In the midst of the crisis in Iraq caused by the advances of the ISIS (originally, al Qaeda of Iraq) and feeble US attempts to explain away the sudden (for the uninformed and the lazy) rise of this Qaeda army-turned-caliphate, CNNs Scott Anderson effectively unveiled the truer US position and goals (in between the lines) at a price of a bit of disinformation and a bit of anti-imperialist rhetoric. According to Anderson, what is happening now is the fault of the British and the French, the US key allies, whose imperialism irreversibly messed up the region in the early 20th century--almost one hundred years ago (which is quite true, but it leaves out the white-washed burden of the US). Anderson correctly or almost correctly says: Were simply starting to run out of places which the European imperialists screwed up. He should have added: We are also running out places which US imperialism has not screwed up. However, the most stunning revelation hidden between the lines and cunningly assigned to Syria and Iraq as the would-be carriers of the US real objective, which cannot be understandably spoken out directly, is that the US is not against turning the state of the ISIS into a new accepted reality on the ground. And an article like this is a way of how to start the public used and reconciled to such an idea--i.e. by saying (in the right Machiavellian way) that, perversely the victims of the US plan want this themselves. CNN has discovered the perfidy of British and French imperialism in the Middle East, but then it slyly stops its more than sixty years belated critique of imperialism by the events of the 1950s, that is, just on the threshold of Pax Americana., CNN then does a remarkably Machiavellian thing: it effectively reveals the US plan and strategy by assigning its own objectives to its victims and targets: Syria and Iraq. In its perverse conclusion, the CNN article tries to make the US wish to be the desired mindset of the targeted countries: Perversely, there may soon come a time when both the Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad and the Alawite-dominated one in Damascus both decide such a terror-state [by the ISIS] might be the best way to be rid of their Sunni enemies. CNN also perfidiously inserts this dis-information, which is but a transparent ongoing US goal for Syria in its regime change campaign that has greatly assisted the ISIS, al Nusra and other terror jihadist armies; but clever CNN now tries to pin and present this US wish as a would-be thought of the Syrian government itself: there is now talk within Bashar al-Assads embattled regime of slicing off the Alawite-dominated western portions of Syria to create a more defendable mini-state. edition.cnn/2014/06/20/opinion/middle-east-borders-redrawn/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Posted on: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:52:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015