War: Amer­ica's Growth In­dus­try

Trillions - - In This Issue -

War has long been big busi­ness for the United States and is now the coun­try's largest in­dus­try by far. The U.S. is also the world's largest arms ex­porter.

Be­fore you de­cide to try and cash in on Amer­ica's largest in­dus­try you might want to know what you are get­ting into and sup­port­ing. If you don't care and just want to make money then please don't read the fol­low­ing.

This ar­ti­cle of­fers a per­spec­tive that is dif­fer­ent from what most Amer­i­cans have been given by their gov­ern­ment and mass me­dia.

Only in the last 20 years has the Internet and de­clas­si­fied doc­u­ments made it pos­si­ble for in­quir­ing minds to dis­cover a whole new and more ac­cu­rate re­al­ity.

This new per­spec­tive is well sup­ported by the facts but read­ers are en­cour­aged to do their own re­search to ver­ify them.

Fact: The war in­dus­try costs Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers more than $1 tril­lion each year when you in­clude the to­tal cost of veter­ans, the De­part­ment of En­ergy’s nu­clear weapons ac­tiv­i­ties, the many in­tel­li­gence agen­cies and other war-re­lated ex­pen­di­tures.

Just the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq alone will cost Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers over $6 tril­lion. This would pro­vide each of the cur­rent 50 mil­lion Amer­i­can ele­men­tary and sec­ondary stu­dents with $120k for col­lege. In­stead, they will in­herit the $20 tril­lion in debt, mostly racked up to pay for Amer­ica's sense­less wars to en­rich the oli­garchs.

The U.S. spends al­most more on war than all other coun­tries com­bined, but as a per­cent­age of GDP, there are some coun­tries that cur­rently spend more. When mea­sur­ing new de­fense spend­ing per capita, the U.S. is #4, with Saudi Ara­bia be­ing the new leader.

The $1 tril­lion spent ev­ery year on war is not a very good eco­nomic in­vest­ment. In com­par­i­son to other in­dus­tries it does not gen­er­ate a huge num­ber of jobs or tax rev­enue. A sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the money is spent abroad on Amer­ica's 800+ for­eign bases. A vast por­tion of the money is stolen or wasted. The wages paid to sol­diers and civil work­ers are fairly low and don't stim­u­late a lot of eco­nomic ac­tiv­ity.

If a sig­nif­i­cant per­cent­age of the money spent on war was in­stead spent on do­mes­tic in­fra­struc­ture and ed­u­ca­tion it would gen­er­ate a vastly greater re­turn and put more money into the pock­ets of Amer­ica's work­ers. Amer­i­cans would no longer be pushed into poverty and the world would be a much safer place.

The Pen­tagon won't ac­count for about $10 tril­lion in tax­payer's money. It claims that it can't re­veal ex­actly where the money went due to poor ac­count­ing sys­tems, but fraud has been con­sis­tently proven to be a pri­mary fac­tor in the miss­ing money. Fed­eral con­tract­ing laws are not en­forced and many pro­cure­ment prac­tices are ob­vi­ously il­le­gal but con­tinue.

Be­cause the war in­dus­try makes the rich even richer and Amer­ica has long been ruled by oli­garchs, the U.S. gov­ern­ment's for­eign pol­icy is one of war and Amer­ica's oli­garchs have long man­u­fac­tured en­e­mies and sold Amer­i­cans on war to per­pet­u­ate their lu­cra­tive war prof­its.

Now that we have ac­cess to vastly more in­for­ma­tion we can bet­ter un­der­stand how war is cre­ated and sold to us.

WW II: The Sec­ond World War is a prime ex­am­ple of how the oli­garchs man­u­fac­ture and sup­port war.

