Security Lies in the Fight for the Rights of All
• Stop Bombing Syria and Defend the Rights of Refugees
• Statement of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization on the Paris Violence and Crimes
• Statement of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) on the Paris Violence,
• Governors Have No Right to Exclude Syrian Refugees •
Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations• Why Silence When Beirut Gets Bombed but Tears for Paris?
Stop Bombing Syria and Defend the Rights of Refugees
The U.S. response to the violence and horrific crimes against civilians in Paris November 13 has mainly been to increase U.S. aggression. This includes increasing the bombings of the people of Syria and increasing the number of Special Forces on the ground there. These forces are known for their illegal black ops, including assassinations and attacks on civilians.
According to President Obama, speaking in Turkey November 16, “Our coalition [the U.S. and NATO] is intensifying our airstrikes — more than 8,000 to date.” These bombings are mainly impacting the peoples of Syria and Iraq, causing yet more deaths of civilians, destruction of infrastructure like hospitals and forcing more to become refugees.
Obama also announced that the U.S. is “Streamlining the process by which we share intelligence and operational military information with France. This will allow our personnel to pass threat information, including on ISIL, to our French partners even more quickly and more often.” It also means the U.S. will gain more such information more often and use it as it has in the past — not to protect civilians but to illegally spy on them, on foreign government officials and carry out more assassinations and drone strikes, all in the name of security.
Attacking the rights of the peoples, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine Yemen and elsewhere serves only to create an even more dangerous situation, as the years of war against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan show. The invasion of Afghanistan occurred in the name of protecting the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It has not brought more security. War against Iraq has not. Efforts at regime change in Syria, including U.S. arming and training various forces, has also solved no problem and only unleashed greater insecurity and violence.
The solution required is not intensifying military action but defending the rights of the peoples abroad and at home. This means first of all bringing All U.S. Troops Home Now! This is what would contribute to peace and security. It means ending the use of force to settle conflicts and instead putting forward political solutions and use of diplomacy.
Defend the Rights of Refugees
Inside the U.S., the government is engaged in a broad attack on the rights of refugees and attempting to foment divisions along religious and other lines. While President Obama has said he will proceed with settling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S., he is also supporting yet more profiling and security checks. That is, Syrians are being collectively punished simply for being Syrian and no other reason. They have long been subjected to increased security measures that many other refugees and students here on visas do not face. The screening process for Syrian refugees already takes up to 3 years and requires 21 steps with numerous agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.
Syrians are not responsible for the actions in Paris, just as the people of Afghanistan were not responsible for 9/11. Collective punishment is a crime, not an answer. The U.S. is responsible for the continuing conflict in Syria, yet it takes no responsibility for this and instead targets the refugees and Syrians as a whole.
Since 1980, none of the millions of refugees the U.S. has settled, including Syrians, has committed a terrorist attack. The U.S. government has, yet it is to act with impunity for its terrorism here and abroad.
Defending the rights of refugees is a vital part of countering efforts to divide and further terrorize the peoples here and worldwide.
Signs of More War and Growing Conflicts Inside the U.S.
The response by various politicians and governors inside the U.S. indicate the growing conflicts within U.S. ruling circles in conditions where the rulers can provide no solutions. There is growing inequality, great economic and social insecurity, and more war on the horizon. There are signs of the “cold” civil war now underway, becoming a hot conflict. For example, the majority of Governors have said they would not accept refugees. This includes those in Michigan, home to the largest Arab population in the country, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin as well as many southern states. House Republican Caucus Chair Glen Casada said: "We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop [Syrian refugees] from coming in to the state by whatever means we can."
New York Governor Cuomo, who said he would accept refugees, also raised this same issue, saying, “Where does it say in the state constitution you can refuse a person placed by the federal government? What are you going to have your militia fight the federal government at the borders of your state?” While saying other Governors were making purely political statements, the fact that the possibility of use of the National Guard is being raised shows the concern that exists for such a confrontation.
Additionally, signs of preparations for broader war and repression have also occurred. The budget bill passed by Congress completely suspended the debt ceiling. This means, in the name of a national emergency, President Obama can run up unlimited debt using war bonds, or perhaps “stopping terrorism” bonds, to finance war actions. Further, Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an unusual action as it provides funding for the Pentagon. A main reason was his demand to close Guantánamo and instead set up a maximum- security military detention camp inside the U.S. This is so civilians, including protesters, or striking longshoremen, or refugees or any others branded a “threat,” can be held in indefinite detention inside the U.S. While Congress has now passed a second, very similar NDAA, Obama has yet to sign it.
