits Togo got from french colonization.
It was the only conditions for the French not to destroy the country before leaving. However, the amount estimated by France was so big that the reimbursement of the so called “colonial debt” was close to 40% of the country budget in 1963.
The financial situation of the newly independent Togo was very unstable, so in order to get out the situation, Olympio decided to get out the french colonial money FCFA (the franc for french african colonies), and issue the country own currency.
On January 13, 1963, three days after he started printing his country own currency, a squad of illiterate soldiers backed by France killed the first elected president of newly independent Africa. Olympio was killed by an ex French Foreign Legionnaire army sergeant called Etienne Gnassingbe who supposedly received a bounty of $612 from the local French embassy for the hit man job.
Olympio’s dream was to build an independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant country. But the French didn’t like the idea.
On June 30, 1962, Modiba Keita , the first president of the Republic of Mali, decided to withdraw from the french colonial currency FCFA which was imposed on 12 newly independent African countries. For the Malian president, who was leaning more to a socialist economy, it was clear that colonisation continuation pact with France was a trap, a burden for the country development.
On November 19, 1968, like, Olympio, Keita will be the victim of a coup carried out by another ex French Foreign legionnaire, the Lieutenant Moussa Traoré.
In fact during that turbulent period of African fighting to liberate themselves from European colonization, France would repeatedly use many ex Foreign legionnaires to carry out coups against elected presidents:
– On January 1st, 1966, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, an ex french foreign legionnaire, carried a coup against David Dacko, the first President of the Central African Republic.
– On January 3, 1966, Maurice Yaméogo, the first President of the Republic of Upper Volta, now called Burkina Faso, was victim of a coup carried by Aboubacar Sangoulé Lamizana, an ex French legionnaire who fought with french troops in Indonesia and Algeria against these countries independence.
– on 26 October 1972, Mathieu Kérékou who was a security guard to President Hubert Maga, the first President of the Republic of Benin, carried a coup against the president, after he attended French military schools from 1968 to 1970.
In fact, during the last 50 years, a total of 67 coups happened in 26 countries in Africa, 16 of those countries are french ex-colonies, which means 61% of the coups happened in Francophone Africa.
Number of Coups in Africa by country
Ex French colonies Other African countries
Country Number of coup Country number of coup
Togo 1 Egypte 1
Tunisia 1 Libye 1
Cote d’Ivoire 1 Equatorial Guinea 1
Madagascar 1 Guinea Bissau 2
Rwanda 1 Liberia 2
Algeria 2 Nigeria 3
Congo – RDC 2 Ethiopia 3
Mali 2 Ouganda 4
Guinea Conakry 2 Soudan 5
SUB-TOTAL 1 13
Congo 3
Tchad 3
Burundi 4
Central Africa 4
Niger 4
Mauritania 4
Burkina Faso 5
Comores 5
SUB-TOTAL 2 32
TOTAL (1 + 2) 45 TOTAL 22
As these numbers demonstrate, France is quite desperate but active to keep a strong hold on his colonies what ever the cost, no matter what.
In March 2008, former French President Jacques Chirac said:
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power”
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that:
“Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”
At this very moment I’m writing this article, 14 african countries are obliged by France, trough a colonial pact, to put 85% of their foreign reserve into France central bank under French minister of Finance control. Until now, 2014, Togo and about 13 other african countries still have to pay colonial debt to France. African leaders who refuse are killed or victim of coup. Those who obey are supported and rewarded by France with lavish lifestyle while their people endure extreme poverty, and desperation.
It’s such an evil system even denounced by the European Union, but France is not ready to move from that colonial system which puts about 500 billions dollars from Africa to its treasury year in year out.
We often accuse African leaders of corruption and serving western nations interests instead, but there is a clear explanation for that behavior. They behave so because they are afraid the be killed or victim of a coup. They want a powerful nation to back them in case of aggression or trouble. But, contrary to a friendly nation protection, the western protection is often offered in exchange of these leaders renouncing to serve their own people or nations’ interests.
African leaders would work in the interest of their people if they were not constantly stalked and bullied by colonial countries.
In 1958, scared about the consequence of choosing independence from France, Leopold Sédar Senghor declared: “The choice of the Senegalese people is independence; they want it to take place only in friendship with France, not in dispute.”
From then on France accepted only an “independence on paper” for his colonies, but signed binding “Cooperation Accords”, detailing the nature of their relations with France, in particular ties to France colonial currency (the Franc), France educational system, military and commercial preferences.
Below are the 11 main components of the Colonisation continuation pact since 1950s:
#1. Colonial Debt for the benefits of France colonization
The newly “independent” countries should pay for the infrastructure built by France in the country during colonization.
I still have to find out the complete details about the amounts, the evaluation of the colonial benefits and the terms of payment imposed on the african countries, but we are working on that (help us with info).
#2. Automatic confiscation of national reserves
The African countries should deposit their national monetary reserves into France Central bank.
France has been holding the national reserves of fourteen african countries since 1961: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.
“The monetary policy governing such a diverse aggregation of countries is uncomplicated because it is, in fact, operated by the French Treasury, without reference to the central fiscal authorities of any of the WAEMU or the CEMAC. Under the terms of the agreement which set up these banks and the CFA the Central Bank of each African country is obliged to keep at least 65% of its foreign exchange reserves in an “operations account” held at the French Treasury, as well as another 20% to cover financial liabilities.
The CFA central banks also impose a cap on credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20% of that country’s public revenue in the preceding year. Even though the BEAC and the BCEAO have an overdraft facility with the French Treasury, the drawdowns on those overdraft facilities are subject to the consent of the French Treasury. The final say is that of the French Treasury which has invested the foreign reserves of the African countries in its own name on the Paris Bourse.
In short, more than 80% of the foreign reserves of these African countries are deposited in the “operations accounts” controlled by the French Treasury. The two CFA banks are African in name, but have no monetary policies of their own. The countries themselves do not know, nor are they told, how much of the pool of foreign reserves held by the French Treasury belongs to them as a group or individually.
The earnings of the investment of these funds in the French Treasury pool are supposed to be added to the pool but no accounting is given to either the banks or the countries of the details of any such changes. The limited group of high officials in the French Treasury who have knowledge of the amounts in the “operations accounts”, where these funds are invested; whether there is a profit on these investments; are prohibited from disclosing any of this information to the CFA banks or the central banks of the African states .” Wrote Dr. Gary K. Busch
It’s now estimated that France is holding close to 500 billions African countries money in its treasury, and would do anything to fight anyone who want to shed a light on this dark side of the old empire.
The African countries don’t have access to that money.
France allows them to access only 15% of the money in any given year. If they need more than that, they have to borrow the extra money from their own 65% from the French Treasury at commercial rates.
To make things more tragic, France impose a cap on the amount of money the countries could borrow from the reserve. The cap is fixed at 20% of their public revenue in the preceding year. If the countries need to borrow more than 20% of their own money, France has a veto.
Former French President Jacques Chirac recently spoke about the African nations money in France banks. Here is a video of him speaking about the french exploitation scheme. He is speaking in French, but here is a short excerpt transcript: “We have to be honest, and acknowledge that a big part of the money in our banks come precisely from the exploitation of the African continent.”
#3. Right of first refusal on any raw or natural resource discovered in the country
France has the first right to buy any natural resources found in the land of its ex-colonies. It’s only after France would say, “I’m not interested”, that the African countries are allowed to seek other partners…….Continued click the link below.
AFRICANGLOBE – The West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) is an organization of eight West African states. It was established to promote economic integration among countries that share the Communauté Financière d’Afrique (CFA) franc as a common currency. The currency is issued by the Banque Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (BCEAO), located in Dakar, Senegal, for the members of the UEMOA. The union administers the West African CFA franc, now a Euro-pegged currency that is used in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Read More…
Sylvanus Epiphanio Olympio (6 September 1902 – 13 January 1963) was a Togolese politician who served as Prime Minister, and then President, of Togo from 1958 until his assassination in 1963. . He was assassinated during the 1963 Togolese coup d’état.
A great illustration on how corporations take control of countries, and how capitalism drives the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. Made by Studio Joho who have allowed me to upload their video.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power” and that Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that: “Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”.
The CFA franc, used by 14 African countries, was created in 1945 by a decree signed by Charles de Gaulle [EPA]
A hoard of cash sits in the Bank of France: $20 billion in African money held in trust by the French government and earning just 0.75 percent interest. Now economists and politicians from 14 Central and West African countries say they want their funds returned and an arrangement dating back to the days of France’s colonial empire ended.
France holds the money to guarantee that the CFA franc, the currency used in the 14 nations, stays convertible into euros at a fixed exchange rate of 655.957. The compulsory deposits started more than half a century ago, when the then-colonies had to place all their financial reserves in the French Treasury. The deposit requirement has dropped over the decades: Today the African members entrust 50 percent of their reserves to Paris. Source..
