September 12, 2012

Schizophrenic Nature of U.S. Foreign Policy Causes A Predictable Disaster In Libya

 Schizophrenia and other mental disorders among people in imperial courts is the norm in the history of empires.
"Today, if Al Qaeda were to be revealed for what it really is, –e.g  in the context of a specific false flag terrorist attack– the legitimacy of the “war on terrorism” and those officials in high office who support it, would collapse like a deck of cards." - Prof Michel Chossudovsky, "Al Qaeda And Human Consciousness: Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda…. An Incessant and Repetitive Public Discourse," Global Research, March 24, 2012. 
Psychological experts would tell you in private that U.S. foreign policy is an expression of paranoid schizophrenia, and has nothing to do with defending America's core national interests.

Masking the many faces of U.S. foreign policy requires the annihilation of reason and common sense, as well as the censorship of contradictory evidence.

One day the U.S. is backing Al-Qaeda, and the next day the U.S. is condemning Al-Qaeda. So, is Al-Qaeda good or bad? Why is it considered good by the Western mainstream media when Al-Qaeda raises its flag in Syria under Assad, but it is considered bad when it raises its flag in post-Gaddafi Libya?

The U.S. government can't have it both ways on Al-Qaeda.

II. The Snake Eats Itself

The murder of American ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens by Washington's Jihadist terrorists was not as shocking as the establishment media would like you to believe. These tragedies are bound to happen when you empower radical forces in a country to achieve regime change.

This event is only the latest demonstration of how the schizophrenic nature of U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa is causing disasters left and right. It is an unsustainable and unwise foreign policy.

How will President Obama explain to the American people that Ambassador Stevens was killed by the same Al-Qaeda elements in Libya that Washington and its allies sponsored as part of a larger military effort to overthrow Gaddafi last year? This reality is getting harder to conceal with every passing day.

Tony Cartalucci writes in his article, "US-Backed Terrorists Murder US' Own Ambassador in Libya":
"Not only has US policy been exposed as not "promoting democracy" but purposefully spreading destabilization, violence, and terrorism, but the exact same militants behind the death of the US' own ambassador are literally leading US efforts to visit the same violence, destabilization, and chaos upon Syria."
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "Mission Accomplished" regarding their Libyan mission way too early, an error that former President Bush also made in his illegal war against Iraq.

The writer "b" of Moon of Alabama says:
"Hillary Clinton's and the other state department furies who had urged the U.S. to attack Libya and who are also behind the drive against Syria are now confronted with the ruins of their policies. They carry at least some blame for yesterday's deaths."
It is still not clear who actually killed ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. I thought Washington had full control over the Salafist terrorists and Al-Qaeda pests in Libya and Syria. Are they turning against their master? Or is this another false flag, as some analysts have asserted?

Could both attacks on the U.S. embassies be false flags? The aims, as always, are to justify U.S. presence in the Middle East to the American people and give Americans and Muslims reasons to fight each other in an endless war.

Apparently, there was no security at the U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya. You would think the U.S. government would beef up security around all its embassies on the most sensitive day in the year, the anniversary of the September 11 events.

It is good to remain skeptical of the official story. But with that said, there is not enough evidence about these incidents to say conclusively that they are false flags.

Would the U.S. shadow government kill one of its own ambassadors to escalate tensions in Libya and recast the Islamic terrorists who worked directly under NATO command in the Gaddafi operation as the new anti-American bad guys in Libya? I don't think they could be this heartless, but you never know.

The suspicious thing about the lethal attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya is that "Al-Qaeda" terrorists never act on their own in the Arab world. They are almost always instructed by their religious and political masters who work for American, British, Saudi, and Israeli intelligence agencies.

But there are wild cards in the Al-Qaeda playing deck. The NATO/GCC-backed Jihadist terrorists in Syria increasingly act like wild dogs without a leash on. In the deserted streets of Syria, they chanted, "We are men who drink blood." These fighters are not rational actors. They resemble the Joker character in 'The Dark Knight' who was left off the leash by the mob to bring down Batman.

The gangsters later regretted the move because the Joker threatened their operation and desired to take the entire city down. The Jihadist terrorists who are being armed and financed out of Washington and Riyadh exhibit the same anti-social and anti-rational characteristics as the Joker, though none of the intelligence.

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Al-Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Jihadist terrorist groups in the Middle East can burn American flags to their hearts' content, but they do not have the capability to carry out sophisticated "revenge operations" against the United States. Also, Al-Qaeda is not politically independent from the United States and its allies.

Washington is the head, and Al-Qaeda is the tail.

Al-Qaeda's activities coincide with Washington's objectives. Al-Qaeda is Washington's Muslim cloak, as historian Webster G. Tarpley has said.

The Yemeni people consider Al-Qaeda a useful myth that is cynically exploited by Yemen's rulers and the United States to advance their selfish commercial, geopolitical, and political objectives. Mona El-Naggar and Robert F. Worth reported in The New York Times on November 3, 2010, in an article called, "Yemen’s Drive on Al Qaeda Faces Internal Skepticism." An excerpt:
"As Yemen intensifies its military campaign against Al Qaeda’s regional arm, it faces a serious obstacle: most Yemenis consider the group a myth, or a ploy by their president to squeeze the West for aid money and punish his domestic opponents."
It is obvious that Yemenis, like Americans, Afghans, and Palestinians, are being tyrannized and looted under the rubric of counter-terrorism.

Tyranny is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality.