As Predicted, Third Way Surges to Fore in Middle East

Just yesterday, a staff report entitled, "Islam Yearns for a Third Way, US Intel Will Provide," predicted "a third way for Islam that will allow Western-style central banking and finance."

Right on schedule, just as if scripted, Libya has erupted once again as "moderate Islam" battles against "radicals."

It could not be clearer or, of course, more illogical. To make the script work, Western Intel planners conjuring this nonsense have to gloss over just how these "radical Islamic" entities got into Libya in the first place.

These al Qaeda types and "extremists" reportedly infiltrated Libya and then were then supported until Muammar Gaddafi's reign fell. Now they are expendable. But expendable or not, they are the same types of individuals apparently employed under Osama bin Laden – the same types now being insinuated into Syria.

We're not supposed to ask why al Qaeda-types are serving as the shock troops for these so-called youth revolutions. Of course, we already know why.

Radical Islam is a chisel that US Intel uses to reshape the world. It's not idle conjecture, at this point. Either one agrees with this scenario or one has to explain why Islamic fundamentalists have now fought with the support of NATO in Libya and Syria.

Yesterday's article made the following points:

So this is what's really going on. The Middle East has been destabilized by the US State Department's AYM youth movement. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood is empowered, a surge of violence may give way to a "third way" regarding Islamic society, polity and economics.

Muslims are right to believe they are being manipulated. What they don't understand perhaps is that the "third way" that many long for has already been prepared for them and it, too, is under Western control.

And here's reportage from an article in today's UK Telegraph:

Libya: Benghazi crowds drive out Islamist militants ... Cheering crowds swept through the Libyan city of Benghazi clearing Islamist militias from their bases after protests triggered by the killing of the American ambassador, Chris Stevens.

Up to four people were reported dead in clashes which broke out when the last and biggest militia was attacked in the early hours of Saturday morning. Earlier, members of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group accused of responsibility for Mr Stevens' death, were forced out of their strongholds in the city ...

The protests in Benghazi on Friday evening, estimated at 30,000-strong, featured pro-American slogans and banners, unusual for demonstrations in Arab countries. Though many protesters said they were attending "for Benghazi, not for America", some held up placards commemorating Mr Stevens, who lived in Benghazi last year while co-ordinating American support for the revolution. "We demand justice for Stevens," said one, and "Libya lost a friend" another.

After finishing with Ansar al-Sharia, some protesters moved further out of town and took on a base said to belong to the Rafallah al-Sehati Battalion, a Salafist group that is notionally allied to the government and in particular to the February 17 Brigade, a less militant outfit whose leaders are very powerful in the new Libya.

Officials in Washington have now largely dropped the version of events initially put out, that his killing and that of three other American staff was the result of a protest against the film that got out of hand.

Libyan eye-witnesses said there were no protests before the consulate building was attacked on three sides by scores of men waving black Islamic flags and carrying rocket-propelled grenade launchers and automatic rifles.

Militia and military leaders have been meeting members of the interim government and the newly elected prime minister, Mustafa Abushagur, in Tripoli this week to discuss how to deal with Ansar al-Sharia, or at least the members said to have been involved in the consulate attack.

This article provides us with a number of clues as to what is really going on Libya currently.

The article mentions the "Rafallah al-Sehati Battalion," a Salafist group. Salafism, as we mentioned yesterday, is a variant of Saudi-Arabian Wahhabism. The West, and more specifically the US, has been sponsoring the Saud family and Wahhabism for decades.

It is to the advantage of the West to sponsor Islamic fundamentalism because fundamentalists can be used to destabilize Middle Eastern and upper African regimes. Then historical dialecticism can be brought to bear. Fundamentalists can be attacked by "moderates" – and Western style regulatory democracy can suddenly emerge. This is surely the Hegelian model being applied to Libya today.

Libya, of course, is in ruins. Sectarianism and violence are everywhere. Gaddafi may have ruled like a dictator but for many under his reign life was good. The basic necessity of water had finally become accessible. Houses and cars were affordable and so long as you didn't challenge the government directly, you could start a business, survive and even thrive.

Of course, human beings generally don't like to live in circumstances where they must moderate their views out of fear. But certainly Gaddafi's Libya was likely superior to today's faction-ridden, partially destroyed and hate-infested country.

We mention this because of what the Telegraph relates: "... Protesters held up placards commemorating Mr Stevens, who lived in Benghazi last year while coordinating American support for the revolution. 'We demand justice for Stevens,' said one, and 'Libya lost a friend' another."

We are supposed to believe these are the genuine sympathies of the Libyan people? We are supposed to believe that after being bombed and shot, after seeing the country invaded by ragtag mobs of "fundamentalists," that Libyans support those who supervised the damage?

It strikes me as more directed history, just as I noted yesterday in my RT interview. You can see that interview here:

Anthony Wile on RT News: Arab Winter

The US in particular, through its Teddy Roosevelt "big stick" policy, has unapologetically meddled in other countries' affairs around the world. In my view, the current situation in Libya is part of the same impulse. Nothing much has changed from that point of view.

But in another way a lot has changed, thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation. For instance, Western Intel seems to have had in mind creating the appearance of a religious war by planting an anti-Muslim film in the Middle East.

It was the appearance of this hateful film that was the proximate cause of the violence in Libya and elsewhere. Only it was not.

The Internet and the alternative media thoroughly debunked the film and its infiltration into the Middle East. What was obviously a Western Intel trick failed. And the administration was left scrambling to pro-offer a secondary justification – terrorism.

In fact, it is far more likely that all of this, including the placards, was orchestrated. The manipulation knows no boundaries and the same weary historical tricks are being applied over and over again.

They are not working nearly so well these days. As a result of the current manipulations, the Middle East is on fire, probably above and beyond what was expected. This is because Western manipulations are well known by now and people are furious.

They want to be left alone. Can you blame them?

Perhaps the era of the "big stick" policy is over and those orchestrating these policies just haven't internalized that fact. Or perhaps they don't know what else to do.

Perhaps the realization hasn't struck them that the same realizations that have struck the Middle East regarding directed history are also infiltrating the West. And that is an even bigger danger – to them anyway. Not us ...