Three weeks ago, a rumour emerged that the CFA franc – two closely-related currencies used by 14 countries in western and central Africa – would be devalued by 35 per cent on January 1, 2012.
As a result, anxiety is taking hold of the 140 million citizens of francophone Africa. The devaluation could create a liquidity crisis and cause inflation rates to soar. Although the two governors of the central banks of Western and Central Africa have dismissed the rumour, the fact that French authorities and African heads of state failed to comment fuels peoples’ fears and could result in a massive financial outflow.
The eurozone crisis and France’s struggle to maintain its credit rating deepened fears that devaluing the CFA franc could be indirectly used as. Source
François Mitterrand
French Complicity in the Crisis in Central African Republic
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power.”
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that ‘Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century’ (François Mitterrand, Présence française et abandon, 1957, Paris: Plon).”
African Countries whose Official Language is French
In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its former colonies. Source:
14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization
By: Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN
Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 3:41 pm.
Africa-France-relationship. Did you know many African countries continue to pay colonial tax to France since their independence till today!
When Sékou Touré of Guinea decided in 1958 to get out of French colonial empire, and opted for the country independence, the French colonial elite in Paris got so furious, and in a historic act of fury the French administration in Guinea destroyed everything in the country which represented what they called the benefits from French colonization.
Three thousand French left the country, taking all their property and destroying anything that which could not be moved: schools, nurseries, public administration buildings were crumbled; cars, books, medicine, research institute instruments, tractors were crushed and sabotaged; horses, cows in the farms were killed, and food in warehouses were burned or poisoned.
The purpose of this outrageous act was to send a clear message to all other colonies that the consequences for rejecting France would be very high.
Slowly fear spread trough the African elite, and none after the Guinea events ever found the courage to follow the example of Sékou Touré, whose slogan was “We prefer freedom in poverty to opulence in slavery.”
Sylvanus Olympio, the first president of the Republic of Togo, a tiny country in west Africa, found a middle ground solution with the French.
He didn’t want his country to continue to be a French dominion, therefore he refused to sign the colonisation continuation pact De Gaule proposed, but agree to pay an annual debt to France for the so called benefits Togo got from French colonization.
It was the only conditions for the French not to destroy the country before leaving. However, the amount estimated by France was so big that the reimbursement of the so called “colonial debt” was close to 40% of the country budget in 1963.
The financial situation of the newly independent Togo was very unstable, so in order to get out the situation, Olympio decided to get out the French colonial money FCFA (the franc for French African colonies), and issue the country own currency.
On January 13, 1963, three days after he started printing his country own currency, a squad of illiterate soldiers backed by France killed the first elected president of newly independent Africa. Olympio was killed by an ex French Foreign Legionnaire army sergeant called Etienne Gnassingbe who supposedly received a bounty of $612 from the local French embassy for the hit man job.
Olympio’s dream was to build an independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant country. But the French didn’t like the idea.
On June 30, 1962, Modiba Keita , the first president of the Republic of Mali, decided to withdraw from the French colonial currency FCFA which was imposed on 12 newly independent African countries. For the Malian president, who was leaning more to a socialist economy, it was clear that colonisation continuation pact with France was a trap, a burden for the country development.
On November 19, 1968, like, Olympio, Keita will be the victim of a coup carried out by another ex French Foreign legionnaire, the Lieutenant Moussa Traoré.
In fact during that turbulent period of African fighting to liberate themselves from European colonization, France would repeatedly use many ex Foreign legionnaires to carry out coups against elected presidents:
– On January 1st, 1966, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, an ex french foreign legionnaire, carried a coup against David Dacko, the first President of the Central African Republic.
– On January 3, 1966, Maurice Yaméogo, the first President of the Republic of Upper Volta, now called Burkina Faso, was victim of a coup carried by Aboubacar Sangoulé Lamizana, an ex French legionnaire who fought with french troops in Indonesia and Algeria against these countries independence.
– on 26 October 1972, Mathieu Kérékou who was a security guard to President Hubert Maga, the first President of the Republic of Benin, carried a coup against the president, after he attended French military schools from 1968 to 1970.
In fact, during the last 50 years, a total of 67 coups happened in 26 countries in Africa, 16 of those countries are french ex-colonies, which means 61% of the coups happened in Francophone Africa.
Number of Coups in Africa by country
Ex French colonies Other African countries
Country Number of coup Country number of coup
Togo 1 Egypte 1
Tunisia 1 Libye 1
Cote d’Ivoire 1 Equatorial Guinea 1
Madagascar 1 Guinea Bissau 2
Rwanda 1 Liberia 2
Algeria 2 Nigeria 3
Congo – RDC 2 Ethiopia 3
Mali 2 Ouganda 4
Guinea Conakry 2 Soudan 5
SUB-TOTAL 1 13
Congo 3
Tchad 3
Burundi 4
Central Africa 4
Niger 4
Mauritania 4
Burkina Faso 5
Comores 5
SUB-TOTAL 2 32
TOTAL (1 + 2) 45 TOTAL 22
As these numbers demonstrate, France is quite desperate but active to keep a strong hold on his colonies what ever the cost, no matter what.
In March 2008, former French President Jacques Chirac said:
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power”
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that:
“Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”
At this very moment I’m writing this article, 14 African countries are obliged by France, trough a colonial pact, to put 85% of their foreign reserve into France central bank under French minister of Finance control. Until now, 2014, Togo and about 13 other African countries still have to pay colonial debt to France. African leaders who refuse are killed or victim of coup. Those who obey are supported and rewarded by France with lavish lifestyle while their people endure extreme poverty, and desperation.
It’s such an evil system even denounced by the European Union, but France is not ready to move from that colonial system which puts about 500 billions dollars from Africa to its treasury year in year out.
We often accuse African leaders of corruption and serving western nations interests instead, but there is a clear explanation for that behavior. They behave so because they are afraid the be killed or victim of a coup. They want a powerful nation to back them in case of aggression or trouble. But, contrary to a friendly nation protection, the western protection is often offered in exchange of these leaders renouncing to serve their own people or nations’ interests.
African leaders would work in the interest of their people if they were not constantly stalked and bullied by colonial countries.
In 1958, scared about the consequence of choosing independence from France, Leopold Sédar Senghor declared: “The choice of the Senegalese people is independence; they want it to take place only in friendship with France, not in dispute.”
From then on France accepted only an “independence on paper” for his colonies, but signed binding “Cooperation Accords”, detailing the nature of their relations with France, in particular ties to France colonial currency (the Franc), France educational system, military and commercial preferences.
Below are the 11 main components of the Colonisation continuation pact since 1950s:
#1. Colonial Debt for the benefits of France colonization
The newly “independent” countries should pay for the infrastructure built by France in the country during colonization.
I still have to find out the complete details about the amounts, the evaluation of the colonial benefits and the terms of payment imposed on the African countries, but we are working on that (help us with info).
#2. Automatic confiscation of national reserves
The African countries should deposit their national monetary reserves into France Central bank.
France has been holding the national reserves of fourteen african countries since 1961: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.
“The monetary policy governing such a diverse aggregation of countries is uncomplicated because it is, in fact, operated by the French Treasury, without reference to the central fiscal authorities of any of the WAEMU or the CEMAC. Under the terms of the agreement which set up these banks and the CFA the Central Bank of each African country is obliged to keep at least 65% of its foreign exchange reserves in an “operations account” held at the French Treasury, as well as another 20% to cover financial liabilities.
The CFA central banks also impose a cap on credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20% of that country’s public revenue in the preceding year. Even though the BEAC and the BCEAO have an overdraft facility with the French Treasury, the drawdowns on those overdraft facilities are subject to the consent of the French Treasury. The final say is that of the French Treasury which has invested the foreign reserves of the African countries in its own name on the Paris Bourse.
In short, more than 80% of the foreign reserves of these African countries are deposited in the “operations accounts” controlled by the French Treasury. The two CFA banks are African in name, but have no monetary policies of their own. The countries themselves do not know, nor are they told, how much of the pool of foreign reserves held by the French Treasury belongs to them as a group or individually.
The earnings of the investment of these funds in the French Treasury pool are supposed to be added to the pool but no accounting is given to either the banks or the countries of the details of any such changes. The limited group of high officials in the French Treasury who have knowledge of the amounts in the “operations accounts”, where these funds are invested; whether there is a profit on these investments; are prohibited from disclosing any of this information to the CFA banks or the central banks of the African states .” Wrote Dr. Gary K. Busch
It’s now estimated that France is holding close to 500 billions African countries money in its treasury, and would do anything to fight anyone who want to shed a light on this dark side of the old empire.
The African countries don’t have access to that money.
France allows them to access only 15% of the money in any given year. If they need more than that, they have to borrow the extra money from their own 65% from the French Treasury at commercial rates.
