Pilger - The Real Invasion Of Africa Is Not News, And A Licence To Lie Is Hollywood’s Gift

[polly7]

By John Pilger

Source: johnpilger.com

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Long planned as a “mission” for Nato, not to mention the ever-zealous French, whose colonial lost causes remain on permanent standby, the war on Africa became urgent in 2011 when the Arab world appeared to be liberating itself from the Mubaraks and other clients of Washington and Europe. The hysteria this caused in imperial capitals cannot be exaggerated. Nato bombers were dispatched not to Tunis or Cairo but Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi ruled over Africa’s largest oil reserves. With the Libyan city of Sirte reduced to rubble, the British SAS directed the “rebel” militias in what has since been exposed as a racist bloodbath.

Almost certainly the consequence of a French/US attack on Mali on 13 January, a siege at a gas complex in Algeria ended bloodily, inspiring a 9/11 moment in David Cameron. The former Carlton TV PR man raged about a “global threat” requiring “decades” of western violence. He meant implantation of the west’s business plan for Africa, together with the rape of multi-ethnic Syria and the conquest of independent Iran.

Cameron has now ordered British troops to Mali, and sent an RAF drone, while his verbose military chief, General Sir David Richards, has addressed “a very clear message to jihadists worldwide: don’t dangle and tangle with us. We will deal with it robustly” – exactly what jihadists want to hear. The trail of blood of British army terror victims, all Muslims, their “systemic” torture cases currently heading to court, add necessary irony to the general’s words. I once experienced Sir David’s “robust” ways when I asked him if he had read the courageous Afghan feminist Malalai Joya’s description of the barbaric behaviour of westerners and their clients in her country. “You are an apologist for the Taliban” was his reply. (He later apologised).

These bleak comedians are straight out of Evelyn Waugh and allow us to feel the bracing breeze of history and hypocrisy. The “Islamic terrorism” that is their excuse for the enduring theft of Africa’s riches was all but invented by them. There is no longer any excuse to swallow the BBC/CNN line and not know the truth. Read Mark Curtis’s Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam (Serpent’s Tail) or John Cooley’s Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (Pluto Press) or The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (HarperCollins) who was midwife to the birth of modern fundamentalist terror. In effect, the mujahedin of al-Qaida and the Taliban were created by the CIA, its Pakistani equivalent, the Inter-Services Intelligence, and Britain’s MI6.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-real-invasion-of-africa-is-not-news-and-a-licence-to-lie-is-hollywood-s-gift-by-john-pilger

[yurbud]

1. wouldn't it be nice to have politicians who were honest about why they were doing things?

[polly7]

3. It sure would, but they'd have a lot more trouble

getting authorization ... I believe there are still more people that don't want perpetual war and bloody invasions than do.

[geek tragedy]

2. In Pilger's fantasy world people want to be liberated from Mubarak but not Gaddafi or Assad.

He would have a lot more credibility if he didn't treat every anti-American dictator losing his grip on power as a victim instead of a tyrant.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Many of those "anti-American dictators" were American supported dictators

until it became more convenient to remove them, usually by violence.
The 4 that come immediatley to mind are the Shah of Iran, and Saddam, and Ghadaffi, and Egypt's Mubarak.

[geek tragedy]

5. Only Saddam was overthrown by the US.

The other three got sacked by their own people.

I have no problem who call out the US for supporting dictators. Or for those who call out the US for interventionism.

I do have a problem with those who throw in with the worst of the worst like Assad just because the US doesn't like him.