Defending Rights Provides Security
It is clear that political solutions and peaceful means are not on the U.S. agenda as it continues to strive for world domination. Indeed yet more violence and repression are being unleashed, as the increased bombings, plans for a U.S. Guantánamo, and continued police killings with impunity show.
As the many demonstrations organized across the country in support of refugees and against war and government racism show, stepping up the fight for the rights of all abroad and at home is the source of security.
[TOP]
Statement of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization on the Paris Violence and Crimes
The U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization (USMLO) condemns the brutal violence and crimes that occurred November 13 in Paris, France, directed against innocent civilians. We express our condolences to the families and friends of all the victims. Such terrible crimes directed at working people do not contribute to solving problems. We also mourn the deaths and injury of those in Lebanon, and tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere, victims of U.S. state terrorism. Further measures now by the U.S. to attack the rights of the peoples, such as increasing the bombing of Syria, also do not solve any problem. On the contrary, they create a more dangerous situation for all.
Measures abroad and at home further depriving the peoples of their rights are not acceptable. The Syrians are not to blame for the Paris violence. They are not to blame for the U.S. instigated war in their country, where the U.S. is attempting to impose yet another regime change. Nowhere has U.S. aggression and regime change brought democracy or stability. What it has unleashed is violence and anarchy as the U.S. strives relentlessly for world domination.
The U.S. and the U.S.-led NATO bloc are the ones most responsible for the death and destruction occurring worldwide. They are the ones guilty of collective punishment and civilian massacres and the terrorism of drone attacks and bombings.
It is also the U.S. state and its monopoly media that are responsible not for the calm and sober responses needed, but for whipping up hysteria about refugees. How are refugees the threat? How is collective punishment the answer? Why are Muslims again being targeted for more profiling and repression here and abroad? All of this serves to divert from U.S. crimes, including racist government profiling, more spying, and more aggression abroad, while justifying more attacks on the peoples. Since 1980, none of the millions of refugees the U.S. has settled, including Syrians, has committed a terrorist attack. To contribute to security, the rights of refugees and all the peoples must be defended.
It is worth asking who stands to gain from the Paris violence. Certainly not the Syrians. It is serving to justify yet more attacks and aggression against the peoples, while hiding who is most responsible for such crimes — the U.S.
USMLO condemns U.S. terrorism and crimes and use of force against the peoples in the name of security. While condemning terrorist acts like that in Paris, we firmly support the resistance to U.S. aggression abroad and its racist and anti-people repression at home. We reject the hysteria against refugees and U.S. violence and use of force. Political solutions are needed. Security at home and abroad lies in the fight for the rights of all.
[TOP]
Statement of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) on the Paris Violence
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) categorically condemns the heinous crimes committed in Paris, France on the afternoon of November 13. We express our deepest sympathies with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims and call for sober-minded measures to be taken which do not turn the French and world's people into targets of counter-violence. Measures that further deprive the people of their rights in the name of protecting the security of the French state are not an acceptable answer.
The reactionary violence displayed in Paris is directed against the working people who are not to blame for the instigation of state terrorism but are its victims. Attempts to protect the French state, which deprive the people of their rights and, furthermore, target sections of the people for attack, are self-serving and create an even more dangerous situation.
CPC(M-L) calls on its members and supporters to take these events very seriously, remain calm and lead their peers to draw warranted conclusions. Who is behind these attacks? Are they an attempt to further murky the waters surrounding the U.S. striving to bring about regime change in Syria, which is now leading to a new round of violence, such as the targeting of a hospital in Afghanistan by the U.S. and to bombings such as what took place in Lebanon that targeted Hezbollah, and other similar activities?
All of it shows the anarchy and violence, which has been unleashed by the U.S. striving for world domination in which the NATO bloc is doing its utmost to isolate Russia and not permit a political solution to problems which have emerged.
