Thursday 31st of July 2014

deceitful seasoning...

guns of sorrow

CRAP

From the outrageous Murdoch media influence to the untold Saudi's control over al Qaeda, most of us, decent fair minded people, are taken for a ride...

There are of course a few varieties of fair minded people. The main categories here are also subdivided by the amount of care we have in our heart and what we care about. Straight away, we can see a number of fair minded people in conservative and socialist circles — people who care about others in different ways. The socialists will prefer to care about others in an equitable way while the conservatives prefer the charitable route... that pathway that keeps poor people in their station, despite claiming to the contrary.

This, of course, is a simplified version of many complex interactions in which the level of our care can be influenced by family matters (trouble, inheritance, sickness, cash...) as well as the point at which we decide "we've done enough" of our "fair share" of saving the world or our pennies, or at the point of balance between seeking due reward or dishing out altruistic giving.

But amongst all of this in which decent people see themselves as fair minded, there is a swimming pool of "information" from which we make our (mis)-informed decisions. 

There is a large number of people who could not care less about political hoops or ideologies as long as life is comfortable, regardless on who is providing the immediate comfort. The point is to believe and chose between those who promise to do the least damage or trust the monkeys who "will provide the moon on a stick". The next step here if we can be bothered is to investigate (via the lying media) why other people are doing better or worse than ourselves. We might care for five minutes.
A large portion of "media" is dedicated at maintaining the illusions that manage our comfort-plus: Princes, princesses, movie stars, money, heavenly food and super diet programs. We're being led by the nose like cattle to the milking sheds. We follow trends despite saying we don't follow trends... Amongst all the trends on offer there will be one we will follow with a certain amount of religiosity for a few weeks till the next trendy things we "don't" follow comes along...

The media is designed to take our minds off the difficult questions: Life, religion, war, individuality and social responsibility. Our pollies are there to do the hard yards and the media informs us of what's good or bad for us, mostly promoting narcissistic individualism while tempting us with glorified merchandising... Most of the media therefore is designed to sell us products wrapped up in conservatives ideals because these things generate more money for the rich pool than growing our own veggies with passion and care.

I can hear you already complaining that I push the barrow too far: even the mass media will carry articles about "conservation", gardening and veggie-growing but let's be aware here, most of the mass media articles are about consumption and sex. Nothing much about the real political dynamics of the human planet. 

Yes the earth has been taken over by humans. We — the intelligent monkeys — are now in plague proportion already but with the intent of becoming more numerous still, and some of us are already working on the problem of "colonising" other planets for space and 'resources"... Bugger the aliens... Resources is the key to human success. Without our ability to "exploit" things such as coal, dirt and trees beyond eating a few tough leaves, we would be like the other monkeys in the jungles of Africa or the red apes of Borneo.

We, humans, are successful and yet we have delegated our understanding of life to spruiking specialists: priest, politicians, merchants and the media. And they all tell us what we should believe or buy...

Meanwhile, the truth is hidden from us. We live happily in a matrix of lies. 

Question: is this okay since we're surviving quite well? Would the truth be a kill joy? Is not the truth associated with pain, lack of direction with poor instructions on what life means, unless we make it up to entertain our waste of space or fill our brains with concrete?

What is the truth anyway?...

All this wafty preamble here to come to the war our three little turds fought on Iraq... Blair, Bush and Howard lied, but should we ignore their porkies? They lied of course under the pretence this would make the world "safer". Has it?... Come on, be fair...
Yes, the world is not safer, unless you believe in fairies... And it seems that since Bush declared war on a vague union of ideology described as "terror", especially Al Qaeda, this association of "terrorists" has gained momentum beyond belief. 

In the 1990s, Al Qaeda membership would have barely filled a small Chinese restaurant in King Street, Newtown, Sydney. Sure these dudes are nasty and mean, with the sole purpose of destroying the "Western World" (whatever this means), but they were and are minimalists... Our own putrid desires to fight like an empire on heat is a bigger worry. 

Here we are, two decades later, with a few bigger problems on our hands... If you don't see that is because you don't care... Al Qaeda is overtaking Iraq, infiltrating many African countries and Syria with an uncanny ability that needs serious questioning. Where is the armament coming from, where is the finance coming from and where is the ideology coming from?...

The simple answer stares us in the face, Always, since day one... But we've made a deal with the devil. We need energy and we've made a pact with the Saudis, which we treat like friends... 

Most of the wars in the Middle East so far in the last 40 years have been fought on behalf of the Saudis. The Saudis are now bankrolling Al Qaeda. They did it covertly and now they are doing it overtly since the yanks have said "no" to help these "rebels"... But did not the Saudis fight Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia? Do the Saudi not try to rid themselves of this "scourge"? Sure... and this is perverse. The Saudis are "trying" to get rid of Al Qaeda on their own soil but they sponsor Al Qaeda in other conflicts. The Saudi Princes and King won't admit to it, but it is becoming more and more obvious that the Saudis have been part of a major push to get rid of the Shia in the middle east.... They used Saddam as much as they could... until you know the rest...