World War I ended in 1919 with the sign­ing of the Treaty of Ver­sailles, which cre­ated the con­di­tions nec­es­sary for an­other world war with Ger­many by tak­ing

away 13.5 % of Ger­many's ter­ri­tory and putting nearly seven mil­lion Ger­man cit­i­zens un­der the ju­ris­dic­tion of other na­tions. The treaty im­posed extreme fi­nan­cial penal­ties that se­verely im­pov­er­ished Ger­mans and pun­ished Ger­man cit­i­zens who had noth­ing to do with WWI.

The elite in the U.S. and western Europe ac­tively helped Hitler rise to power and pro­vided the money and some of the technology nec­es­sary to keep him in power for as long as pos­si­ble.

Amer­i­can and Bri­tish banks fi­nanced Hitler's war ef­forts through the shad­owy Bank for In­ter­na­tional Set­tle­ments (BIS). They bought the gold Hitler had looted from Jews and other na­tions and pro­vided Ger­many with the for­eign cur­rency and let­ters of credit needed to pro­cure raw ma­te­ri­als.

(Even to­day, the BIS re­mains a se­cret bankers' bank, is ex­empt from na­tional and in­ter­na­tional law and con­tin­ues to man­age il­licit funds for sin­is­ter pur­poses and fuel the ma­chin­ery of war for profit.)

A French in­ves­ti­ga­tion found that four Amer­i­can banks — Chase Man­hat­tan, JP Mor­gan, Guar­anty Trust Co. of New York and Bank of the City of New York had aided the Nazis in oc­cu­pied France.

Ge­orge W. Bush's grand­fa­ther, Prescott Bush, helped fund the rise of Hitler through Brown Broth­ers Har­ri­man and Union Bank­ing Cor­po­ra­tion (UBC).

Rock­e­feller's Stan­dard Oil Com­pany granted Nazi Ger­many ex­clu­sive li­cense for syn­thetic fuel technology to con­vert coal into gaso­line and diesel (syn­fuel) to power Hitler's war ma­chin­ery. The same technology could have elim­i­nated the un­nec­es­sary war-time fuel ra­tioning in the U.S. but was de­nied to Amer­i­cans be­cause it might have re­duced the prof­its of Stan­dard Oil.

IBM sup­plied the com­put­ers nec­es­sary for Ger­many to track its Jews and other non-aryans and man­age their im­pris­on­ment and ex­ter­mi­na­tion.

The Vat­i­can formed an al­liance with Hitler and Mus­solini that greatly helped the spread of fas­cism.

Ger­many and WWII was used to make rapid and mas­sive leaps in technology and af­ter Ger­many's de­feat most all of its technology and many of its sci­en­tists and en­gi­neers were trans­ferred to the United States where the technology ben­e­fited the oli­garchs and Amer­ica's bur­geon­ing war in­dus­try. Rus­sia took what the U.S. had left be­hind.

The ad­vanced Ger­man technology was then used to fuel the Cold War and sus­tain the con­tin­ued growth of the war in­dus­try.

Korea: Af­ter WWII, the U.S. and Rus­sia par­ti­tioned Korea know­ing that this could only re­sult in fu­ture con­flict. The U.S. cre­ated the con­di­tions nec­es­sary for war and was more than ea­ger to par­tic­i­pate in a war that left more than 3 mil­lion Kore­ans dead and to date has cost Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers more than $1 tril­lion.

The U.S. killed close to 30% of the pop­u­la­tion of North Korea — a trauma so se­vere that the coun­try could not re­cover and pro­duced the psy­chotic North Korea of to­day.

Be­cause the war never ac­tu­ally ended and the U.S. con­tin­ues to main­tain 26,000 sol­diers in South Korea, the on­go­ing an­nual cost is close to $2 bil­lion, but South Korea pays ap­prox­i­mately half of the cost.

The U.S. could eas­ily end the con­flict with North Korea by is­su­ing a sin­cere apol­ogy and of­fer­ing some aid and trade. This would en­able the Kore­ans to heal and move into a new mode. The dic­ta­tor­ship would ul­ti­mately col­lapse from within be­cause it would be ob­so­lete and no longer have the power of fear and anger to sus­tain it.

Viet­nam: Ac­cord­ing to mil­i­tary in­sid­ers, the war in Viet­nam was planned dur­ing WWII (or be­fore) and weapons left over from WWII were stock­piled in Viet­nam to sup­port a fu­ture war.

In WWII, Ho Chi Minh lead the re­sis­tance in In­dochina on be­half of the Al­lied pow­ers against the Ja­panese un­der an agree­ment that granted Viet­namese their free­dom from French colo­nial dom­i­na­tion af­ter the war ended. Ho Chi Minh kept his side of the deal and on Au­gust 17, 1945 he broad­cast:

"We were fight­ing Japs on the side of the United Na­tions. Now Japs Sur­ren­dered. We beg the United Na­tions to re­al­ize their solemn prom­ise that all na­tion­al­i­ties be given democ­racy and in­de­pen­dence. If United Na­tions for­get their solemn prom­ise and don't give In­dochina full in­de­pen­dence, we will keep fight­ing un­til we get it."

On Septem­ber 2, 1945 a band marched through Hanoi play­ing The Star Span­gled Ban­ner. Ho Chi Minh de­clared Viet­namese In­de­pen­dence and a new democ­racy and be­gan his speech with "All men are cre­ated equal." But the dream of an Amer­i­can style Viet­namese democ­racy was not to be.

The U.S. had lied to the Viet­namese and never had any in­ten­tion of let­ting them have their free­dom from bru­tal French colo­nial op­pres­sion. Ho Chi Minh kept his word and con­tin­ued the strug­gle for his peo­ple's in­de­pen­dence.

It was only af­ter the be­trayal by the U.S. that Ho Chi Minh be­came dis­il­lu­sioned with Amer­i­can 'democ­racy' and was forced to turn to Rus­sia for the help needed to de­feat the French. He be­came 'com­mu­nist' only by ne­ces­sity. The U.S. de­lib­er­ately turned an ally into an en­emy and de­stroyed democ­racy in In­dochina merely for the sake of war prof­its.

By 1954 the US was pay­ing for 78% of the French war against the Viet­namese. Af­ter the French were de­feated in May 1954 at Dien Bien Phu, the Geneva Ac­cords tem­po­rar­ily di­vided Viet­nam in half at the 17th par­al­lel, with Ho Chi Minh's Vi­et­minh ceded the North, and French pup­pet Bao Dai's regime granted the South.

The ac­cords pro­vided for elec­tions to be held in all of Viet­nam within two years to re­unify the coun­try. The US op­posed the uni­fy­ing elec­tions, fear­ing a likely vic­tory by free­dom-fighter Ho Chi Minh, and re­fused to sign the Geneva ac­cords — fur­ther deny­ing the Viet­namese the pos­si­bil­ity of free­dom and democ­racy.

The U.S. even of­fered atomic weapons to the French to use against those de­ter­mined free­dom-seek­ing Viet­namese, which the French for­tu­nately de­clined.

Amer­ica es­ca­lated its war on the peo­ple of Viet­nam in 1964 af­ter claim­ing that the North Viet­namese at­tacked one of its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. We now know that there was no such at­tack and that the Pen­tagon pre­tended that there was one as an ex­cuse to wage war.

Viet­nam did not at­tack the United States and posed ab­so­lutely no threat to the U.S. The Viet­namese merely wanted their in­de­pen­dence from France and were will­ing to fight the French to achieve it.

While the Viet­namese as a whole were de­ter­mined to win their free­dom from colo­nial op­pres­sion, few were com­bat­ants and much of the Viet­nam War was fab­ri­cated by the U.S. Sim­ple un-armed peas­ants were branded as com­mu­nist Viet Cong to jus­tify their slaugh­ter. The sense­less and evil war was de­lib­er­ately pro­longed to boost war prof­its at the cost of 58,000 dead Amer­i­cans and 3 mil­lion Viet­namese (mostly civil­ians) killed.