To make things more tragic, France impose a cap on the amount of money the countries could borrow from the reserve. The cap is fixed at 20% of their public revenue in the preceding year. If the countries need to borrow more than 20% of their own money, France has a veto.
Former French President Jacques Chirac recently spoke about the African nations money in France banks. Here is a video of him speaking about the French exploitation scheme. He is speaking in French, but here is a short excerpt transcript: “We have to be honest, and acknowledge that a big part of the money in our banks come precisely from the exploitation of the African continent.”
#3. Right of first refusal on any raw or natural resource discovered in the country
France has the first right to buy any natural resources found in the land of its ex-colonies. It’s only after France would say, “I’m not interested”, that the African countries are allowed to seek other partners…….Continued click the link below.
AFRICANGLOBE – The West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) is an organization of eight West African states. It was established to promote economic integration among countries that share the Communauté Financière d’Afrique (CFA) franc as a common currency. The currency is issued by the Banque Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (BCEAO), located in Dakar, Senegal, for the members of the UEMOA. The union administers the West African CFA franc, now a Euro-pegged currency that is used in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Read More…
Sylvanus Epiphanio Olympio (6 September 1902 – 13 January 1963) was a Togolese politician who served as Prime Minister, and then President, of Togo from 1958 until his assassination in 1963. . He was assassinated during the 1963 Togolese coup d’état.
A great illustration on how corporations take control of countries, and how capitalism drives the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. Made by Studio Joho who have allowed me to upload their video.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power” and that Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that: “Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”.
The CFA franc, used by 14 African countries, was created in 1945 by a decree signed by Charles de Gaulle [EPA]
A hoard of cash sits in the Bank of France: $20 billion in African money held in trust by the French government and earning just 0.75 percent interest. Now economists and politicians from 14 Central and West African countries say they want their funds returned and an arrangement dating back to the days of France’s colonial empire ended.
France holds the money to guarantee that the CFA franc, the currency used in the 14 nations, stays convertible into euros at a fixed exchange rate of 655.957. The compulsory deposits started more than half a century ago, when the then-colonies had to place all their financial reserves in the French Treasury. The deposit requirement has dropped over the decades: Today the African members entrust 50 percent of their reserves to Paris. Source..
Three weeks ago, a rumour emerged that the CFA franc – two closely-related currencies used by 14 countries in western and central Africa – would be devalued by 35 per cent on January 1, 2012.
As a result, anxiety is taking hold of the 140 million citizens of francophone Africa. The devaluation could create a liquidity crisis and cause inflation rates to soar. Although the two governors of the central banks of Western and Central Africa have dismissed the rumour, the fact that French authorities and African heads of state failed to comment fuels peoples’ fears and could result in a massive financial outflow.
The eurozone crisis and France’s struggle to maintain its credit rating deepened fears that devaluing the CFA franc could be indirectly used as. Source
François Mitterrand
French Complicity in the Crisis in Central African Republic
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power.”
By the end of 2013, “the White man’s burden” was proving too heavy to bear for France. Feeling militarily and materially outstretched, Paris cried for help from other European powers to help it shoulder “its responsibility” to quell violence, restore peace, order and political legitimacy in its backyards of Mali and Central African Republic, both in turmoil: the Islamists terrorists linked to Al-Qaïda in Maghreb (Aqmi), Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria and so on, are wreaking havoc in northern Mali and Christians and Muslims are hacking each other to death in Central African Republic (CAR). Both Belgium and the United States responded positively by providing logistics and transport for the French and African troops.
“
Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that ‘Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century’ (François Mitterrand, Présence française et abandon, 1957, Paris: Plon).”
US Media Shows Footage of Russian Airstrikes Passed Off as American
Nana’s Commentary:
It appears that everyone is rejoicing in Russia’s efforts to cause the downfall of “ISIS” which is ironically being call DAESH for some reason and it’s notable that the “ISIS” people hate that name and would rather be called “IS” but that is not really the crux of this commentary.
Yes, Russia has entered with flying colors, the so-called “War On Terror” and supposedly that is a good thing but for some reason it does not feel good at all. In fact, it is reminiscent of what happens when you exterminate roaches. You may definitely get them out of your house or apartment, but they migrate, pardon the pun, to the house next door, or the apartment above or below, only to wait out their time for when they can return. We have seen this throughout history over and over and over again. Where do these dissidents actually go in the long run? Without justice there’s no peace but is justice merely the bombing of the militants? Can you actually “kill” them all? Why do Militants exist in the first place? Drugged up, gunned up and escaping poverty, these Mercenaries are of a certain ilk that cannot be destroyed by bombing their predecessors. In fact, those they kill will become heroes to their progeny.
We are we so short sighted when it comes to resolving our differences that we impose death and destruction instead of mediation and resolve? Why haven’t those countries that support the militants after seeing the damage come to an agreement to cease and desist in propping them up? Do they have two faces? One that appears to be against them militants and one that is hidden that supports them because they help their imperial plans?
I do think they have gotten in a little over their heads this time. This is not 50 years ago, 100 years ago. Technology has advance so much in the past 20 years that for sure these folks can communicate quickly and with ease across wide swaths of the planet and mobilize within days. Guerrilla warfare is second nature to them. Boots on the ground is their clarion call. They are not flying through the air with bombs and missiles and yet they are hard to exterminate. Why is this? What do they want, and why do they fight so hard for it?
Am I being too sensitive to think that these folks have families and loved ones? Am I being to naive to think of the karmic and spiritual impact of killing thousands more, destroying more territory and infrastructure and as one journalist mentioned, hiking the price of oil? Is this what this is really all about or has this “War On Terror” become a flashpoint for the whole world to get a piece of the action, either for or against the terrorists.
Our world and its global politics is in a shambles. It’s a marriage made in hell, where nobody really wins but that doesn’t stop the fighting. And of course, it’s Russia’s turn to avenge its demise in Afghanistan via the help, support and assistance of the Mujahideen funded by the US. Shortly after which, Russia’s control over a large area and several countries came to a screeching halt. Countries left the USSR and Russia was left weak and ineffectual in a region in which it had reigned supreme for decades, posing as a Global power and threat to the tiny US military might. Russia has done what the 33rd Hexagram in the I Ching Oracle talks about. It retreated and gained in strength so that it could come back even more powerful on the international scene and take back control or at least gain some Western Allies.
How ironic is that? Now the West is supporting Russia and while the US propaganda machine and talking heads attempted to vilify Russia at every opportunity, the fact that Russia has taken out more IS militants in a few months than the US and its allies have done in 4 years is notable. It reminds me of how I would tell my children (sons) to go clean up their room and hours later it looked like nothing had been done, and yet I could go in there and within 30 minutes get the job done.
In essence, Russia has made the US and NATO look like chumps in this “War On Terror.” But is that a good thing?
I feel very uneasy about this. Part of it has to do with the whole barbarism of war and bombing and blowing shit up. But the other part has to do with the reign of destruction and its impact on the ethereal level. That level that we cannot see with our naked eye but that part of reality that tells us that we are all connected. So every death and destruction and destitution and abandonment that hits those folks hits us too even if we don’t see it or experience it personally. So I am wondering if drawing Russia into this, well I guess they didn’t exactly draw them in, Russia has had enough of the BS playing around and supporting the militants and in fact, it is getting quite close to home and affecting Russia’s sovereignty and while other countries look the other way as this occurs, Russia saw the shenanigans that the US and its allies pulled with the Ukraine and that was a bit too much and taking things a bit too far.
As one journalist mentioned, the US is not even part of that part of the world, so why are they even meddling in the business of those people? The US considers itself apart of the West but in actuality it is not. This explains the adage the US and it’s Western allies because quite frankly, the US is in North America and pretty darned far from the European Nations. It cannot be part of the EU and frankly Russia has more right to be.
Russia is flexing its muscles, it is pulling away from the USD, it is forming a strong alliance with Brazil and China, it supporting Syria and standing with it against a gas pipeline going through its country to the West. It is making a comeback!
Yet, it feels ominous to me. I am not sure if Putin is NOT part of the NWO (which I call the Old World Order with a New Face). I am not sure if this new presence of Russia on the scene is going to bring these terroristic threats and creations of terroristic threats to a close or if, like roaches, they will simply escape to a quiet arena and begin strategizing for their next assault. Will the US and the 40 other nations that have been funding IS and other groups simply stop and give up their plan for world hegemony or will they devise another plan, create an alternative, design another scare to strike fear into the heart of the masses. Is it now time for the so-called “Last Card” the “Alien Threat?”
Although Putin is doing the “Job” in Syria, I am reticent to applaud it. Personally, I cannot imagine living somewhere that has been bombed tens of thousands of times!!! Maybe if Putin works with his allies to help rebuild Syria so that the Syrian people can come back home, I may feel a little better about this, but I am having a hard time adjusting to this level of violence and seeing it as a good thing.
21:18 21.11.2015(updated 03:54 22.11.2015) Get short URL
Topic:
PBS NewsHour, a daily US television news program shown on the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), used footage of Russian airstrikes against ISIL targets, claiming that they were US airstrikes, an Information Clearing House article revealed.
Earlier this week, the US government said it would intensify anti-ISIL airstrikes and bomb the terrorist organization’s oil infrastructure, which is ISIL’s primary source of income.
After that, on November 16, the US military said it destroyed 116 trucks carrying illegal oil in ISIL-controlled territories.
“On Monday, 295 trucks were in the area, and more than a third of them were destroyed, United States officials said. The A-10s dropped two dozen 500-pound bombs and conducted strafing runs with 30-millimeter Gatling guns. The AC-130s attacked with 30-millimeter Gatling guns and 105-millimeter cannons,” the New York Times colorfully described the US military operation that allegedly took place on November 16.
Well, it sure sounded like a major anti-ISIL operation in the wake of the Paris attacks. But so far, these are just claims, not backed by any evidence.
Two days later, on November 18, the Russian Air Force destroyed 500 oil trucks that had been illegally transporting oil from ISIS-controlled territories.
Unlike the US Air Force, which didn’t provide any video evidence from their alleged operation, the Russian Defense Ministry promptly released videos of what exactly happened to terrorists and how the operation unfolded.
On November 19, PBS NewsHour ran a program on ISIL and “showed” how their oil trucks were destroyed by US airstrikes.
It’s all fine and dandy, but the US public broadcaster used the footage of Russian airstrikes, passing them off as US airstrikes, without revealing the true source.
“For the first time the US is attacking oil delivery trucks,” the voice-over said between 2:30 — 2:35, while showing a clip of exactly the same video published by the Russian Defense Ministry the day before.
The PBS shows footage of Russian airstrikes against ISIL targets, passing them off as US airstrikes. The PBS program neither mentioned the Russian military operation nor revealed the source of the footage.
What the US channel did was just outright lying, because millions of viewers would certainly think the video footage showing the explosions of oil trucks was from US airstrikes about which the New York Times ran an article on Monday.
About 500 terrorists’ fuel trucks that had been illegally transporting oil from Syria to Iraq were destroyed by Russian aviation in a few days, Col. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said.
“Just in the first few days, [Russian] aviation destroyed about 500 fuel tankers. This greatly hampered the militants’ possibility to illegally export energy resources and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling.”
“Just in the first few days, [Russian] aviation destroyed about 500 fuel tankers. This greatly hampered the militants’ possibility to illegally export energy resources and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling.”
Waking Times If you were 4 years old when 9/11 occurred in 2001, then you’re now old enough to enlist and fight in the war on terror. Recent geo-political events suggest that this conflict may endure for some generations to come, so, regretfully, your children may also get to participate. The war on terrorism is apparently part of our culture and part of our lives now.
“The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for peace in our time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are at war now — with somebody — and we will stay at war with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.” – Hunter S. Thompson
By no means a prophet, Hunter S. Thompson was just an eccentric observer with a knack for connecting the dots between political events and the ongoing mainstream media narrative that supports and manufactures consent for the oligarchy. When taken at face value, the terror script is indeed a rather convincing and motivating story, but when you dismantle the official fiction and bring the hidden pieces into the picture, the truth about the war on terror is just too heavy for conscious people to ignore any longer.As it persists, international terrorism is guaranteed to increase, and as time goes by, we learn more and more about the real reasons why we’ve been forced into this apocalyptic conflict. After nearly 15 years of kicking down doors, drone bombing villagers, shattering societies, and mourning our own senselessly dead, here are 6 things we now know for sure about the war on terrorism.
“The first casualty when war comes is truth.” – Hiram W. Johnson
“You cannot have freedom or peace in a country whose government is engaged in the global wholesale of advanced military arms and weaponry to national governments.”–Stefan Molyneux
Regional arms sales by the UK.
3.) Our worst terrorist enemies are the products of government, the military industrial complex and Western intelligence agencies.
Video from November 2015 of an ISIS fighter in Syria using an American TOW missile to waste an American Humvee.
4.) The mainstream media plays a crucial in perpetuating the war on terrorism.
The primary role of the corporate-owned and government-controlled mainstream media is to transform selected acts of terror into enduring symbols that can be used again and again to reinforce the war on terror narrative. Their secondary role is to keep the level of tension and stress as high as possible by ceaselessly over-reacting to non-events and over-reporting on non-issues, thereby keeping the public captivated and hypnotized by an ongoing drama so that when a major event does occur it has the greatest possible psychological impact.
Reporting on global terrorism is duplicitous and hypocritical because certain events have more franchise than others in influencing public support for government policy changes and military actions. In the practical world of marketing, French flags pictured draped over national monuments at night-time will go much further in promoting the war on terror than Kenyan flags draped over African monuments.
The media uses shock and awe in a war of psychological attrition against the public. The objective is to incapacitate and sideline people from participating in dissent, while scaring people into acquiescence to any imposed government authority or security measures.
5.) State-sponsored False flag attacks still work to achieve political objectives.
There is a tremendous continual international effort underway to expose the true facts behind each new terror attack, terror plot, and major government lie. The alternative media is growing in reach and effectiveness, however, the reality is that the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution still works on a shell-shocked public.
6.) Suicide is more deadly to our soldiers than any terrorist organization.
The war on terrorism represents the first time in US history that suicide has been the leading cause of death of US soldiers. The psychological impact of this type of conflict is unique and the suicide rate of returning soldiers may be our best evidence that the war is unwinnable.
Final Thoughts
The goal of the war on terror is transform people into willing participants in chaos, mayhem and murder, or to turn them into collateral damage. Nobody is born a terrorist, and we are all being set up as dispensable pawns in an orchestrated clash of civilizations.
The truth is out there. When you cut through the propaganda, emotional triggers, and the divisive nature of discourse today, what’s left is the truth that the war on terror is something that we must end. The rise in global consciousness and our willingness to speak out may be our only hope.
Dylan Charles is a student and teacher of Shaolin Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Qi Gong, a practitioner of Yoga and Taoist arts, and an activist and idealist passionately engaged in the struggle for a more sustainable and just world for future generations. He is the editor of WakingTimes.com, the proprietor of OffgridOutpost.com, a grateful father and a man who seeks to enlighten others with the power of inspiring information and action. He may be contacted at wakingtimes@gmail.com.
If you were 4 years old when 9/11 occurred in 2001, then you’re now old enough to enlist and fight in the war on terror. Recent geo-political events suggest that this conflict may endure for some generations to come, so, regretfully, your children may also get to participate. The war on terrorism is apparently part of our culture and part of our lives now.
“The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for peace in our time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are at war now — with somebody — and we will stay at war with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.” – Hunter S. Thompson
By no means a prophet, Hunter S. Thompson was just an eccentric observer with a knack for connecting the dots between political events and the ongoing mainstream media narrative that supports and manufactures consent for the oligarchy. When taken at face value, the terror script is indeed a rather convincing and motivating story, but when you dismantle the official fiction and bring the hidden pieces into the picture, the truth about the war on terror is just too heavy for conscious people to ignore any longer.
As it persists, international terrorism is guaranteed to increase, and as time goes by, we learn more and more about the real reasons why we’ve been forced into this apocalyptic conflict. After nearly 15 years of kicking down doors, drone bombing villagers, shattering societies, and mourning our own senselessly dead, here are 6 things we now know for sure about the war on terrorism.
“The first casualty when war comes is truth.” – Hiram W. Johnson
1.) The war on terror was never about ensuring the security of Americans at home or abroad, nor was the current situation the result of foreign policy blunders.
“You cannot have freedom or peace in a country whose government is engaged in the global wholesale of advanced military arms and weaponry to national governments.”–Stefan Molyneux
Regional arms sales by the UK.
3.) Our worst terrorist enemies are the products of government, the military industrial complex and Western intelligence agencies.
Video from November 2015 of an ISIS fighter in Syria using an American TOW missile to waste an American Humvee.
4.) The mainstream media plays a crucial in perpetuating the war on terrorism.
The primary role of the corporate-owned and government-controlled mainstream media is to transform selected acts of terror into enduring symbols that can be used again and again to reinforce the war on terror narrative. Their secondary role is to keep the level of tension and stress as high as possible by ceaselessly over-reacting to non-events and over-reporting on non-issues, thereby keeping the public captivated and hypnotized by an ongoing drama so that when a major event does occur it has the greatest possible psychological impact.
Reporting on global terrorism is duplicitous and hypocritical because certain events have more franchise than others in influencing public support for government policy changes and military actions. In the practical world of marketing, French flags pictured draped over national monuments at night-time will go much further in promoting the war on terror than Kenyan flags draped over African monuments.
The media uses shock and awe in a war of psychological attrition against the public. The objective is to incapacitate and sideline people from participating in dissent, while scaring people into acquiescence to any imposed government authority or security measures.