So, was not Saddam Hussein a Sunni despot? Like the Saudis?... Come on don't be so naive... Looking at Iraq now — after the Yanks have destroyed the place with a naive intent to bring in "de-mo-cra-cy", the Iraqi Sunnis (aka the Saudi tribes in Iraq — a minority, not by much) are shit stirring.  The Saudis are also involved in this fight to shit-stir. Falujah has fallen to Al Qaeda, today... So why fight Saddam when he was "one of them"?... Why do brothers in a family hate each others? So you know the answer to this question. Saddam was a loose cannon, in direct competition with the Saudis, was he not?... What competition you may ask?... Oil! Oil! OIL is the answer. Power, power, power...

Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq while Saddam was in power... Saddam may have been a despot but he was far from being a moron... He knew he was on a taut wire between the West (divided between the US and the Europeans who did not trust each others, with the Poms playing a double game), the Russians, the Saudis and the Shia. Saddam had played a smart game till George W Bush "out of the blue" decide to upset the fine balance and fight Saddam on trumped-up pretexts with the blessing of the Saudis who a couple of years before may have (?) financed the destruction of the twin towers in New York. The Twin Towers in New York was a Jewish hub, a spy centre as well as being the symbol of capitalism to the world.

19 of the 21 'terrorists" who blew up the place were Saudis...

Now one can argue that the Saudi Kingdom is "different" to the Al Qaeda shit-fighter... Exactly. Both breathe the same religious fanaticism except the Saudis don't officially bomb or participate in anything overtly dubious until now... They have now declared their hands to support al Qaeda in Syria. Blimey... We knew they did some crap, but we did not believe it, did we? Are we going to help them or support them?... Ah, the price of oily loyalty...

And why do the Sunni Saudis hate the Sunni Brotherhood in Egypt? Simple... The Brotherhood is based on a "democratic" strict ideal in which religion is the fanatical sword, while the Sunni Saudis are a strict kingdom in which the same religion is the fanatical sword...

We should not be surprised, and should we care?... Should we not get our nose back into our dunny-dippy magazines and ignore the way we got involved through bush and Howard and Blair helping more crap in the Middle East? Not only we have been trying to please the Saudis and their ruthless quiet ways, we have also been arm-in-arm (including weaponry) with the Israelis who seems to be on the side of Al Qaeda at the moment because the 'terrorists" are fighting their arch-enemies, the Iranians, on the Syrian playground, in which the game is real deadly for many people...

What a mess we've placed our dick into! Should we care?.... I will leave the answer to you, the good decent folks who keep turning a blind eye at our deceitfulness for profit...

You are the same good decent people who, because the US is experiencing a massive cold storm, think this is the end of global warming — that thingy that never existed in your vocab.

Well, good folks of Australia and of the world, I have news for you... 

Yours, as always, 

Gus Leonisky...

(I could be wrong?)....

 

caught between a rock and our own slab of concrete...

 

The simmering split between Saudi Arabia and its Western allies over key foreign policy questions, mainly Syria and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, was publicly consecrated in a recent op-ed penned by Saudi Ambassador to Britain, Prince Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

In it, he claimed that Saudi Arabia "will go it alone" in their policies towards Iran and Syria as their "Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them". Prince Nawaf's attempt to capture the moral high ground on the Syrian and Iranian issues conceals the Kingdom's growing isolation from the regional geopolitical scene. This isolation has manifest in increasingly tense relations with Western allies that have prompted calls for rethinking Saudi-Western relations and a growing distance between Saudi and its Arab Gulf neighbours on the Syrian and Iranian issues.

Such developments have left Saudi Arabia with very few regional allies and increasingly fewer policy options to shape its desired geopolitical outcomes. However, the Kingdom's regional isolation does not mean that it will be distant from the events on the ground. This is especially true as the Geneva II negotiations approach and the Saudi leadership further commits to supporting armed rebel groups in Syria. An isolated Kingdom could prove more, not less, detrimental to moving towards a political solution in Syria. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/saudi-isolation-could-be-threat-region-2013122465742778724.html

 

BEIRUT — Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Sunday that the United States is ready to help Iraq in any way possible as that country began a major offensive to wrest control of two cities from al-Qaeda-linked militants. But he made it clear that no American troops would be sent in.

Kerry described the militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, as “the most dangerous players” in the region. But as Iraqi forces launched airstrikes and clashed with the militants in western Anbar province on Sunday, Kerry said it was Iraq’s battle to fight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-says-us-will-help-iraq-against-al-qaeda-but-wont-send-troops-back-in/2014/01/05/8ebc7754-7642-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html?hpid=z1