CPC(M-L) reiterates its opposition to the use of force to settle conflicts. We reiterate our opposition to the use of the state to suppress the rights of the people in the name of security. All of it shows that political solutions are not on the agenda of the U.S. and European powers, as well as Canada. Instead, civil wars and state terrorism are fomented to get an upper hand. It must not pass!
[TOP]
Governors Have No Right to Exclude Syrian Refugees
As the world reels from the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last week, more than half of U.S. governors began lining up to scapegoat Syrian refugees fleeing violence in their country. Of those 27 governors, all but one are Republicans. Democrat Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire joined the gubernatorial group and called for the United States to refuse to admit those fleeing Syria. Many proclaimed they would deny entry to the refugees. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote to President Barack Obama: "I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris."
A Republican congressman from Tennessee, House Republican Caucus Chair Glen Casada, wants the National Guard to round up Syrian refugees already settled there and prevent others from entering Tennessee. "We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop [Syrian refugees] from coming in to the state by whatever means we can," he said.
But only the federal government — not the states — has the power to decide if and where refugees can settle in this country.
The Law on States' Rights and Immigration
In 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Arizona v. United States that "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, "Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate ... The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return." Kennedy noted that under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, "Congress has the power to preempt state law." States cannot regulate conduct in a field that Congress "has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance," Kennedy added. "Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the Nation's borders."
While states cannot refuse to admit refugees, they may make resettlement more onerous.
The 1980 Refugee Act grants authority to the president to determine how many refugees may be admitted to the United States. The president must consider whether "an unforeseen emergency refugee situation exists" and whether "the admission of certain refugees in response to the emergency refugee situation is justified by grave humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest."
Obama said he will continue with his plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2015, stating "many of these refugees are the victims of terrorism themselves ... That's what they're fleeing. Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values."
"Our nations can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security," he added, citing rigorous screening and security checks. "We can and must do both."
Republican presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio and Ben Carson, oppose the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. Donald Trump says if he's elected president, "they're going back."
Responding to Jeb Bush, who wants to focus assistance efforts on Christian refugees fleeing Syria, Obama retorted, "That's shameful. That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion." In fact, in addition to Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, Alawites, Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims have been targeted for persecution by ISIS.
Refugee Screening and Resettlement
While states cannot refuse to admit refugees, they may make resettlement more onerous by denying resources, including housing assistance, to the federal government. If governors tried to block certain categories of refugees, they would be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits.
Since 1980, none of the millions of refugees the U.S. has welcomed has committed a terrorist attack.
Security screenings for refugees are conducted by several federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FBI, National Counterterrorism Center and National Security Council. "The vetting process now in place is already a dreadful maze — a Rubik's Cube of bureaucracies practically guaranteeing that few Syrians will ever set foot on our shores," according to James Jennings, president of Conscience International, a humanitarian organization that delivers aid to Syrian refugees in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Greece. "The process takes up to three years and requires 21 steps with numerous agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, all required to sign off. There is next to no chance that a terrorist could get in under the present system.”
Kevin Appleby, director of the Migration and Refugee Services Office of Migration and Refugee Policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, concurs. "These refugees are the most vetted, they go through more security screening than any arrivals to the United States,” he told the Los Angeles Times.
Muslims constitute the largest proportion of victims of terrorism, with those in Syria and Iraq leading the pack. […] Indeed, according to a 2012 report of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, between 82 percent and 97 percent of the victims of religiously motivated terror attacks during the previous five years were Muslims.
Sudden Proliferation of Anti-Refugee Legislation
Two GOP presidential hopefuls are introducing legislation to prevent or slow down the migration of Syrian refugees to the United States. Senator Ted Cruz is reportedly drafting a bill that would forbid Syrian Muslim refugees from entering the United States. It would, however, welcome Christians. Sen. Rand Paul will introduce a bill to place an immediate moratorium on U.S. visas, preventing refugees and "others from obtaining visas to immigrate, visit, or study in the U.S. from about 30 countries that have significant jihadist movements." Paul plans to pay for the legislation "with a special tax on arms sales to any of these countries."
Later this week, a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee will take up security matters related to Syrian refugees. [...]
There is no evidence that refugees pose a security risk. The Paris attackers were not refugees, although one of them [reportedly] used a fake Syrian passport; they were born in Europe. Since 1980, none of the millions of refugees the United States has welcomed — many of them from the Middle East — has committed a terrorist attack. The 9/11 hijackers entered the United States legally on student or tourist visas. The Boston Marathon bombers were not refugees.
