Governments, terrorism and fake news

“The government of the people, by the people, for the people, will not perish from the land.”

Unfortunately, these days those words and goals are yet to be implemented and probably never will be. There are too many interests involved in establishing such an ideal government. Too much ego, prejudice and economic, social and many other and conflicting interests are involved in the basic ingredients to merge such a government. Perhaps it should be so in the name of democracy and freedom of choice; perhaps the people do not deserve such an ideal government.

The biggest problem is generating the desired balance between all those ideals and desires. The two extreme possibilities are a government with too much power and a weak and divided government that cannot make crucial decisions. A government or an organization with sufficient resources can do almost anything. Not only that, they can even publicly justify their actions in the name of preserving and protecting democracy. They will support your actions, which may be illegal, immoral or even criminal in the name of justice, for the people and the nation. Balancing between a completely open society where everything is transparent, visible and known to all and a closed society where certain actions and information are known to few is a very difficult task. “People don’t have to know everything” may be justified in certain cases. Surveys have already shown that people’s moods can easily be manipulated and change direction with time, events, and advertising.

Governments can, if they wish, eliminate certain groups or individuals who, in their opinion, oppose and are hostile to their policies. Eliminating a terrorist or political opponent is as easy to accomplish as it is easy to hide from the public. The death or disappearance of these people is explained in categories such as natural causes, accidents, psychiatric hospitalization or death during emergency surgery.

All agencies, unofficial and official, such as the CIA, MI5 / 6, KGB and Mossad, were and will do so in the name of national security. The popular public reason may be: “To protect, preserve or even enforce democracy.” In certain cases, those actions may be truly justified; the problem is where to set the limit. Many people have disappeared around the world in the name of national security.

The national security reason for not revealing certain information or incarcerating an unwanted subject is used far too often by many countries and organizations.

Governments operate primarily at three levels. While level one is the clean and white level of activities, reserved for heads of state and highly exposed political figures, level two is the gray area. This is an unethical area of ​​activity that smells bad but is still legal. Killing, eliminating, eliminating, and counterfeiting are all part of level three. Normally “we the people” are exposed to level one and occasionally to level two, but rarely to level three.

At level three, I can mention, for example, Gerald Bull, the Canadian engineer who developed the Babylon long-range artillery or “supergun” for the Iraqi government. Bull was assassinated in Brussels, Belgium, in March 1990.

It is very interesting to observe the evolution of language with respect to the use of politically correct terminologies. The word bleaching is quite fascinating. Terms like “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”, “guerrillas”, “political assassination” or “removal from power”, it all depends on which side you ask or speak to.

The United States is a superpower with a presence and intervention throughout the world. In general, they are a stabilizing factor. Many Americans do not understand the importance of their support for certain countries, and at the same time, many supported countries simply hate their presence.

To better understand the above, try to imagine a world without the involvement of the United States. Suppose the United States is not a superpower or that it evolved from an Empire to a regular Republic interested primarily in its internal affairs.

What would the world be like without the intervention of the United States?

Oil is one of the main energy resources of most modern countries. Oil was one of the main reasons for the wars and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. It was not a territorial dispute; it was oil. Americans are one of the largest consumers of oil, so it is obvious why the United States was interested in helping Kuwait.

However, this is not the whole picture. The participation of the United States in the whole world is not only for oil and monetary interests. Most people believe there are other reasons. In the age of a globalized economy, world stability is critical, and according to Chaos theory, even a small problem in the Middle East, for example, can set off a chain reaction that affects the United States in many areas. Most people believe that global US intervention is also because they care. They are concerned with establishing and maintaining democracies and allowing freedom for all in all possible places. Obviously there are other reasons and interests; so what are they

China is becoming a major player on the world stage. They are the second largest oil consumers. The oil route to China is insured and cleared by the US Navy, China’s long-term goal could be to match the US, and they can achieve it.