It was in Viet­nam that the CIA ad­vanced its death squad ap­proach and honed skills in tor­ture for the sake of bru­tal­ity and to cre­ate an en­emy where one had not pre­vi­ously ex­isted. In Op­er­a­tion Phoenix, the CIA and U.S. army ab­ducted, tor­tured and mur­dered tens of thou­sands of civil­ians. They tar­geted in­flu­en­tial peo­ple like may­ors, teach­ers, doc­tors, tax col­lec­tors, busi­ness own­ers, vil­lage el­ders and oth­ers in lead­ing so­cial po­si­tions.

One of the pur­poses of Op­er­a­tion Phoenix was to force the Viet­namese to hate Amer­i­cans and en­cour­age more of them to fight against the U.S. The Viet­namese re­sis­tance rose from the ashes as in­tended and the num­ber of com­bat­ants and the re­solve of the Viet­namese to fight back in­creased.

With more of an en­emy, the war ef­fort was ex­panded and the prof­its of the war in­dus­try soared.

This level of evil also fos­tered the cul­ti­va­tion of sa­tanism in the CIA and U.S. mil­i­tary that still ex­ists to­day.

The U.S. is still killing Viet­namese. The de­fo­liant (her­bi­cide) "Agent Orange" sprayed lib­er­ally on the coun­try was 'con­tam­i­nated' with the most deadly form of dioxin, which has caused count­less deaths and more than 500,000 birth de­fects in Viet­namese chil­dren. The Red Cross es­ti­mates that up to 1 mil­lion peo­ple in Viet­nam are cur­rently dis­abled or have health prob­lems due to the mas­sive amounts of Mon­santo's dioxin sprayed on the coun­try.

Amer­i­can and Canadian sol­diers sick­ened by Agent Orange were given some com­pen­sa­tion, but no com­pen­sa­tion was given to the Viet­namese vic­tims.

The spray­ing of Agent Orange and other her­bi­cides was il­le­gal bio-chem­i­cal war­fare in­tended to de­stroy crops and re­duce hid­ing places for the en­emy but was also done to sim­ply to con­tam­i­nate the coun­try. The U.S. knew ex­actly what the out­come would be.

Afghanistan: In 1978, Afghanistan ex­pe­ri­enced a Marx­ist rev­o­lu­tion that re­placed the cor­rupt and in­ept dic­ta­tor­ship that had over­thrown the old monar­chy. The new gov­ern­ment wanted to estab­lish a pro­gres­sive gov­ern­ment, bring the coun­try into the mod­ern era and re­place re­li­gious and tribal laws with sec­u­lar laws.

Men were obliged to cut their beards, women could not wear a chador, and mosques were placed off lim­its. The new gov­ern­ment made a num­ber of re­forms on women's rights, ban­ning forced mar­riages, giv­ing state recog­ni­tion of women's right to vote, and in­tro­duc­ing women to po­lit­i­cal life.

A fa­mous New Kabul Times editorial from May 28, 1978 de­clared: "Priv­i­leges which women, by right, must have are equal ed­u­ca­tion, job se­cu­rity, health ser­vices, and free time to rear a healthy gen­er­a­tion for build­ing the fu­ture of the coun­try ... Ed­u­cat­ing and en­light­en­ing women is now the sub­ject of close gov­ern­ment at­ten­tion."

The new gov­ern­ment in­vited the Soviet Union to as­sist in mod­ern­iz­ing its eco­nomic in­fra­struc­ture and

the USSR sent con­trac­tors to build roads, hos­pi­tals and schools and to drill wa­ter wells. The Rus­sians also trained and equipped the Afghan army.

But, not all Afghans were happy with the new de­vel­op­ment, espe­cially the fiercely Mus­lim tribal war­lords who liked things the way they were be­fore. They did not want their women ed­u­cated or to have any more rights than their goats or child sex slaves. Nor did they want to give up their lu­cra­tive opium op­er­a­tions.

In­stead of al­low­ing Afghanistan to de­velop on its own, the U.S. de­cided to sup­port the war lords with money, weapons, train­ing, in­tel­li­gence and for­eign Is­lamic in­sur­gents.

Amer­ica started a war against the Afghan gov­ern­ment through the war­lords know­ing that the gov­ern­ment would plead for help from the Sovi­ets.

Jimmy Carter's na­tional se­cu­rity ad­vi­sor, the late Zbigniew Brzezin­ski, said in an in­ter­view with Le Nou­vel Ob­ser­va­teur:

"Ac­cord­ing to the of­fi­cial ver­sion of his­tory, CIA aid to the Mu­ja­hadeen be­gan dur­ing 1980, that is to say, af­ter the Soviet army in­vaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the re­al­ity, se­cretly guarded un­til now, is com­pletely oth­er­wise. In­deed, it was July 3, 1979 that Pres­i­dent Carter signed the first di­rec­tive for se­cret aid to the op­po­nents of the pro-soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the pres­i­dent in which I ex­plained to him that in my opin­ion this aid was go­ing to in­duce a Soviet mil­i­tary in­ter­ven­tion."

To de­feat the Sovi­ets, the U.S. cre­ated a mas­sive, bru­tal and ef­fec­tive multi-na­tional Is­lamic guer­rilla force that had never ex­isted be­fore. In do­ing so it em­pow­ered the worst el­e­ments of Afghan so­ci­ety and killed any hope the coun­try had of de­vel­op­ing.

One of the ter­ror­ists the CIA re­cruited, trained and funded to fight the Sovi­ets was Osama bin Laden. Un­like most of the other fighters, he came from a wealthy Saudi fam­ily and could fund his own op­er­a­tions.

The CIA sold Amer­i­cans on its mer­ce­nary army as the mu­jahideen free­dom fighters. The word mu­jahideen is the plu­ral form of mu­jahid and means "one en­gaged in Ji­had".

Amer­i­can me­dia did not por­tray the ji­hadist for what they were nor were Amer­i­cans given any in­for­ma­tion about the true na­ture of the events in Afghanistan.

Once the Sovi­ets were de­feated, the U.S. sim­ply aban­doned most of the ji­hadists in Afghanistan while con­tin­u­ing to fund some of the worst in part­ner­ship with Pak­istan and Saudi Ara­bia.

Some of the orig­i­nal ji­hadists evolved into the Tal­iban, Al Qaeda and Is­lamic State (ISIS, ISIL, daesh) and the move­ment just kept grow­ing with Saudi oil money and con­tin­ued sup­port from Pak­istan, with the ap­proval of the CIA.

Without the Soviet Em­pire to fuel Amer­ica's war in­dus­try a new en­emy was needed and so the Bush fam­ily con­spired with the Saudis to carry out the at­tacks of 9/11. Iraq was falsely blamed while the real cul­prits re­mained shielded.

The Amer­i­can war in­dus­try got an ex­cuse to wage per­pet­ual in­ter­na­tional war against an elu­sive and vague en­emy.

The to­tal cost of Amer­ica's war in Afghanistan so far is more than $1 tril­lion.

Iraq: The CIA first put put Sad­dam Hus­sein on its pay­roll in 1959 when he was made part of a CIA death squad tasked with as­sas­si­nat­ing then Iraqi Prime Min­is­ter Gen­eral Abd al-karim Qasim. The as­sas­si­na­tion failed and Hus­sein was re­lo­cated to Egypt for train­ing and to shield him from jus­tice.

Ac­cord­ing to U.S. gov­ern­ment sources, Hus­sein "was a thug -- a cut­throat."

Qasim was a pro­gres­sive re­former and wanted to de­velop Iraq and not merely re­main a colo­nial ser­vant to the West and al­low his coun­try's oil wealth to be si­phoned off to en­rich Amer­i­can and Bri­tish oil com­pa­nies.

In 1960 Qasim de­manded that the An­glo Amer­i­can-owned Iraq Pe­tro­leum Com­pany (IPC) share 20% of the own­er­ship and 55% of the prof­its with the Iraqi gov­ern­ment. When IPC re­fused, Qasim is­sued Pub­lic Law 80, which would have taken away 99.5% of the IPC'S own­er­ship and es­tab­lished an Iraqi na­tional oil com­pany to over­see the ex­port of Iraqi oil. Qasim then got to­gether with other oil pro­duc­ing na­tions and formed the Or­ga­ni­za­tion of Pe­tro­leum Ex­port­ing Coun­tries (OPEC).

The Amer­i­can oil in­dus­try de­cided that Qasim had to go and ef­forts to re­move him from power were stepped up but it wasn't un­til 1963 that Qasim was killed in a U.S. or­ches­trated Baath Party coup and Hus­sein was ap­pointed the head of Iraq's bru­tal al-ji­haz a-khas, the se­cret in­tel­li­gence ap­pa­ra­tus of the Baath Party.

The CIA pro­vided Hus­sein with a list of the peo­ple most likely to re­sist an op­pres­sive Baathist regime. Some re­li­able sources claim that more than 10,000 peo­ple were killed. Those tar­geted included teach­ers and other so­cial, cul­tural and po­lit­i­cal lead­ers who would be most likely to sup­port democ­racy.

His­to­ri­ans Peter and Mar­ion Slu­glett de­scribe the CIA or­ches­trated mass killings of Iraqis as "some of the most ter­ri­ble vi­o­lence hith­erto ex­pe­ri­enced in the post­war Mid­dle East."

The CIA branded its many vic­tims 'com­mu­nists' to jus­tify its ac­tions and claimed it was "mak­ing the world safe for democ­racy", by tor­tur­ing and killing any­one who wanted democ­racy or might pos­si­bly re­duce the prof­its of Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions in some way.

Hus­sein was kept in power and un­der the thumb of the CIA. The U.S. sup­plied him with in­tel­li­gence, train­ing, money, and weapons and even helped him de­velop chem­i­cal and bi­o­log­i­cal weapons by sup­ply­ing the ma­te­rial and ex­per­tise. He was en­cour­aged to use the weapons in the U.s.-in­sti­gated war against Iran.

The CIA con­tin­ued to help Hus­sein iden­tify and elim­i­nate po­ten­tial op­po­nents so that democ­racy could not arise in Iraq no mat­ter how badly the peo­ple wanted it.

When Hus­sein had out­lived his use­ful­ness he was en­cour­aged to in­vade Kuwait so that Amer­ica would have an ex­cuse to wage war on Iraq. Hus­sein stupidly fell for the ruse and quickly found him­self to be en­emy num­ber one to sup­port Amer­i­can war prof­its.

Amer­ica's on­go­ing war on Iraq has so far cost Amer­i­cans about $2 tril­lion, with an­other $4 tril­lion cost es­ti­mated over the next few decades.

Fu­el­ing Ji­had, Ter­ror­ism & Ero­sion of Western Cul­ture

The Amer­i­can oli­garchy has long had a very close re­la­tion­ship with the rul­ing fam­ily of Saudi Ara­bia and that re­la­tion­ship has reached a level where it is cause for extreme alarm.

As part of the spe­cial re­la­tion­ship that Amer­ica has with Saudi Ara­bia, U.S. com­pa­nies get lu­cra­tive con­tracts to sup­ply goods and ser­vices but the U.S. has to help the monar­chy stay in power by pro­vid­ing it with arms, train­ing, technology, po­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary sup­port.

The re­la­tion­ship goes far be­yond lu­cra­tive con­tracts for in­fra­struc­ture in Saudi Ara­bia. It is also about war prof­its.

In the 1950's As­sis­tant Sec­re­tary of State Ge­orge McGhee said of Amer­ica's re­la­tion­ship with Saudi Ara­bia,

“The re­la­tion­ship be­tween the two coun­tries is unique among all our in­ter­na­tional re­la­tion­ships. There is no coun­try in this sec­tion of the world in which we have this par­tic­u­lar type of re­la­tion­ship."

This re­la­tion­ship em­pow­ers the monar­chy to sus­tain an op­pres­sive and mil­i­tant Is­lamic dic­ta­tor­ship un­like any other.

Saudi Ara­bia did not be­come an in­de­pen­dent state un­til 1932 when founded by Ab­du­laziz Al Saud. Prior to that the re­gion was con­trolled by a patch­work of tribal rulers. What made the Saud fam­ily dif­fer­ent was its mil­i­tant Wah­habi ver­sion of Is­lam which many other Mus­lims con­sider a "de­viant sec­tar­ian move­ment", "vile sect" and a dis­tor­tion of Is­lam.

Many Is­lamic schol­ars, in­clud­ing those from the re­spected Al-azhar Univer­sity, reg­u­larly de­nounce Wah­habism with terms such as "Satanic faith".

Wah­habist gen­er­ally re­fer to their sect as Salafism, while the term Wah­habism is used by other Mus­lims and non-mus­lims.

De­spite a mas­sive, well funded and sus­tained ef­fort to pro­mote Wah­habism, only 3% of Mus­lims have sub­scribed to it and the ma­jor­ity of main­stream Sunni and Shia Mus­lims world­wide strongly dis­agree with the Wah­habist in­ter­pre­ta­tions of the Ko­ran.

Wah­habism has zero tol­er­ance for non-be­liev­ers and Mus­lims who don't ad­here to the Wah­habist be­liefs. It is bru­tal, back­wards and cruel to the point of be­ing crim­i­nal lu­nacy. It has no place in the mod­ern world.

Cu­ri­ously, the Saudi ver­sion of Wah­habism is very tol­er­ant and sup­port­ive of Is­rael, while all other sects of Is­lam are gen­er­ally anti-is­rael due to its on­go­ing abuse of Pales­tini­ans.

Is­rael ac­tively sup­ports Wah­habism and Saudi backed ter­ror­ists as long as they don't tar­get Is­rael. Jewish con­trolled me­dia de­mo­nize other less bar­baric forms of Is­lam and avoid crit­i­ciz­ing Saudi Ara­bia.

Be­cause most Mus­lims won't con­vert to Wah­habism, Saudi Ara­bia tries to force it on them through mil­i­tant ter­ror groups such as Is­lamic State (ISIS, ISIL, daesh) Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Tal­iban, etc. —and the U.S. helps them while at­tack­ing Saudi backed mil­i­tants only in select cases.

In this way, the U.S. is cre­at­ing its own en­emy to sus­tain its per­pet­ual war on ter­ror. This is done not to pro­tect the United States but to en­rich the oli­garchs through the war in­dus­try.

Out­side of Wah­habism and other fun­da­men­tal­ist sects, Is­lamic mil­i­tancy and ter­ror­ism is lim­ited and does not pose as great a threat.

Saudi Ara­bia is not con­tent to try and im­pose Wah­habism on other Mus­lims, it is also us­ing it to un­der­mine and erode Western cul­ture with the goal of estab­lish-

ing a global caliphate.

In a grow­ing num­ber of coun­tries, Sharia law is now ap­plied not just to Mus­lims but to non-mus­lims as well and a num­ber of Euro­pean cities have be­come ex­clu­sively Mus­lim and off-lim­its to non-mus­lims.

Saudi ini­tia­tives have now made it il­le­gal to sim­ply speak the truth about Is­lam in many Western coun­tries.

Elis­a­beth Saba­ditsch-wolff was con­victed in Aus­tria for merely say­ing "Mo­hammed had a thing for lit­tle girls." Mo­hammed did in­deed 'marry' a girl at age six and con­ju­gate the mar­riage with her at age nine. This is still per­mit­ted and prac­ticed by Mus­lims.

Su­sanne Win­ter, an Austrian politi­cian and Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment, was con­victed for the crime of say­ing that "in to­day's sys­tem" Mo­hammed would be con­sid­ered a "child mo­lester," a state­ment that is also ab­so­lutely true.

In Western coun­tries, those who try to sound the alarm about Wah­habism are la­beled Is­lama­phobes. Ex­press­ing op­po­si­tion to crim­i­nal be­hav­ior is now wrong when the crime is cloaked as Is­lam.

The Canadian Par­lia­ment re­cently passed (201–91) a mo­tion (M-103) that re­quires the mem­bers of the House of Com­mons to call on the Gov­ern­ment of Canada to con­demn Is­lam­o­pho­bia in Canada.

Since merely ex­press­ing facts about Wah­habism or Is­lam is con­sid­ered Is­lama­pho­bia, such ex­pres­sions are con­demned by the Canadian gov­ern­ment and could be pros­e­cuted as hate speech.

The elite in Europe, the U.S. and Canada and their politi­cians are help­ing spread Wah­habism by sup­port­ing Saudi Ara­bia and its agenda and sup­press­ing op­po­si­tion.

Cana­di­ans re­cently tried to stop their gov­ern­ment from ful­fill­ing a $11 bil­lion arms sale to Saudi Ara­bia. But a Canadian court ruled in the gov­ern­ment's fa­vor. It is some­how okay for Canada to arm war crim­i­nals know­ing that the weapons would be used against civil­ians to com­mit war crimes.

Trump's re­cent $110 bil­lion sale of weapons to Saudi Ara­bia will also em­power war crimes and help the Saudi's wage war against mod­er­ate Mus­lims and Saudis who op­pose the ra­bid dic­ta­tor­ship.

Saudi ag­gres­sion is fu­el­ing an arms race in the Mid­dle East, which is good for war prof­i­teers but very bad for ev­ery­one else.

For those un­fa­mil­iar with Sharia law, the fol­low­ing are some of its com­po­nents:

• Theft is pun­ish­able by am­pu­ta­tion of the right hand.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing or deny­ing any part of the Qu­ran is pun­ish­able by death.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing Muham­mad or deny­ing that he is a prophet is pun­ish­able by death.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing or deny­ing Al­lah (the Moon God) is pun­ish­able by death.

• A Mus­lim who be­comes a non-mus­lim is pun­ish­able by death.

• A non-mus­lim who leads a Mus­lim away from Is­lam is pun­ish­able by death.

• A non-mus­lim man who mar­ries a Mus­lim woman is pun­ish­able by death.

• A man can marry an in­fant girl and con­sum­mate the mar­riage when she is nine years old.

• Girls' cli­toris should be cut (Muham­mad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-adab, Ha­dith 5251).

• A woman can have one hus­band, who can have up to four wives.

• A man can beat his wife for in­sub­or­di­na­tion.

• A man can uni­lat­er­ally di­vorce his wife; a woman needs her hus­band's con­sent to di­vorce.

• A di­vorced wife loses cus­tody of all chil­dren over six years of age or when they ex­ceed it.

• Tes­ti­monies of four male wit­nesses are re­quired to prove rape against a woman.

• A woman who has been raped can­not tes­tify in court against her rapist(s).

• A woman's tes­ti­mony in court, al­lowed in prop­erty cases, car­ries half the weight of a man's.

• A fe­male heir in­her­its half of what a male heir in­her­its

• A woman can­not drive a car, as it leads to fit­nah (upheaval).

• A woman can­not speak alone to a man who is not her hus­band or rel­a­tive.

• Meat must come only from an­i­mals that have been sac­ri­ficed to Al­lah - i.e., be "Halal".

• Mus­lims should en­gage in Taqiyya and lie to non-mus­lims to ad­vance Is­lam.

Those who don't want to be force­fully con­verted to Is­lam and put un­der Sharia law may want to re­search the is­sue fur­ther and speak out against all crim­i­nal and back­wards cul­tural move­ments, even if they are re­li­gious.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.