News & Analysis
UN Takes on Al Qaeda in Mali
U.N. authorizes African force to take on al Qaeda in Mali ... The 15-nation U.N. Security Council on Thursday unanimously authorized the deployment of an African-led military force to help defeat al Qaeda and other Islamist militants in northern Mali. The French-drafted resolution also authorized the 27-nation European Union and other U.N. member states to help rebuild the Malian security forces, who are to be assisted by the international African force during an operation in northern Mali that is not expected to begin before September 2013. The adoption of the resolution was the result of a compromise that ended weeks of disagreements between the United States and France over how best to tackle the problem of Mali, where al Qaeda-linked insurgents seized vast swathes of territory in March. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: Al Qaeda is spreading.
Free-Market Analysis: The UN is being drawn into war. This "deployment of troops" in Africa will take place in Mali (see excerpt above) but probably expand, as the actual theatre occupies much of upper Africa, a region about the size of the lower United States.
War and more war. There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of what is about to occur. It all begins with the Tuaregs, a blue-daubed fierce tribe of warriors who are part of the larger Berber peoples that were recognized by the UN in the 1990s as legitimate claimants of the northern African Maghreb that spans Tunisia, Libya, Niger and Algeria.
After the destabilization of Libya, a Tuareg rebellion took place throughout the African Maghreb and also destabilized parts of Mali. Wikipedia explains the following:
The Tuareg Rebellion of 2012, part of the 2012 northern Mali conflict, was a war of independence against the Malian government in the Sahara desert region of Azawad. It was led by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and was part of a series of insurgencies by traditionally nomadic Tuaregs which date back at least to 1916. The MNLA was formed by former insurgents and a significant number of heavily armed Tuaregs who fought in the Libyan civil war.
On 22 March, President Amadou Toumani Touré was ousted in a coup d'état over his handling of the crisis, a month before a presidential election was to have taken place. Mutineering soldiers, under the banner of the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State, (CNRDR) suspended the constitution of Mali, although this move was reversed on 1 April.
The Islamist group Ansar Dine, too, began fighting the government in later stages of the conflict, claiming control of vast swathes of territory, albeit disputed by the MNLA. As a consequence of the instability following the coup, Northern Mali's three largest cities—Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu—were overrun by the rebels on three consecutive days. On 5 April, after the capture of Douentza, the MNLA said that it had accomplished its goals and called off its offensive. The following day, it proclaimed Azawad's independence from Mali.
What is evident is that the fighting between secularist Tuaregs and Islamic Tuaregs has now resolved itself in favor the Islamic factions.
And this is supposedly the reason for the UN involvement.
The Islamic faction of the Tuaregs has arbitrarily been declared to be "Al Qaeda." Thus, the West has been drawn into a war via the UN that will surely over time not just encompass Northern Mali but the entire African Maghreb itself.
This is important stuff. The world is being destabilized, is it not? We have been covering the steady erosion of peace and stability in this part of the world because such events are important and illustrate what we call elite "directed history."
The "Internet Reformation" has shown us clearly how a small power elite is leading the world toward global governance using authoritarianism, economic depression and, of course, war.
Usually, the powers-that-be like to use what we call dominant social themes, fear-based promotions that frighten people into giving up wealth and power to globalist facilities. But increasingly, outright war is being used as a tool to counter the effects of the Internet.
The fog of war provides more latitude to the ruling elites and allows them to mobilize society on a vast scale and to claim that authoritarian measures depriving people of freedom are necessary to "fight the enemy."
The enemy doesn't really matter so long as it provides justifications for additional anti-democratic elite moves. In this case, there is plenty of evidence that the West has cultivated the Tuareg takeover of Mali and even expected, or at least welcomed, the Islamic insurgency that the rebellion has now become.
It is the scope of the conflict that people should be aware of. Region by region, this war has been built. Tunisia, Libya, Niger, the Ivory Coast – even Egypt – the entire upper part of Africa is now involved in violence that has been sparked by "youth rebellions." There are so many of them that the US State Department has even stopped delineating them by color. And very few if any are resolved yet.
Egypt is ripped by riots. Tunisia, too. In Libya, secularist tribes enraged by Muammar Gaddafi's ouster intend to take the country back – and the West has surely encouraged the Tuareg insurgency to occupy the pro-Gaddafi secularists in Libya.
It is almost impossible to overstate the scope of what is being built and the length of time that these conflicts may rage. Take a look above Africa and see that Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Turkey are also involved in conflicts of varying intensities.
Altogether a landmass stretching across Africa and the Middle East has been stoked into conflict. And let's not forget Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. And Somalia, as well – where the West has set up a proxy war between Kenya and Al-Shabab.
Not a single bit of it, from what we can tell, is justified. In fact, there is no reason for any of these wars, not if one grants that the CIA was initially responsible for Al Qaeda and has assiduously fanned the flames of religious fundamentalism ever since.
Now the UN is becoming directly embroiled in Mali. Some more from the Reuters article:
The resolution authorizes the deployment for an initial period of one year of an African-led intervention force, to be known as AFISMA, to take "all necessary measures, in compliance with applicable international humanitarian law and human rights law."
The phrase "all necessary measures" is diplomatic code for military force. AFISMA is expected to have up to 3,300 troops and will assist the rebuilt Malian security forces "in recovering the areas in the north of its territory under the control of terrorist, extremist and armed groups."
The French text leaves open the question of how the international force will be funded. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has recommended against straight U.N. funding for the operation, suggesting that it be financed through voluntary contributions.
The voluntary approach appeals to neither France nor the AU. The resolution calls on Ban to submit a report to the council on funding options. The Security Council does not have to accept Ban's recommendation, though envoys say it may be difficult for the French to sway the council to support direct U.N. funding.
U.N. officials say Ban dislikes the idea of the United Nations providing direct financial and logistical support for the initial operation to dislodge al Qaeda from northern Mali because it will be a messy fight, with a simple goal of killing as many militants as possible.
Western media prides itself on its hard-hitting coverage of current events and claims to "speak truth to power." But here we have a situation where one-quarter of the world has been set ablaze by a series of monstrously inconsequential events – and coverage is woefully lacking.
In the 21st century, this is how the world becomes a battleground – stealthily, country by country – without anyone really noticing ... or commenting.
Conclusion: The Internet has made it possible for us to watch what is taking shape. We are grateful for the opportunity even though the vision is certainly discouraging.
Posted by expatriot on 12/25/12 05:56 PM
The UN being drewn in for war? Seems if a world government with a world army does that, the world's people will do what the world's elite would like them to do... depopulate. Where was the UN when the U.S. was all time scamming to cover all it's other scams ? A few miles on the other side of Manhatten (the part the Rockefellers gave to house them thus is now an international non national city state... what has it done in the direction of at least bringing to the table the fact that many people do not quite "buy the bearded man in the cave mastermind" theory, nor "unscathed paper passport in the street" official version to that infamous "pearl harbor like event"...
Click to view link
Posted by daddy warbucks on 12/21/12 05:05 PM
"Al Qaeda is spreading." well isn't Obama ]funding al Qaeda?[
Wasn't that just all over the news? With training and tactical support? Who's surprised al Qaeda is spreading?
The NWO needs chaos, lots of fear, financial collapse and chaos, it's their plan, they've been probably researching it at the United Nations University for Sustainability and Peace since they were established in 1972, ya think?
"... entire upper part of Africa is now involved in violence that has been sparked by "youth rebellions." (and the US State Dept., NATO, CFR and the UN had absolutely nothing to do with it, especially the no fly zones (youth rebellion pilots and home-made jets), except setting up the NWO banking systems, and moving their gold to London.)Just keep em fighting, they won't notice. Remember MSM only showed the rag tag 'rebels' climbing over debris and nothing shown of advancing special forces and NATO air strikes that where 'allowing' them to move ahead?
Let's see, ... .. mosque building is up 75% in the USA since BO took office, BO has a documented history (legality questioned) of funding and tactically supporting the ouster of an elected leader with subsequent implementation of Sharia law in Africa (google it). He is spending millions of tax dollars on 'Muslim Outreach', the Muslim Brotherhood has access, unprecedented, in the White House, BO supports new Islam blasphemy laws and restrictions on free speech, the USA military has recently published pro Islam conduct in manuals, did I mention our taxes are funding and arming al Qaeda in Syria (the same guys that have been killing our soldiers)?
The IMF and the WB are agencies of the UN and now the UN 'authorizes' African force to take on al Qaeda in Mali, 'UN' authorizes force? "The -UN-? is being drawn into war"?
The USA is the biggest financial supporter of the UN yet nobodys accountable in the USA for these decisions? State Dept on vacation? No one country accountable? Not even the EPA? Again who controls the UN? The decision to send OUR troops, OUR equipment, OUR funding is decided by mostly 3rd world tyrannical dictatorships and not our congress?
See, they're getting us used to this kind of reporting and language and thinking. KONY 2012 was exposed, so were the related big university's African investments, Obama needs troops in Africa. African resources must be commandeered before China gets even more firmer footholds, the UN will oblige the dictates of the CFR and you will see continued spreading of Islam, contrary to MSM reporting. Are they still calling it 'spreading democracy'?
Somebody needs to decide if al Qaeda is or ain't our enemy, and maybe somebody should tell them too. This is too bizarre
Posted by 1776 on 12/21/12 01:48 PM
Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda Published on Apr 10, 2011
Click to view link
General Wesley Clark: Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11.
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."
Click to view link