5.) State-sponsored False flag attacks still work to achieve political objectives.
There is a tremendous continual international effort underway to expose the true facts behind each new terror attack, terror plot, and major government lie. The alternative media is growing in reach and effectiveness, however, the reality is that the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution still works on a shell-shocked public.
6.) Suicide is more deadly to our soldiers than any terrorist organization.
The war on terrorism represents the first time in US history that suicide has been the leading cause of death of US soldiers. The psychological impact of this type of conflict is unique and the suicide rate of returning soldiers may be our best evidence that the war is unwinnable.
Final Thoughts
The goal of the war on terror is transform people into willing participants in chaos, mayhem and murder, or to turn them into collateral damage. Nobody is born a terrorist, and we are all being set up as dispensable pawns in an orchestrated clash of civilizations.
The truth is out there. When you cut through the propaganda, emotional triggers, and the divisive nature of discourse today, what’s left is the truth that the war on terror is something that we must end. The rise in global consciousness and our willingness to speak out may be our only hope.
Dylan Charles is a student and teacher of Shaolin Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Qi Gong, a practitioner of Yoga and Taoist arts, and an activist and idealist passionately engaged in the struggle for a more sustainable and just world for future generations. He is the editor of WakingTimes.com, the proprietor of OffgridOutpost.com, a grateful father and a man who seeks to enlighten others with the power of inspiring information and action. He may be contacted at wakingtimes@gmail.com.
Around 500 fuel tanker vehicles transporting illegal oil from Syria to Iraq for processing have been destroyed by Russia’s Air Forces, the General Staff said. “In recent years, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and other extremist groups have organized the operations of the so-called ‘pipeline on wheels’ on the territories they control,” Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov said.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel have been delivered to Iraq for processing by trucks and the revenue generated from these illegal exports is the one of the terrorists’ main sources of funding, he said. The spokesman displayed images showing convoys comprised of hundreds of vehicles transporting oil to back up his assertion.
“In just the first few days, our aviation has destroyed 500 fuel tanker trucks, which greatly reduced illegal oil export capabilities of the militants and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling,” Kartapolov stressed. The spokesman also said that the Russian military has begun developing proposals for joint military action with the French Navy against the terrorists in accordance with an order by President Vladimir Putin. “This joint work will begin after the arrival of aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Syrian shores,” Kartapolov explained.
The terrorist network Islamic State (ISIL) is financed through illegal oil sales and makes a profit of about three million dollars a day. NATO members, including Turkey, the US and the United Kingdom tolerate the terrorists’ oil smuggling activities, DWN reported.
Close allies of the United States and the UK secretly finance the terrorist group Islamic State (ISIL). The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq and the Turkish military intelligence have supported ISIL’s oil smuggling activities and supplied the terrorist group with weapons and equipment, DWN reported.
Oil smuggling is one of the main financial resources for ISIL. The terrorist group controls about 60 percent of Syria’s oil production and seven major oil fields in Iraq.
ISIL managed to increase its production to 45,000 barrels of oil per day, supported by a network of corrupt officials in the Kurdish government and Turkey. With their help, the terrorist organization makes an average profit of about 3 million dollars a day, the newspaper wrote.
However, both the Turkish and the Kurdish government officially deny any connection to ISIL’s oil smuggling activities.Both governments are said to have taken corresponding measures to stop oil smuggling, supported by the US and British governments.
However, widespread corruption in political circles practically brought these efforts to a naught, investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed reported to MiddleEastEye.
Ahmed refers to statements of Turkish, Kurdish and Iraqi officials. An anonymous source in the ruling party of Iraq, the Islamic Dawa party, confirmed to him that “members of the Kurdistan Regional Government have tolerated ISIL’s oil sales on the black market.”
According to the official, Turkey tolerates ISIL’s oil black market as well, with the US silently watching these activities.
“The Americans know what’s going on. But Erdogan and Obama have a good relationship with each other. Erdogan makes basically what he wants and the United States has to agree with it,” the official said.
Even British corporations are reported to be involved in the business of the Islamists. The Anglo-Turkish oil company Genel Energy closely linked to a group of British parliamentarians has reportedly received an order to supply the refineries for the Kurdish energy company Group Nokan. The latter is suspected of supporting ISIL’s illegal oil sales to Turkey, DWN reported.
Anger over the recent terrorist attacks in France appears again to have been misdirected at a Denver book store. Isis Books & Gifts on South Broadway has been in business for 35 years, but lately it has been threatened and targeted by vandals associating it with the terrorist group commonly referred to as ISIS.
This weekend, someone threw a brick through an “Isis Book & Gifts” sign outside the business. The incident took place just days after the ISIS terrorist group claimed responsibility for attacks in Paris. Karen Charboneau-Harrison, owner of Isis Books & Gifts, said she named her store after the Egyptian goddess Isis. Charboneau-Harrison said the goddess represents women, healing and magic, and she says it’s a fitting name for a store that features books and gifts from all types of world traditions and spiritual sources. The shelves include Christian, Hindu, Native American and Pagan texts, to name a few.
“We believe that everybody is right when it comes to the way that they express their spirituality as long as it’s a positive path,” Charboneau-Harrison said.
In recent months, the acronym ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has been associated with a terrorist organization that has carved a destructive path. After the attacks in Paris, Charboneau-Harrison said she was disappointed to see someone shatter her sign outside.
“We’re all very heartbroken (about the Paris attacks) so I don’t know if somebody walking down the street just saw our name on the sign and kind of lost it for a moment and threw a rock through it,” Charboneau-Harrison said. “Or if it was an ignorant person who actually thought this was a bookstore for terrorists, I don’t know.”
Charboneau-Harrison said it is the fourth time the business has been vandalized in just the past few months. She said they had to replace their front door after someone shattered the glass. Someone also threw pink paint across the front of the store, and the same sign has already been broken once before.
“It does get a bit tiresome,” Charboneau-Harrison said. “Plus expensive.” But instead of changing the store’s name, Charboneau-Harrison hopes everyone changes what they call the terrorists. President Barack Obama already uses the term ISIL.
After the Paris attacks, support is also growing for using the term Daesh, which is an acronym for the groups full Arabic name (al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham) and can also be interpreted as a play on words.
“It apparently means a bigot who chooses to be violent, which describes them much better than using an Egyptian goddesses name,” Charboneau-Harrison said.
In the meantime, if seeing the sign for her store makes people angry, Charboneau-Harrison has a suggestion.
“They should come in and we can help them with meditation and we can explain to them how they can empower themselves instead of throwing rocks,” she said.
Comment: Welcome to ‘Merica! A land where you can proudly express your violent tendencies with blatant stupidity!
Around 500 fuel tanker vehicles transporting illegal oil from Syria to Iraq for processing have been destroyed by Russia’s Air Forces, the General Staff said. “In recent years, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and other extremist groups have organized the operations of the so-called ‘pipeline on wheels’ on the territories they control,” Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov said.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel have been delivered to Iraq for processing by trucks and the revenue generated from these illegal exports is the one of the terrorists’ main sources of funding, he said. The spokesman displayed images showing convoys comprised of hundreds of vehicles transporting oil to back up his assertion.
“In just the first few days, our aviation has destroyed 500 fuel tanker trucks, which greatly reduced illegal oil export capabilities of the militants and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling,” Kartapolov stressed. The spokesman also said that the Russian military has begun developing proposals for joint military action with the French Navy against the terrorists in accordance with an order by President Vladimir Putin. “This joint work will begin after the arrival of aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Syrian shores,” Kartapolov explained.
Sputnik News Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:11 UTC The terrorist network Islamic State (ISIL) is financed through illegal oil sales and makes a profit of about three million dollars a day. NATO members, including Turkey, the US and the United Kingdom tolerate the terrorists’ oil smuggling activities, DWN reported.
Close allies of the United States and the UK secretly finance the terrorist group Islamic State (ISIL). The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq and the Turkish military intelligence have supported ISIL’s oil smuggling activities and supplied the terrorist group with weapons and equipment, DWN reported.
Oil smuggling is one of the main financial resources for ISIL. The terrorist group controls about 60 percent of Syria’s oil production and seven major oil fields in Iraq.
ISIL managed to increase its production to 45,000 barrels of oil per day, supported by a network of corrupt officials in the Kurdish government and Turkey. With their help, the terrorist organization makes an average profit of about 3 million dollars a day, the newspaper wrote.
However, both the Turkish and the Kurdish government officially deny any connection to ISIL’s oil smuggling activities.Both governments are said to have taken corresponding measures to stop oil smuggling, supported by the US and British governments.
However, widespread corruption in political circles practically brought these efforts to a naught, investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed reported to MiddleEastEye.
Ahmed refers to statements of Turkish, Kurdish and Iraqi officials. An anonymous source in the ruling party of Iraq, the Islamic Dawa party, confirmed to him that “members of the Kurdistan Regional Government have tolerated ISIL’s oil sales on the black market.”
According to the official, Turkey tolerates ISIL’s oil black market as well, with the US silently watching these activities.
“The Americans know what’s going on. But Erdogan and Obama have a good relationship with each other. Erdogan makes basically what he wants and the United States has to agree with it,” the official said.
Even British corporations are reported to be involved in the business of the Islamists. The Anglo-Turkish oil company Genel Energy closely linked to a group of British parliamentarians has reportedly received an order to supply the refineries for the Kurdish energy company Group Nokan. The latter is suspected of supporting ISIL’s illegal oil sales to Turkey, DWN reported.
Anger over the recent terrorist attacks in France appears again to have been misdirected at a Denver book store. Isis Books & Gifts on South Broadway has been in business for 35 years, but lately it has been threatened and targeted by vandals associating it with the terrorist group commonly referred to as ISIS.
This weekend, someone threw a brick through an “Isis Book & Gifts” sign outside the business. The incident took place just days after the ISIS terrorist group claimed responsibility for attacks in Paris. Karen Charboneau-Harrison, owner of Isis Books & Gifts, said she named her store after the Egyptian goddess Isis. Charboneau-Harrison said the goddess represents women, healing and magic, and she says it’s a fitting name for a store that features books and gifts from all types of world traditions and spiritual sources. The shelves include Christian, Hindu, Native American and Pagan texts, to name a few.
“We believe that everybody is right when it comes to the way that they express their spirituality as long as it’s a positive path,” Charboneau-Harrison said.
In recent months, the acronym ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has been associated with a terrorist organization that has carved a destructive path. After the attacks in Paris, Charboneau-Harrison said she was disappointed to see someone shatter her sign outside.
“We’re all very heartbroken (about the Paris attacks) so I don’t know if somebody walking down the street just saw our name on the sign and kind of lost it for a moment and threw a rock through it,” Charboneau-Harrison said. “Or if it was an ignorant person who actually thought this was a bookstore for terrorists, I don’t know.”
Charboneau-Harrison said it is the fourth time the business has been vandalized in just the past few months. She said they had to replace their front door after someone shattered the glass. Someone also threw pink paint across the front of the store, and the same sign has already been broken once before.
“It does get a bit tiresome,” Charboneau-Harrison said. “Plus expensive.” But instead of changing the store’s name, Charboneau-Harrison hopes everyone changes what they call the terrorists. President Barack Obama already uses the term ISIL.
After the Paris attacks, support is also growing for using the term Daesh, which is an acronym for the groups full Arabic name (al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham) and can also be interpreted as a play on words.
“It apparently means a bigot who chooses to be violent, which describes them much better than using an Egyptian goddesses name,” Charboneau-Harrison said.
In the meantime, if seeing the sign for her store makes people angry, Charboneau-Harrison has a suggestion.
“They should come in and we can help them with meditation and we can explain to them how they can empower themselves instead of throwing rocks,” she said.
Comment: Welcome to ‘Merica! A land where you can proudly express your violent tendencies with blatant stupidity!
Okay, so now it’s Daesh?? why? Because ISIS really stands for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. So it got downgraded to IS, and now Daesh. I keep telling them, they don’t need to re-invent the wheel. And they keep trying to convince us that this thing, this quagmire can be won. and now they trying to get everybody scared, looking under their beds for terrorists.
What does Daesh mean? ISIS ‘threatens to cut out the tongues’ of anyone using this word
Excerpt: “In January this year, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that he would begin referring to the Islamic State group by this name, saying: “Daesh hates being referred to by this term, and what they don’t like has an instinctive appeal to me.”It seems that other world leaders have now followed suit, with French president Francois Hollande and the USA’s secretary of state John Kerry both using the term.According to NBC, ISIS has reportedly threatened to ‘cut out the tongues’ of anyone it hears using the term.Evan Kohlmann, a national security analyst, told NBC: “It’s a derogatory term and not something people should use even if you dislike them.”
Cognitive dissonance at the helm of this campaign or have the Psychopaths of the world been unleashed?
How is it that the dots are not being connected? When you bomb somebody’s home, town, city, country, infrastructure, where are they supposed to go? What are they supposed to do. Stay there and risk loosing their lives?
The War on Terror is waged on all people civilians and militants alike. No longer is it an army against another army or a country against another country, we are looking at what I would call, tribal wars, where people are fighting people simply because they have decided that the “PEOPLE” are the enemy.
And to legitimize this operation they arm the rebels so they rebels can have something to fight back with? It is pure insanity and beyond comprehension that any of this could make any sense to anyone except another Psychopath!
And while we are at it, let’s create an even worse crisis for the refugees fleeing Syria as Turkey outright bombs with western and US back ammo. Turkey, under the bidding of the US has further destabilized its own sovereignty wanting so desperately to be an EU member while endangering the very lives of its own citizens. So as a show of force and strength it will send 10 thousand troops to the border to keep the very people they disenfranchised out of Turkey. Can we scream TOTAL FAIL??
I would like to know who their military strategist is who comes up with these plans, do they have any clue about the “blowback” this can create? Had they even thought about the already looming refugee crisis happening as a result of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, where did they think the people of Syria who want to live their lives in peace where going to go when their lives and livelihoods have been totally usurped from them? Did they think they could kill off all the civilians and just have the issue of mass graves instead of mass tent cities lining their Turkish borders.
Turkey has geo-politically placed itself inside a cesspool with a bunch of folks who could care less about Turkish interests and are more concerned with their own hegemony in the so-called Middle East.
Okay, so now it’s Daesh?? why? Because ISIS really stands for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. So it got downgraded to IS, and now Daesh. I keep telling them, they don’t need to re-invent the wheel. And they keep trying to convince us that this thing, this quagmire can be won. and now they trying to get everybody scared, looking under their beds for terrorists.
What does Daesh mean? ISIS ‘threatens to cut out the tongues’ of anyone using this word
Excerpt: “In January this year, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that he would begin referring to the Islamic State group by this name, saying: “Daesh hates being referred to by this term, and what they don’t like has an instinctive appeal to me.”It seems that other world leaders have now followed suit, with French president Francois Hollande and the USA’s secretary of state John Kerry both using the term.According to NBC, ISIS has reportedly threatened to ‘cut out the tongues’ of anyone it hears using the term.Evan Kohlmann, a national security analyst, told NBC: “It’s a derogatory term and not something people should use even if you dislike them.”
Cognitive dissonance at the helm of this campaign or have the Psychopaths of the world been unleashed?
How is it that the dots are not being connected? When you bomb somebody’s home, town, city, country, infrastructure, where are they supposed to go? What are they supposed to do. Stay there and risk loosing their lives?
The War on Terror is waged on all people civilians and militants alike. No longer is it an army against another army or a country against another country, we are looking at what I would call, tribal wars, where people are fighting people simply because they have decided that the “PEOPLE” are the enemy.
And to legitimize this operation they arm the rebels so they rebels can have something to fight back with? It is pure insanity and beyond comprehension that any of this could make any sense to anyone except another Psychopath!
And while we are at it, let’s create an even worse crisis for the refugees fleeing Syria as Turkey outright bombs with western and US back ammo. Turkey, under the bidding of the US has further destabilized its own sovereignty wanting so desperately to be an EU member while endangering the very lives of its own citizens. So as a show of force and strength it will send 10 thousand troops to the border to keep the very people they disenfranchised out of Turkey. Can we scream TOTAL FAIL??
I would like to know who their military strategist is who comes up with these plans, do they have any clue about the “blowback” this can create? Had they even thought about the already looming refugee crisis happening as a result of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, where did they think the people of Syria who want to live their lives in peace where going to go when their lives and livelihoods have been totally usurped from them? Did they think they could kill off all the civilians and just have the issue of mass graves instead of mass tent cities lining their Turkish borders.
Turkey has geo-politically placed itself inside a cesspool with a bunch of folks who could care less about Turkish interests and are more concerned with their own hegemony in the so-called Middle East.
(ANTIMEDIA)The World, at Large — We are in mourning. Again. Indeed, Paris is in mourning, again.
For the second time in less than a year, we are all de facto Parisians — with Facebook profiles, casinos, and whole buildings draped in the blue, white, and red of the French flag. Solidarity as sympathy, bien sûr — a most poignant message that humanity stands with Paris — and will act decisively to avenge the “carnage” unexpectedly wrought by those whose motives most will never fall victim to, much less comprehend.
Most?
Evidently, despite the accumulated knowledge of the entire planet at our disposal through the computer screen, solidarity has escaped some of us.
And I am weary.
Without question, I mourn for Paris’ recent victims and their families — and I would never claim knowledgeable firsthand experience of the same. But I refuse — despite my partial French heritage — to cloak myself in nationalism of any stripe or star, particularly not now. Because, besides victims in Paris, an incomprehensibly astronomic number of people have been grieving loss of the highest order for some time — in places whose names roll off our tongues as if it’s accepted that violence simply happens there — and a majority likely couldn’t guess the colors on these victims’ flags.
You see, I also mourn for those killed mere hours before Paris crumbled into chaos, in strikingly similar attacks in Beirut.
I mourn the hundreds of thousands displaced or killed in Syria, no matter their pledged allegiance. No matter their professed religion. No matter.
I mourn for the millions killed in ongoing and renewed, illegal United States’ aggression in Iraq — and those facing a torturous demise from exposure to depleted uranium employed in violation of international and humanitarian law — for reasons far closer to ‘American’ and corporate hegemony than compassionate principle.
I mourn the untold number killed in the United States’ insidious — and seemingly permanent — war in Afghanistan. And the countless children there who know nothing of peace, much less the feeling of safety it brings. And patients and staff recently targeted, bombed, and then shot while fleeing the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz — and the irony of that humanitarian organization’s French roots.
I mourn those forced into human slavery or sex trafficking in Malaysia; and curse the scant hope they escape, now that the massive TPP has garnered U.S. government’s tacit approval of the abhorrence that is human trade.
I mourn for Palestinians, whose land was usurped — and whose lives and infrastructure and families and sense of security and HOMES are under siege and occupation by an illegal and actively terrorist State.
I mourn the patients and staff at the over 100 healthcare facilities in Yemen that have been BOMBED since March. And the apparently soulless who found an acceptable target in hospitals.
I mourn for Yemen.
I mourn for the victims of complicit government violence in Mexico, and 43 students and their families who lack answers.
I mourn for Chinese men, women, and children working, quite literally, as slaves, so the West can be rude at dinner and take endless pictures — of its narcissistically apathetic self.
I mourn rampant genocide — past and present — for the sake of manifest destiny. And empire. And imperialism. And inexplicable and unstated reasons.
In fact, I mourn for all victims of terror, whether State or group sponsored, without conditions attached to my grief — no matter location, nor loyalty, nor arbitrary geopolitical happenstance of location of a victim’s birth. And I’m already grieving those soon to be terror’s next victims; since, as French President François Hollande jarringly warned, avenging Paris’ victims just birthed (yet another) “PITILESS” war.
As if gentle were somehow a method to employ in waging war.
Yes, I mourn for Paris. But I do so while weeping in shame at the deplorable supercilious judgment ensconced in Western reaction to it; for countless pitiable xenophobes and their endless vapid justifications; for arrogant commentary from politicians and their media mouthpieces with their embarrassing post-tragedy clamoring to exploit ignorant heartstrings for the appropriate victims; for the endless War of Terror — and the service members who somehow haven’t yet deduced that this would ALL END if they simply refused to fucking fight.
The fact is, grief on this scale is exhausting. And I’m very nearly out of tears.
So keep these victims around the globe in mind — every, single man, woman and child who has, who is, and who will suffer the maiming, horror, torture, and death that’s as necessary to war as those who take up arms — when you next excuse a politician’s stance on war, because the rest of his or her platform seems really promising.
Or, at least, seems the lesser of two evils.
And shake that flag from your social media profile; and your home; and your thoughts. Because as long as you wear just one flag, your attempt to stand with victims of terror is a most embarrassingly hollow solidarity, indeed.
(ANTIMEDIA)The World, at Large — We are in mourning. Again. Indeed, Paris is in mourning, again.
For the second time in less than a year, we are all de facto Parisians — with Facebook profiles, casinos, and whole buildings draped in the blue, white, and red of the French flag. Solidarity as sympathy, bien sûr — a most poignant message that humanity stands with Paris — and will act decisively to avenge the “carnage” unexpectedly wrought by those whose motives most will never fall victim to, much less comprehend.
Most?
Evidently, despite the accumulated knowledge of the entire planet at our disposal through the computer screen, solidarity has escaped some of us.
And I am weary.
Without question, I mourn for Paris’ recent victims and their families — and I would never claim knowledgeable firsthand experience of the same. But I refuse — despite my partial French heritage — to cloak myself in nationalism of any stripe or star, particularly not now. Because, besides victims in Paris, an incomprehensibly astronomic number of people have been grieving loss of the highest order for some time — in places whose names roll off our tongues as if it’s accepted that violence simply happens there — and a majority likely couldn’t guess the colors on these victims’ flags.
You see, I also mourn for those killed mere hours before Paris crumbled into chaos, in strikingly similar attacks in Beirut.
I mourn the hundreds of thousands displaced or killed in Syria, no matter their pledged allegiance. No matter their professed religion. No matter.
I mourn for the millions killed in ongoing and renewed, illegal United States’ aggression in Iraq — and those facing a torturous demise from exposure to depleted uranium employed in violation of international and humanitarian law — for reasons far closer to ‘American’ and corporate hegemony than compassionate principle.
I mourn the untold number killed in the United States’ insidious — and seemingly permanent — war in Afghanistan. And the countless children there who know nothing of peace, much less the feeling of safety it brings. And patients and staff recently targeted, bombed, and then shot while fleeing the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz — and the irony of that humanitarian organization’s French roots.
I mourn those forced into human slavery or sex trafficking in Malaysia; and curse the scant hope they escape, now that the massive TPP has garnered U.S. government’s tacit approval of the abhorrence that is human trade.
I mourn for Palestinians, whose land was usurped — and whose lives and infrastructure and families and sense of security and HOMES are under siege and occupation by an illegal and actively terrorist State.
I mourn the patients and staff at the over 100 healthcare facilities in Yemen that have been BOMBED since March. And the apparently soulless who found an acceptable target in hospitals.
I mourn for Yemen.
I mourn for the victims of complicit government violence in Mexico, and 43 students and their families who lack answers.
I mourn for Chinese men, women, and children working, quite literally, as slaves, so the West can be rude at dinner and take endless pictures — of its narcissistically apathetic self.
I mourn rampant genocide — past and present — for the sake of manifest destiny. And empire. And imperialism. And inexplicable and unstated reasons.
In fact, I mourn for all victims of terror, whether State or group sponsored, without conditions attached to my grief — no matter location, nor loyalty, nor arbitrary geopolitical happenstance of location of a victim’s birth. And I’m already grieving those soon to be terror’s next victims; since, as French President François Hollande jarringly warned, avenging Paris’ victims just birthed (yet another) “PITILESS” war.
As if gentle were somehow a method to employ in waging war.
Yes, I mourn for Paris. But I do so while weeping in shame at the deplorable supercilious judgment ensconced in Western reaction to it; for countless pitiable xenophobes and their endless vapid justifications; for arrogant commentary from politicians and their media mouthpieces with their embarrassing post-tragedy clamoring to exploit ignorant heartstrings for the appropriate victims; for the endless War of Terror — and the service members who somehow haven’t yet deduced that this would ALL END if they simply refused to fucking fight.
The fact is, grief on this scale is exhausting. And I’m very nearly out of tears.
So keep these victims around the globe in mind — every, single man, woman and child who has, who is, and who will suffer the maiming, horror, torture, and death that’s as necessary to war as those who take up arms — when you next excuse a politician’s stance on war, because the rest of his or her platform seems really promising.
Or, at least, seems the lesser of two evils.
And shake that flag from your social media profile; and your home; and your thoughts. Because as long as you wear just one flag, your attempt to stand with victims of terror is a most embarrassingly hollow solidarity, indeed.
Excerpt:”The World, at Large — We are in mourning. Again. Indeed, Paris is in mourning, again.
For the second time in less than a year, we are all de facto Parisians — with Facebook profiles, casinos, and whole buildings draped in the blue, white, and red of the French flag. Solidarity as sympathy, bien sûr — a most poignant message that humanity stands with Paris — and will act decisively to avenge the “carnage” unexpectedly wrought by those whose motives most will never fall victim to, much less comprehend.” Read more, click the link below.
Any attack that is hosted by MSM is only done when it suits the overall agenda. Anything outside of the agenda and was not orchestrated by the puppet masters and their puppets has little to no importance unless it can be capitalized upon. #BringBackOurGirls Movement. In which, case it became a National and international project to have people holding white boards in front of them saying “Bring Back Our Girls:. In short order it was found to be a bit of a hoax for two reasons, the school mentioned was not the school where Boko Haram had raided. 2. Alternative news outlets exposed the lunacy of this one and it quickly became a non story. However, that did not stop Boko Haram from its terroristic threats and barbarism, but not in the context of the International spotlight.
And remember the bombing of the Mall In Kenya (Westgate shopping mall attack). That too hit the national/international newswire.. It served the agenda of fear and trepidation and shielded the real issues that were going on at the time. More proof that there has to be an agenda.
So… when there is a big hype about something in the news, look around, there is probably something else that is happening or has happened that they need to blow up another story to distract the masses. And sometimes, it’s just social engineering.
