Home | About | Donate

ISIL and the West: A Clash of Savageries


#1

ISIL and the West: A Clash of Savageries

Lamis Andoni

It is all deja vu; a repeat of the post-9/11 scenario that led to the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Both interventions wreaked havoc and destruction and unleashed gross violations of human rights in the name of a "war on terror".

Once again, most Western governments are making use of the heart-wrenching scenes of loss and sorrow to serve this misguided war, which benefits only its military contracts and industries.


#2

"Most observers lament the devaluation of Arab and Muslim lives, or the life of "the other". What I see is a total devaluation of all human lives, including the bloodshed of innocents in Paris, to serve the purposes of Western governments."

That's exactly what I see (and feel), too, Ms. Andoni. And it departs dramatically from the pabulum of all those sycophants who insist that all Americans support these wars of choice and plunder, or that "human nature" is thus and so, along with the one size fits all generic insistence that "human beings never learn."

Yesterday I experienced one of those moments of revelation wherein it occurred to me that with recent "terrorist" events in Beirut, Paris, and inside Belgium... that the net effect (just as 911 involved simultaneous attacks followed up by the "it could be in anyone's mail" Anthrax terror) is to make ANYONE, anywhere, feel that THEY could be next.

That is how trauma-based mind control works.

Now it's important to take in what it means that U.S. weapons' producers are the #1 supplier of deadly tools to a world being made more unstable by the hour.

Naturally, this proliferation in weaponry, up to and including those nifty drones, means that NO WHERE is safe.

And that is the mindset the elites want... and are busily cultivating.

What hit me is that the same entities spreading weapons obviously know that more and more "terrorist" events will result. Thus they expect citizens to turn to them--the ones that created the terror by in essence fertilizing the ground and planting just the right seeds--for safety and security.

I could picture in my mind, some military head honcho and perhaps a few trusted subordinates sitting round a table with reps. from one of the nation's top weapons-designing firms picturing the WHOLE WORLD as their market. Salivating over what all this spreading of terror means not just for sales, but for absolute control.

With drones capable of homing in on specific individuals, and pervasive surveillance campaigns tracking anyone that is designated as "suspicious" (likely for not toeing the corporate-make-war-state's bottom lines), the apparatus is in place that sees all of the world's citizens as potential enemy combatants.

(An eerie parallel is found in the way U.S. cops are now being trained to view residents in urban ghettos as that very thing.)

Just as criminals under incarceration learn to upgrade their tactics while in the company of pros., the hit-men that John Perkins exposed in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" improved their craft by taking what they'd learned (in the way of using strong-arming tactics to win deals with 3rd world "leaders") in places like Guatemala, and now applying them to the world, as a whole.

That's really what TPP and TIPP come down to. Trade deals that hold nations (and that means their people, laws, and natural resources) hostage.

What's so deeply troubling is that the same powers running the surveillance also command the troops and that both answer to the Money Changers who have taken over the would-be Temples of Democratic States.

The good news is that this impossible repression enveloping the world will be the thing that causes its implosion. ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," ditto for every force.)

... to be continued.


#3

Excellent, well stated facts, enjoyed every word, please write more. I use what I learn here on cd to expose the fallacies of our fascist Zionist satanic empire to those who listen. And there are increasing number of ordinary people who do listen and do get "it".


#4

A question needs to be asked of this author and others who in response to the attacks in Paris, decide that an explanation of the reasons for those attacks is in order. Yet there really is no defense for outright murder now is there?

Authors will point to the bombs, fighter jets, artillery and missiles of war and say >>> Look at the deaths they cause.

And the authors are right about that, war kills innocents. Most people commenting on CD are against war for that very reason. We care about the innocents who die in any war.

But paying lip service to outright murder is something else again. What is the merit of explaining the causes of a conflict in the Middle East as the bodies still lie in the Parisian morgues and so many still struggle for healing in hospital beds. There is a savagery in that quid pro quo explanation being offered here.

It smacks of justification or of a rationale for revenge. It suggests that one should accept that this act of savagery is to be expected because the wars kill people in the Middle East. It seems to say >>> 'How do you like it?' and that is another form of savagery in and of itself.

The author is right to condemn the savagery of war and what causes it but not as a justification for targeted murder. Moreover yet another author sees fit to bring up France's actions in the past (Algerians) but they do so as what?

They are doing it as a justification... as a lessening of the horror of what happened in Paris because other things happened in the past.

It is wrong to lessen the value of anyone's life by listing socio-economic-political causes and excuses for their murder. The innocent in Paris, the innocent in Gaza, the innocent in Syria and Beirut... were all innocent.

Too many voices on the left are losing their souls by explaining how savage murders are somehow made more understandable because of which nation was involved and what was done in years past or even in the present. That is vile.

ALL INNOCENTS are to be mourned equally and sincerely whether they belong to us or them, whether here or there. There is no quid pro quo, no historical explanations, no reasons nor rationales that can justify any innocent death ... anywhere.

Just as the right spouts vile xenophobia and worse - the left spouts qualifications for outright murder... both are emotional responses to the tragedy but both dehumanize the victims and victims to be in the future as well.

Be against war... of any kind... anywhere... any time ...

for the sake of the innocents ... everywhere.


#5

Excellent article by Lamis Andoni.

" The problem is that Western governments, especially the US, do not acknowledge that the perpetual process of destruction that they unleashed through bombing Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq did not stem al-Qaeda-inspired terror but rather widened its scope and recruitment."

They are not that stupid Lamis! Those bombings were never, never designed to stem terrorism that is the narrative and the canard of the fascists and their fawning parasites in the MSM. No different than the bogus lie " that we are bringing them freedom and democracy".

Lamis, I agree that the bombings did not stem terror but widened its scope and recruitment; but unfortunately, that is the whole idea!


#6

The concept of "savagery" originates in the European assault upon the indigenous peoples of the Americas and in the brutal unfolding of the Atlantic slave trade. Although it was European people who displayed unimaginable cruelty and barbarism in taking over the lands belonging to the First Nations, in a classic act of psychological projection, it was the VICTIMS of European colonialism who were libeled with the charge of "savagism." Similarly, the many African nations drawn into the slave trade (some as "slaves" and others as slave hunters) were collapsed into the single descriptor: "black savages." The Europeans who made the trade in human flesh a profitable global industry (surely one of history's great crimes against humanity), these people--these moral miscreants--had the audacity to claim for themselves the status of the "civilized." People, being people, have always had to guard against the insidious appeal of egotism; quite possibly, people will always have to guard against this serious moral failing. The evil of class, race, gender and other forms of hierarchy is precisely that they encourage egotistical self-regard in those who deem themselves "superior." And all history shows, that once a people come to think of themselves as "the chosen race," it's difficult to make them let go of this most childish of myths, with all its sinister potential to corrupt and mislead individuals into atrocity, cruelty and other forms of barbarism.

Too many people in the West regard themselves as God's chosen. American nationalists are especially guilty of this sin, but not a few Europeans are not far behind them in arrogance and conceitedness. White racism and the history of colonialism and imperialism are important factors here, as is Christianity, with its ridiculous narratives of the faithful versus the unbelievers. For those given over to the delusions of supremacist ideologies, the rest of the World has no true reality. Instead of a complex vision of a complex world of variety, diversity, and ambiguity, we get grossly simplistic frames such as "Islam vs the West," which is only another variation on the 19th century theme of "savagery vs civilization." It's as if Edward Said had never written his historic work on "Orientalism," which points out the many fallacies in Western perceptions of "the East."

The savagery of the West has found its mirror image in the savagery of ISIL and other violent extremists. Here I completely agree with Lamis Andoni: the Islamic terrorist, in all his fearful barbarity, is just the American soldier turned inside out. To paraphrase Nietzsche, we have looked for monsters and we have found one in ourselves. The irony is that the same is true of the terrorists: they rightly condemn the Americans, the French, the British, the Saudis and the Israelis for their cruel indifference to Arab and Muslim lives. Truth is on their side: the Great Western powers have slaughtered millions and have barely batted an eyelid. But who are the terrorists? They, too, are monsters who kill without remorse and almost without reason. They have killed Christians and Jews, but they have also killed their fair share of Muslims as well. These people are the nihilistic embodiment of a world without purpose, without meaning. They may be "anti-colonial," but they are hardly progressive or radical. One of the key points of Andoni's analysis is that the Western imperialists have to bear a degree of responsibility for ISIL, as they worked hard to stamp out the influence of the secular Left (socialists, communists, etc) by promoting "Islamic fundamentalism" as an ideological counterweight. Now that the fundamentalists have gotten out of control, and have turned against their former sponsors, we see that the law of unintended consequences is in full effect.

The racist nature of our world is revealed in the character of the responses to the Paris attacks. Many people in the West speak with horror of this basic assault on "civilization," as is not Paris one of the great examples of the modern city? The media help to bring home the true reality of the murderous nature of terrorism. We see the suffering of the wounded; we hear the weeping of the relatives of the slain. All this is as it should be. But when American bombs fall on Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, etc, etc, we rarely--if ever--get the human perspective on what bomb destruction means for the terrified natives of these ruined lands. The corporate media will say: "Obama's drones killed ten militants today" and that little Big Lie is good enough for most Americans. The fact that a family in Afghanistan is burying their 10 month old child, killed by the drone strike, is hardly visible to the American (and European) publics, and, sad to say, I suspect that many of them would not care.

The life of an American or a European or an Israeli is not more valuable than the life of a Muslim or an Arab. Until the world comes to accept that simple equation, we can expect the "clash of savageries" to continue indefinitely....


#7

1984 Huxley


#8

The civilian population of the Western nations are human shields our "leaders" hide behind.

To warlords all peasants are alike. My peasants. Your peasants. Warlords protect themselves from their own peasants uprising by turning their peasants against each other.

My peasants shall fight your peasants in wars that will enrich both of us and our families, and thereby assure our peasants rise up against neither of us.

The global elite have no intentions of doing otherwise. If peace broke out they might be held accountable for their crimes against the rest of us.


#10

So true, yes I agree those bombings and destruction were never meant to deter terrorism against the US it was meant to expand war and conflict to create business opportunities for the US weapons makers. You are correct again to state that the war planners PLAN these scenarios. Just as the communist governments have 5 year government planning and run planned economies so too are the elites, they plan government by chaos or what seems chaotic to the casual observer. Nothing happens without careful planning.


#11

Perfect :smile:


#12

It important to remember that the word "savage" has at its root the French word meaning "peoples of the wood". It was in no way shape or form a word that defined people as brutes. Very much was the case with the word "barbarian".

It was the English , and in particular those in the 13 colonies who took that word "Savage" and imparted on it a very different meaning. They did the very same thing with words like "Community , Social , Liberty and Freedom". The English language is one that has always adopted the languages and words of other peoples to use as their own and apply to them their own definitions. It is one language that is most prone for this and by inference , given the control of media and how issues "framed"by those in power , it another means by which they ensure control over the public. We can not just "read between the lines' we have to "read between the meanings".


#14

It is worth pointing out as the Russians did although it not carried in the Western media , that the Russians were always aware of those "fleets of trucks" that ISIL is claimed to be using to ship oil to Turkey. They could see them on satellite photos, the same which the USA could see.

Yet for over a year plus the USA was not bombing them.

It interesting to note that most of these trucks were going to Turkey and that according to the press in Turkey and the Middle east the Oil was offloaded to refineries and distribution channels owned by a firm callled BMZ this firm one in which Erdogans own son a major shareholder.

It interesting to note that the USA suddenly decided to start bombing these truck convoys shortly after the Russians started doing so even though they were in that region "bombing ISIS" for 2 years plus. It also with some irony that I note that PBS carried a newstory of "US airstrikes attacking ISIL truck convoys" even as the voiceover was showing imagery of Russian Airstrikes on the same.

It all like some Hollywood screenplay. A new reality is being created and sold to us as "The real thing"


#15

That's called "deflection." Don't look at me, look over there at what he/she is doing. Or did once.


#16

I think it would be appropriate for the people whose sons and husbands (and some daughters/wives) engage in these behaviors address them locally. We can't be tooling around the planet punishing people we don't like, or killing them as a preventative measure. It's called respecting other people's rights to create the social contracts they choose, and to enforce their laws as they see fit. Too often has western "civilization" assumed the role of arbiter based on some unfounded assumption that having cool technology somehow makes one civilized. I guess I'm ranting here, I'll get off my soapbox now.


#17

In the popular film "American Sniper" Chris Kyle , sympathetically played by Bradley Cooper, several times refers to his victims as "savages." Kyle bragged of killing 160 people, almost the exact same number as were killed in Paris last week. Clint Eastwood, an American icon, directed the film and said that it was "anti-war," evidently because Kyle was occasionally in low spirits after he returned from Iraq.


#18

Thank you. It's probably conveyed that I feel so much passion with regard to all of the calamities being engineered with so little foresight or any iota of humanitarianism determining the plan of response or "cure."

I hope to explain the events of our times within the context of the Astrological big picture. I plan to do this with graphics on You Tube and am close to beginning this enterprise.

In the times that presaged the birth of Christ, the Astrologers were known as the "wise men" because they were trained to read the indications of the heavens and from it extrapolate useful data of a didactic nature: "As above, so below" style.