The charge that refugees are a threat to the United States is a tempest in a teapot. If we want to stop terrorism, we should stop killing innocent civilians in other countries.
Bombing Is Not the Solution
Western airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have killed at least 459 civilians, including more than 100 children, according to the Guardian. French President François Hollande retaliated for the Paris attacks by bombing Raqqa, thought to be the "headquarters" of ISIS. Raqqa is a city with hundreds of thousands of civilians. The bombs struck the electricity grid, a museum and clinics. Untold numbers of people have been injured or killed in the strikes.
The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and drone bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria have not destroyed ISIS. [...]
That is why the bombing by the United States and France must stop immediately. A diplomatic solution involving all players in the region, including Iran, Russia and China, should be seriously pursued.
Arms sales must be halted. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait have spent billions of dollars arming the opposition to the Assad regime but ISIS is a beneficiary of those weapons. The French have a $10 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and Obama has concluded more than $100 billion in arms sales to the Saudis during the past five years. [...]
The United States should welcome many more than the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama has agreed to accept. We have a moral responsibility to provide refuge to those displaced by U.S. actions, which contributed to destabilizing the entire region with invasions and regime changes since 2001.
[TOP]
Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations
Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.
The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious "suicide" of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.
What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.
More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO's Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public's attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public's attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?
The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks? Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?
The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government's propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.
Initially even the Russian media served to trumpet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from political defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn't too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad's use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia's borders to protect Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.
Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain.[1]
To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: "What is ISIL?" Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA's operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington's, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.
ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?
The next question is: "How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?" Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe's borders closed, thus halting ISIL's ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?
Who does benefit? Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington's Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage's Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen's National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.
The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel's political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. "Paris changes everything," they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.
The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment's presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But "Paris changes everything." Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. "Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race," declares CNN.[2]
Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande's declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO's Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington's way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.
The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.
The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?
The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington's goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington's goal of removing Assad from power.
The answer to the Roman question, "cui bono," is clear.
But do not expect to hear it from the Western media.
Notes
1. "Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International," RT (Youtube), November 14, 2015.
2. "Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race," Eric Bradner, CNN, November 16, 2015.
(Information Clearing House, November 16, 2015)
[TOP]
Why Silence When Beirut Gets Bombed but Tears for Paris?
Universally, governments have condemned the attacks that took place in the French capital's northern suburb of Saint-Denis on November 13, 2015. Unquestionably, the murder and mayhem that happened in Paris was despicable and tragic. Questions need to be asked, however, as part of an important discussion about the narrative that is emerging.
Putting up French flags and showing solidarity for the people of Paris has immersed vast stretches of the international public. Memes and symbols of support are appearing everywhere. Showing support for Paris has become a major trend on social media and in Euro-Atlantic capitals.
A Tale of Two Cities and Two Standards
Aftermath of terrorist bombing in Beirut, November 12, 2015.
The Saint-Denis attacks come a day after the attacks on Beirut's southern Dahiyeh area on November 12, 2015. The murder and mayhem in Beirut virtually went unnoticed in North America and the European Union. This is important to note, because it means that two different standards are being applied.
The role of the media and the messages it is sending to audiences cannot be overlooked whatsoever. If the terrorist attacks in Beirut were even mentioned, the mainstream media casually only did so. On the other hand, the mainstream media reports about the tragedy in Paris have shown concern and emotion for the attacks there. Victims in places like Baghdad, Mogadishu, Damascus, Donetsk, Tripoli, Gaza, and Sanaa do not even register as newsworthy. News channels have continuously broadcast images and reports about the violence in Paris while politicians and officials across the US Empire have begun their epithets, in the process stoking fear and saturating public opinion and emotions. Facebook even began asking users who were in Paris if they were safe by checking in, but did not provide the same service for Beirut users. Has this service even been provided once for the Baghdadis that have been plagued with constant terrorist bombings since the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003?
As an example of how people's emotions can be engaged and influenced, the Lebanese-Canadian singer Sari Abboud, known by the stage name Massari, who was in Paris at the time, was engrossed in the misfortune of Saint-Denis to the point where he made a statement on social media saying that he was praying for Paris. He overlooked his own ancestral land and said nothing about Lebanon. One of his fans quickly responded by asking him why he did not pray for the people of Beirut. The revealing comments were removed quickly. Massari was clearly swept up by the current of the day.