The way Kenya is currently trending on Twitter and Facebook shows that folks have plenty to say about the Kenya attacks in comparison to the news coverage that the Paris attacks have received. As reported by CNN, 147 people were killed at Garissa University College in Kenya back on April 2, but news hounds might only remember the horrific attack at the Kenya college as a blip on the radar in the news cycle in comparison to the equally horrific Paris attacks.
According to the website popularity tracking list called “What’s Hot” on Alexa.com, an Amazon company, a BBC News article about the 147 people killed in the Kenya attack by an Islamist group is the sixth most popular URL on their list as of this writing.
So many tweets and posts are coming into Twitter and Facebook about Kenya that some readers are getting confused, wondering why the Kenya tweets are trending. The Kenya attacks not only left 147 people dead, but also injured at least 79 folks in the attack that lasted for hours. It was a sad day for Kenya, which saw the country experience an attack that claimed such a high death toll that it was the largest amount of people killed on Kenyan soil since 1998, when more than 200 people lost their lives in the bombing of the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi.
The disparity of attention between the Kenyan attacks and the Parisian attacks are being blamed on the fact that Kenya is a third-world country.
The fact that Facebook has allowed folks to change their profile photos to French flags with Facebook’s new filter to allow them to support Paris, as reported by TIME, is being compared to the lack of Kenyan flag filters on Facebook during the time Kenya was attacked.
Other attacks are being questioned and re-examined in the wake of the tragic Paris attacks, along with queries about the news coverage, or lack thereof, for other tragic events.
“Apologists for the terrorists who murdered in Paris are popping up even before the bodies are cold. Back in April when Islamist terrorists attacked a university in Kenya what was the excuse then? Did you even hear about it?”
The Kenya attack on Garissa University College in northeastern Kenya is being brought back to life months later as a means for social media users to give attention to other terrorist attacks around the world.
“Facebook… Where’s my option to have the Kenya flag overlay on my profile pic? This is equally as horrendous and is happening every day in the poorest parts of our world. #LookForTheHelpersJess“
Related searches such as Kenya Paris and the #prayforKenya hashtag are also trending in the wake of the controversy over the difference in news coverage. The Kenya attack articles are being retweeted, causing some users to think the Kenya attack just occurred.
Has World War III Begun? Yes, and ongoing since 911
Actually, for all intents and purposes, a War On Terror to be orchestrated by every nation who wants to stamp out the terrorists by any means necessary, and all these countries are situated all over the globe, in essence is a World War, or the World at War!
People have been saber rattling the ole “Get Ready For World War III” as if they are clueless that the World as we know it, has been at War since WWII. And the US has been at war since 1775. They should call this country a colony of Mars!!
There are so many misconceptions about what a World War would look like, based on what the previous World Wars looked like, but technology has changed since the mid 1900’s. If the elite can foment ground war in every part of the globe under the banner of ridding the world of terrorism, then a World War has been declared.
How many nations participated in World War I?
It grew into a war involving 32 countries. The Allies included Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States. These countries fought against the Central Powers which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.
How many nations participated in World War II?
World War 2 was fought between two groups of countries. On one side were the Axis Powers, including Germany, Italy and Japan. On the other side were the Allies. They included Britain, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, the Soviet Union, China and the United States of America.
THEN CAME SEPT. 11, 2001
“America’s War on Terrorism” was launched at 9.30pm on September 11, 2001″
“The War on Terror (WoT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), refers to theinternational military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States.[40] The United States led a coalition of other countries in a long but unsuccessful campaign to destroy al-Qaeda and other militant Islamistorganizations.”[41] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror>
The rhetorical war on terror[edit]”Because the actions involved in the “war on terrorism” are diffuse, and the criteria for inclusion are unclear, political theorist Richard Jackson has argued that “the ‘war on terrorism’ therefore, is simultaneously a set of actual practices—wars, covert operations, agencies, and institutions—and an accompanying series of assumptions, beliefs, justifications, and narratives—it is an entire language or discourse.”[65] Jackson cites among many examples a statement by John Ashcroft that “the attacks of September 11 drew a bright line of demarcation between the civil and the savage”.[66] Administration officials also described “terrorists” as hateful, treacherous, barbarous, mad, twisted, perverted, without faith, parasitical, inhuman, and, most commonly, evil.[67] Americans, in contrast, were described as brave, loving, generous, strong, resourceful, heroic, and respectful of human rights.[68]Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preventive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law.” [69][70] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror>
58 Participants in Operation Enduring Freedom Rendition and the “Global War on Terrorism”: 28 Nations Have Supported the US in the Detention and Torture of “Suspects” “Countries that held prisoners in behalf of the U.S. based on published data are Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Libya, Lithuania, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Syria (ironically), Somalia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zambia. Some of the above-named countries held suspects in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA); others held suspects in behalf the U.S. military, or both.” Source http://www.globalresearch.ca/rendition-and-the-global-war-on-terrorism-28-nations-have-supported-the-us-in-the-detention-and-torture-of-suspects/18419
“The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.” (Michel Chossudovsky, August 2005 )” Source:http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-and-america-s-war-on-terrorism/24975
“After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration declared a worldwide “war on terror,” involving open and covert military operations, new security legislation, efforts to block the financing of terrorism, and more. Washington called on other states to join in the fight against terrorism asserting that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Many governments joined this campaign, often adopting harsh new laws, lifting long-standing legal protections and stepping up domestic policing and intelligence work. Critics charge that the “war on terrorism” is an ideology of fear and repression that creates enemies and promotes violence rather than mitigating acts of terror and strengthening security. The worldwide campaign has too often become an excuse for governments to repress opposition groups and disregard international law and civil liberties. Governments should address terrorism through international cooperation, using international law and respecting civil liberties and human rights. Governments should also address the root causes of terrorism, notably political alienation due to prejudice, state-sponsored violence and poverty. This site deals with the idea and practice of the “war on terrorism.” Materials critically analyze the “war” and its consequences. The site looks at terrorism’s history and root causes and how the concept has been used and abused.” Source: https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html
The “war on terror” reformulates many aspects of world politics and the international NGO sector. In the US and elsewhere, ultra-conservative thinktanks have recently set up units to monitor and investigate the NGO sector. NGOs operating in “war on terror” conflicts feel pressured to either act as “sub-contractors for the superpower or pull out.” Source: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=127727.0;wap
Israel shoots down Syrian warplane “Complicating matters further is that the news of the US attack was also complemented by news that Israel had shot down a Syrian warplane in what it described as an act of aggression, confirming the first such incident in three decades. Israel’s military said earlier it had shot down a Russian-made Sukhoi jet over the occupied Golan Heights, which in recent weeks has been the scene of fierce clashes between al-Nusra Front and the Syrian army. The addition of Arab allies within the more than 40 nation coalition in the attacks was seen as crucial for the credibility of the American-led campaign, yet the inclusion of countries like Turkey – which has turned a blind eye to the mobility of ISIS, and other repressive forces, on its territory and borders – and Saudi Arabia – a nation that has provided a large chunk of the ideological foundations and practices that shape ISIS’ belief system – demands pause from observers and commentators examining the volatile events in Iraq and Syria. The fact that the US is only willing to work with its allies in the region and is unwilling to significantly include states like Iran, which have contemporary experience in warfare against ISIS, suggests that the campaign is not really about comprehensively confronting the militant organization, but more about ensuring and sustaining American interests when the dust settles.”Source: http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-expands-global-war-terror-striking-isis-targets-syria/196871/
Reaping the Whirlwind of Western Support for Extremist Violence By Chris Floyd November 14, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –
“We, the West, overthrew Saddam by violence. We overthrew Gadafy by violence. We are trying to overthrow Assad by violence. Harsh regimes all — but far less draconian than our Saudi allies, and other tyrannies around the world. What has been the result of these interventions? A hell on earth, one that grows wider and more virulent year after year. Without the American crime of aggressive war against Iraq — which, by the measurements used by Western governments themselves, left more than a million innocent people dead — there would be no ISIS, no “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Without the Saudi and Western funding and arming of an amalgam of extremist Sunni groups across the Middle East, used as proxies to strike at Iran and its allies, there would be no ISIS. Let’s go back further. Without the direct, extensive and deliberate creation by the United States and its Saudi ally of a world-wide movement of armed Sunni extremists during the Carter and Reagan administrations (in order to draw the Soviets into a quagmire in Afghanistan), there would have been no “War on Terror” — and no terrorist attacks in Paris tonight.” Read More
Again, when they say World War, they are talking about the “World” they live in and the interests they need to preserve; The War impact on the planet but every nation did not participate in it. However, if we can take a concept, Terrorism, and initiate a call to arms to fight it, the sky is the limit as to how far they can stretch this war based on eradicating a concept and ideology. Not a town, not state, nor country or territory. But individuals who can be targeted in any state or territory or country around the Globe.
decacsinc 
Comment: Welcome to ‘Merica! A land where you can proudly express your violent tendencies with blatant stupidity!