The coming full moon in Gemini (11/25) is itself an indication of a SPLIT in perception and ideology. What's so significant about this particular full moon (and this goes to the timing of terrorist events aimed at creating a rift, if not a war, between 2 worldviews and the religious civilizations that sponsor them) are the roles played by Saturn (old traditions, government powers, rules) and Neptune (deception, duplicity, dilution, and a massive fog dropped over perceptions, at large).

The false story-lines.

The sad, but probable possibility that at least some of these simultaneous "terrorist" attacks/events were staged by those who WANT to spread war (on "both" sides).

The levels of mass media hysteria, rush to judgment, inflammation of ancient religious divisions...

Are textbook renditions of what the astro-logos displays...

So if all this is already manifested, I don't know if even more lays ahead (11/25-12/1 and 12/5-10)... or if the emotional fall-out of newly rendered wounds impact sentient souls in deeper ways than they might imagine.

As to "fascist, Zionist, satanic empire," there are many descriptors for evil. I think it can best be known by any who take it upon themselves to do harm... particularly when they wrap themselves in dollar bills, a national flag, or a delusional religious authority that grants them a false sense of impunity.


#19

Again, you offer a good diagnosis but it's one that refuses to acknowledge the roles played by patriarchy, religions that equate god's name with the right to make war, and the 2nd class status bestowed not just upon women, but the entire counterbalancing side of sentience that links feminine perception to the brain's right hemisphere.

This side of the brain relates to connections, emotions--like empathy and compassion, and caring.

It always amazes me when men talk about war and use terms like colonialism, capitalism, and racism... but seldom to never mention gender. And since it was largely the asymmetric ranking set between male roles and female roles that evolved into such a lopsided, asymmetric (emphasis on Yang-action-shows of prowess-masculine identification with war, aggression, and hierarchical top-down paternalistic orders) world, this omission is glaring for what it fails to openly acknowledge.

UNTIL this wound is addressed, the rest is window-dressing.


#20

I recently penned an article on serial killers for a magazine (it's based on finding common astrological chart components to explain this behavior) and included Chris Kyle. The article was immediately censored. One is not allowed to suggest that the lust for murder that was so much a part of the psyche of Chris Kyle doesn't qualify him as a serial killer. The only distinction was that the military has a place for such twisted, tormented, lethal souls.

Critiques of the military state are tolerated very little, if at all.

... because "they" died for "our freedoms."


#21

Pressure the big dog Saudi Arabs to liberalize education, facilitate jobs and training for the young, neutralize Israeli nukes, ban weapons exports to ME via the UN, help rebuild Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Syria by helping the Assad regime to name a few.


#22

Yes, the Latin root of the word sylvan--silvia--means "pertaining to the woods." But I disagree with you that it did not have an invidious significance. The Romans tended to look at people of the woods as backward types, clearly inferior to the urban(e) peoples of Rome. The concept of the "savage," as brute is already implicit in this early Roman usage. Just look at how Tacitus describes the German tribes and you can see that the template for "savagism" (to be applied in the New World) is already forming. Yes, the English were the first to apply the concept of "savagery," in the modern sense of total dehumanization, pointing the way to the more sophisticated discourse of racism. One reason that the English language contains so much ideological baggage is that the English were at the forefront of the 500 year conquest of the world that begins with the barbarian, Christopher Columbus. The English language is literally freighted with the history of war, genocide, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, terrorism. Think of a word like "thug" or a word like "guru," which entered the English language with the conquest of Bengal and the Indian subcontinent. It's interesting to note how a word like "Jihadi" is becoming Anglicized, losing its original meaning of one who spiritually struggles and becoming synonymous with the notion of a "violent extremist," who is invariably Middle-Eastern in background. The word "jihadist" cannot be applied to Christian Identity terrorist Timothy McVeigh. People would not know what you are talking about. So Jihadists are "Arabs," just as "savages" are always Africans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc. People in the West would not know what you meant if you descried Americans and British as "savages." They would think that you would have to be speaking ironically. This is the way that racism works (at the cognitive, linguistic level): it makes it impossible ("illogical") to link certain moral values with certain peoples. I mean who ever heard of an "American Imperialist EXTREMIST?" Chris Kyle, the so-called "American Sniper," was a "savage" and an "extremist," by any measure. The American Press call him a "hero" ?!!

Incidentally, it's not just Empire and War that oblige us to read "between the meanings," as you so eloquently put it. Consider a word like "villain": it contains so much of the history of class domination and oppression, even if it has become obscured by contemporary usage of the word.

Thank you for a considered response to my original post :smile::smile: