Islamic terrorism the new Soviet Union, how empires invent enemies

I see you made no mention whatsoever of the Romans which I presume means you finally understood how great military power does not equate to actual greatness either that or you didn't read what I said about slavery, gladiators and the war between the senate and those who wanted to name themselves dictators. Now onto your next "argument" you say: "Those people do not matter on any level. They are unfortunate expenditures of munitions that should have been aimed at those foolish enough to oppose our will" This is by far the most sickening thing I have ever come across in this website. You are basically saying that innocent civilians who die when bombs are dropped indiscriminately don't matter? That is the same disgusting attitude that Hitler had towards the Jewish, that Pol Pot had against his own people, that the Spanish conquistadors had towards the Aztecs, that the red necks had towards slaves. That sir, is fascism at its peak! How would you feel if your entire family died during an Islamic attack on your home city? Well imagine how the Palestinians feel when the Israelis (trained by the USA) rape, torture their families and then steal their land? Imagine how the families of the nearly 500,000 people who died in Iraq felt? Innocent children were burned alive in Napalm, thousands of people perished due to the french attack on Syria after the incident in Nice, thousands of people are dying in Yemen and yet you say they don't matter? I also notice you say " for opposing our will" but unless you are a member of NATO or a sick CIA psychopath, your will is irrelevant in the dynamics of empires. Your ideology is absolutely repugnant. It is precisely "people" (I hesitate on calling you a person since you value the life of others like worthless scum) like you that Napoleon was able to invade Russia on the racist pretext that there are superior cultures to others and that the greater good of a particular society justifies the suffering of the rest. It is precisely because of manipulable scum like you that the USA invaded Korea, it is because of "people" like you who believe that their nation has the right to kill hundreds of thousands of people to defend "democracy" that the world is in such a rotten state. A bit of a history lesson for your: 1) The USA funded the taliban during the Cold war 2) Al-Qaeda means "database" Does that ring a bell you fascist crack-pot? Well, A former contractor for a UK-based public relations firm says that the Pentagon paid more than half a billion dollars for the production and dissemination of fake Al-Qaeda videos that portrayed the insurgent group in a negative light. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the PR firm, Bell Pottinger, worked alongside top US military officials at Camp Victory in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. The agency was tasked with crafting TV segments in the style of unbiased Arabic news reports, videos of Al-Qaeda bombings that appeared to be filmed by insurgents, and anti-insurgent commercials " and those who watched the videos could be tracked by US forces.The report of Bell Pottinger"s involvement in the video hearkens back to more than 10 years ago, when the Washington-based PR firm Lincoln Group was revealed to have produced print news stories and placed them in Iraqi newspapers. According to the Los Angeles Times, who obtained the 2005 documents, the stories were intended to tout the US-led efforts in Iraq and denounce insurgent groups. Not convinced? Here's some more: 3) Sunni-jihad-istan joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous "Surge." Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money- that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia. No CIA. No Surge. No money. Just the wasteland that is Anbar, and a Baghdad government intent on consolidating power at Sulayman"s expense. His Eminence, with his children in need of Bugatti supercars, flats in London, multiple Vertu mobiles, and an entourage of slaves, did what any good dad would: he created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC. The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq. His allies: the Ba"ath and ISIS. In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, "former" Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist. Makes sense. CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress. How? Because the CIA was directly involved with this terrorist group. 4) Here's some more proof: "Omar Khyam, an accused leader among seven men charged in 2004 with stockpiling half a ton of explosives in an Al Qaeda-linked bombing plot, took the stand Tuesday long enough to refuse to continue his testimony. The judge temporarily adjourned the trial, which began in March," reports the Los Angeles Times. "On Monday, Khyam stunned his own lawyer when he declared that his relatives in Pakistan had been intimidated in recent days by agents of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which has a shadowy history of contacts with Islamic extremist networks." It seems that your highly idealised CIA has had an awful lot of fishy affiliations with Al-Qaeda wouldn't you say? As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow"s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar " the MAK " which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war. What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan"s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA"s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow"s occupation. The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan " found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to "read" than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the "reliable" partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow. To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said. Indeed, the U.S. started backing Al Qaeda"s forefathers even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan George Orwell in 1984, predicted a totalitarian government that no longer had to worry about facing direct enemies in an all-out war as was often the case in the past. Because of neo-liberalism, countries can be "invaded" economically as was the case with Cuba without the need of a direct military operation. And because there is no military power strong enough to oppose the USA or to threaten it beyond the territories on which civil wars are being fought, beyond the middle east, the USA has resorted to inventing a new enemy when the only power that could pose a threat finally fell in 1989. Terrorism is the new soviet Union. If you think differently, explain then the following inconsistencies in the haunt for Osama Bin laden: In 1996 the CIA set up a special unit called Alec Station with the aim of targeting Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. It was headed by Michael Scheuer who found the Saudis less than cooperative. "When we set up the unit in 1996 we asked the Saudis for some basic material on bin Laden, like his birth certificate, his financial records " obvious stuff," recalled Mr Scheuer many years later. "We got nothing." The CIA unit pursuing bin Laden kept on requesting this mundane but necessary information about their target from the Saudis for the next three years but got no reply. "Finally in 1999, we get a message from the [CIA] station chief in Riyadh, a Mr John Brennan," Mr Scheuer said in an interview published in Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins by my brother Andrew Cockburn. "He said we should stop sending these requests as it was "upsetting the Saudis"." The story is important because John Brennan has been director of the CIA since he replaced David Petraeus in 2013 and last week he was once again avoiding any upset to the Saudis by telling the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television station that the 28 pages in the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia that have never been released contain "no evidence to indicate that the Saudi government as an institution -- or as senior Saudi officials individually -- had supported the 9/11 attacks." This here by itself shows how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were all based on a lie. Sadam didn't even have nuclear weapons. Having a common enemy for society in this case terrorist groups funded by the USA itself, gives the government an excuse to arbitrarily monitor society, to make profit out of war and to spread its dominion over the world.