Political interests define terrorism and atrocities in conjunction with who it is perpetrated against. They try to define who merits our concerns and sympathy, and which do not deserve our sympathy. There is a message when US, British, Australian, French, Canadian, and German politicians and leaders make statements in solidarity with the Parisian people, but virtually ignore Beirutis and the peoples of Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Nigeria, East Ukraine, and Palestine.
Differential Politics
Audiences are being inundated by mass media about the tragedy in Paris whereas the terrorism in Beirut is being ignored or sanitized. This is happening for a reason. It is a matter of the differentials that power interests are projecting. As a part of this, a subtle discourse is tacitly implying that what happened in Beirut is not a tragedy and that the Lebanese people are less deserving of global sympathy than the French people.
This discourse is part of the illusive discursive process of the "Global War on Terror" that aims to justify conquest and domination in humanitarian and righteous terms. The victims of the terrorism in Beirut are disregarded and go unseen, because the people that were murdered in Beirut were an accumulation of Lebanese citizenry, Arab identity, Muslim faith, Shiite confession, working class, and people that lived in a spatial entity known to back Hezbollah. The civilian victims in Beirut are essentially condemned to being lower on the hierarchical totem pole of humanity than their counterparts in Paris.
In the US, a Pennsylvanian candidate running for the U.S. Senate, Everett Stern, wrote multiple times how he supported the terrorist attacks on Beirut. On Twitter, he declared: "Good news!!! I hope Hezbollah terrorists were killed." When confronted, Stern categorized the attack in Beirut as an attack on Hezbollah.
Hezbollah Fights ISIL Death Squads, But the French Government Supports ISIL
Moreover, the historical patterns of how these events are manipulated cannot be overlooked either. Whenever these attacks take place and governments and mass media go into overdrive to inundate society, they opportunistically promote certain interests. These interests can take the form of curbing civil liberties or justifications for wars. This is what the US government did after the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
France quickly closed it borders when the tragedy in Paris occurred and before the dust has settled the opportunistic and unpopular French President François Hollande has begun talking of a "merciless" war. This does not auger well. Migrants and immigrants are being blamed while Islamophobia and xenophobia in the European Union will be fuelled. Undoubtedly, the tragedy in Paris will be used to justify and promote the dirty wars in the Middle East that the French government has partnered itself up to wage with the United States. Already reports about Syrian and Egyptian passports found at the Stade de France are being widely circulated, especially with emphasis on Syria. It was soon reported after the attack that the Charles De Gaulle French Aircraft Carrier was being sent from Toulon to the Middle East to help the US-led military operations.
At the end of the day it cannot be ignored that the ilk behind the attack in Paris are the same breed of people that France has directly or indirectly supported in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and the broader Middle East. The French government and President Hollande have been supporters of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and the ISIL/ISIS/DAESH/IS in one form or another. These are the groups that the French government and its allies, such as the US and Saudi Arabia, have supported with weapons, trained, and provided diplomatic and political cover for as proxies in regime change operations in the Middle East. When the same criminals and offenders act the same way in Damascus or Aleppo, their crimes are excused or overlooked. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad quickly made this point about what took place on November 13, 2015.
President Hollande has described the attacks on Paris as a war conducted from abroad. The truth is the opposite. The source is not abroad as the French government claims. There is a connection between this violence and French foreign policy. France's government is one of the authors of the terror that has trained, supported, and encouraged these types of activities. "Now they call them terrorists because today they are killing French people, but when they used to kill Syrian people they were considered jihadists," Bashar Al-Jaafari, the Syrian envoy to the United Nations, has commented.
Less than a year ago, an attack on Charlie Hebdo was conducted by individuals that were supported and encouraged by the French government to go fight in Syria and topple the government in Damascus. Ultimately, the people in France should be angry at the French government for supporting these individuals and groups when they went to fight in Syria and other countries. One way or another, these attacks in Paris are the results of the regime change policies of the US allies, including France. If you encourage people to murder and fight overseas, or to support that type of conduct, what do you think they will do inside your country or when they get back?
(Strategic Culture Foundation, November 17, 2015)
[TOP]