entrangermercenary1 wrote:
CAR has Gold, Diamonds, Minerals and yes OIL do you see the French intervening there ? Why dont you put the Malian news on and see how happy the locals are. If you want to live under radical Sharia there are plenty of flights to Mali

Are you seriously suggesting they would intervene purely on humanitarian grounds?

Well, people are welcome their own view on 9/11 which is more contentious. I don't personally think it's contentious, I think the official account is farcical, but as it's impossible to prove what actually happened, and indeed the federal government has done its best to cover-up and not investigate what actually happened, there will always be a lot of bones of contention.

In terms of whether or not the US federal government has sponsored, funded, harboured, armed and radicalised Islamic terrorists, they have done so quite explicitly. So if you put this together with the 'blowback' view that is often put forward, regarding the extent to which the abysmal US foreign policy (very much supported by Britain, and at least partially funded by British banks and the City of London) has created a great deal of resentment. And if you look at the extent to which the Anglo-American / EU-NATO foreign policy has continually undermined democratic, moderate governments that had liberal, reformatory policies and replaced them with tyrants (not merely with regards to Islam; we don't hear the US federal government talking about Sandinistas and Communism any more, because that's outlived its usefulness, but there was a time when this was an explicit part of the Reagan Doctrine, along with the Islamic stuff mentioned previously). And if you add into the mix the poverty in some of these nations, which is largely a product of the global crony capitalist, banking fascism that seeks to dominate the entire planet, and is pretty bloody close...then you would get a much more valid series of causal indicators with regard to why there are pockets of Islamic militancy in the world, rather than 'it's because they hate our freedoms'.

Well do you want photos ? .

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Yes.

oioioi wrote:
A copy of the invitation letter from the President as well ?

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
No, just a photo.

.......... wrote:
So when was the last time you were in downtown Nairobi and had a chat with the locals. If you see the state of the roads ,pavements, the fucking amount of traffic on roads that need a serious upgrade you would understand the concerns of the people. The seucurity on every shop with wands, all hotels with security that tbh at best is for boy scouts.
But im sure you have the finger on the pulse

Are you really that naive ?

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
No.

That's why I am asking for proof.

oioioi wrote:
Errrr yes you are really naive if you don't understand how security issues work. So just put a photo of me with the president up and don't worry about any repercussions that would have .
Hmm I may be able to find away around this

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Security issues if you post a pic of yourself?

oioioi wrote:
I suggest you PM the apprentice and he will fill you in on the details about persec and why my picture or any picture of myself and a president , or anybody for that matter will not be on the net

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
I think we all know the reason in this particular instance

Space Bandit wrote:

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Was there an answer to the question in there somewhere?

There is no singular specific terrorist network called al-Qaeda. There never has been, and there never will be. Even the name al-Qaeda was not even invented by the supposed perpetrators of this group. So by definition bin Laden is not part of this group because it doesn't exist. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen which did exist.

In the video, Clinton is talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is where 'al-Qaeda' comes from, as the term was never even used until quite recently, and the two areas were the early focus of the 'War on Terror'. As I say, the US armed, funded, radicalised and trained people in relation to this, some of the key figures that they later cited as being key 'al-Qaeda' members, and this went on within the borders of the United States for a decade at least. Bin Laden was also involved with Maktab al-Khadamat, who were quite openly funded, trained, etc, within the borders of the United States over many years.

Of course, there are Islamic militants in the world, but in my view the US foreign policy has created more of those than would otherwise have existed, particularly given the number of times they've overthrown liberal, reformatory governments.

None of this has anything to do with US foreign policy, which is driven by banking, military and corporate interests, not ideology. It's merely a convenient reason to carry out.

Space Bandit wrote:
Good job im in a good mood today
"do you see the French intervening there "

Why western intervention is destined to fail in Mali

Britain is on standby and the US is already transporting French troops into Mali. But a new paper says the west is "betting on the wrong horse" by intervening in the region

Now well over a decade after the beginning of the so-called war on terror, yet again, another western nation is leading a military intervention against Islamist paramilitaries based in a largely ungoverned region of a state in the Global South, write Anna Alissa Hitzemann and Ben Zala for the Oxford Research Group.

The hostage situation in Algeria that developed late last week is just the latest in a series of western hostage takings in recent years, demonstrating the increasing radicalisation of elements in the region.

The French-led intervention in Mali is only one of many in a growing list of attempts to control outbreaks of political violence and terrorism with military means.

As the intervention gathers pace, it is worth reflecting on the lessons from similar operations over the past decade or so. From the US-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq to the attempts to control Islamist-inspired political violence in Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia and separatist rebellions in Burma, Indonesia and elsewhere, the resort to military force has singularly failed to achieve the aims set for it.

Common to all of these examples is the reluctance to match military operations against rebel groups and insurgents with serious, long-term efforts to address the factors that underlie the feelings of resentment and marginalisation that drive such conflicts.

As the commentary and analysis of events in Mali follow the fortunes of the military battles of France and its other western and African allies, it is worthwhile examining the political, socio-economic and cultural divisions which have sparked the uprising in the north of Mali.

The factors that led to the current Malian crisis are complex but can largely be attributed to unintended consequences of the war against Gaddafi.

Mainstream British television news, just in case there's any predictable quibbling about sources:

Full article is here:

www.channel4.com/news/mali-why-western-i...-is-destined-to-fail

There are several things I disagree with in this article, including the fact that the war against Libya has brought "unintended consequences". More fundamentally, the concept that the intervention is set to "fail" is an erroneous one because the purpose of the conflict is not to bring peace or stability to Mali, any more than it was in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, which are also referenced by the article. But even this level of very mainstream discourse comes to the (inevitable) conclusion that nothing good will be achieved by this intervention, an intervention that will clearly not benefit anyone in Britain, American or France in the slightest - apart from the major shareholders at the banks who bankroll this sort of activity; see "Banking on Bloodshed" - and of course there has been no democratic input into whether or not it should take place. You'd better believe the people of Mali won't benefit in any way once the Predator drones start piling in.

I cannot understand why anyone would suck this one up as it benefits no-one except an establishment that quite evidently doesn't give one solitary shit about any of us.