Without the United States, Taiwan would cease to exist as a democracy and could annex mainland China. Without the US, Japan would have to gain nuclear capability if it wanted to remain independent. They have had an ongoing dispute with China since 1937, and the Chinese will never forget the Japanese invasion. The United States helped Iran indirectly by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who had fought Iran over a border dispute for eight years. Saddam Hussein was interested in making Iraq an influential power in the Persian Gulf region. It invaded Iran not only because of the long history of border disputes, but also to expand Iraq’s oil reserves. Europe wants and needs oil, but is not willing to pay full price to get it. They hate the American presence and will not recognize that without the United States they would not get the oil they need.

Europe’s attitude towards Israel is extremely hypocritical. They have a short memory; However, what unites Europe against Israel or the Jews is anti-Semitism.

Since March 2003, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister of Turkey, his policy towards Israel has changed. Erdogan was unhappy with Israel’s reaction to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of soldiers in 2006; he was critical when Israel conducted the Gaza War; asked to inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection; and has criticized Israel for its many defensive actions.

Tension between the countries has escalated following the incursion of the Gaza flotilla.

The question is what his motives are and if he has a hidden agenda that could explain his excessive attention to Israel. Their reactions have won the influence of Turkey and the sympathy among their Arab neighbors. In particular, it may have obtained certain advantages among its national political parties. His special collaborative attention and his meetings with Syria and Iran should concern the West and particularly Israel.

The Kurdistan Workers Party or PKK, founded in 1978, is a Kurdish organization fighting against Turkey. Its goal is to establish an independent Kurdish state.

Germany claims that the Turkish army has used chemical weapons against members of the PKK.

Lebanon is a puppet country controlled by Syria and Iran. Hezbollah or “The Party of God” is a Shiite Islamic organization involved in Lebanese politics, supported by Syria and Iran. In reality, most of the world considers them a terrorist organization.

Its forces are trained and organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Its main objective is to eliminate the colonial entity in Lebanon and establish an Islamic regime.

To achieve this, the Iranians with their supporters are all united under their hatred of Israel and their desire to eliminate the Zionist entity from the region.

A top-secret CIA document released in April 2004 lists the many possible suspects in the murder of Elie Hobeika, a former commander of the Lebanese forces.

Possible culprits include other Christians, other members of the Lebanese elite, Palestinians and Israelis.

According to a Western news agency, a previously unknown anti-Syrian group, “Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon.” has claimed responsibility. The claim may be associated with right-wing Maronite Christians, who held a grudge against Hobeika because he betrayed Lebanese forces and Israelis by changing his allegiance to Syrians in the mid-1980s. Hobeika was also active in Christian infighting during the Lebanese civil war.

Palestinians despise Hobeika because he allegedly led the massacre of approximately 1,000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1992.

In 1983, an Israeli commission accused Hobeika of carrying out the massacre and indirectly blamed then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon for the attack.

Many Lebanese are suspicious of Israeli involvement because Hobeika had said he would testify against Sharon if the Belgians went ahead with a trial accusing Sharon of genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in Sabra and Shatilla.

A Belgian court next month will decide whether it can continue a judicial investigation into Sharon’s role.

President Lahud claims Hobeika was assassinated to prevent him from testifying, according to press reports, a sentiment echoed by other government officials.

There is no direct evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination, but highlighting an Israeli connection could help the Lebanese avoid the internal friction that would arise if a Lebanese group were blamed.

Anyone who thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over territories is totally wrong.

The Israelis are willing to give back certain territories and make peace in exchange for a piece of paper … Unfortunately, according to history, those signed agreements have a very short life. In the volatile Middle East region, Israel will face many difficulties without the support of the United States. In the 1980s, Soviet military forces in Afghanistan faced a different kind of war than they had experienced in the past. The resistance forces fighting them were the Mujahideen.

The Makhtab Al-Khidamat (MAK) was founded by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda in 1988. At the end of the Soviet occupation they wanted to expand and justify their operations, so they tried to include other causes Islamic. It is quite obvious that Al-Qaeda benefited from American funding and training given to the Afghan mujahideen who fought against the Soviet invasion.

There are many Al-Qaeda cells operating around the world. Without united cooperation, they will continue their terrorist operations, including their attempt to obtain related nuclear weapons.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *