Xymphora on "The Surge"

[Mr. Premise]

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-surge-really-means.html

Thursday, January 11, 2007
What 'surge' really means
I thought there was at least a chance that Bush would dance with the ones who brought him, and reject the latest version of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. Apparently not. Not only did Bush reject the Baker suggestions, he ran roughshod over every single one of them. In fact, by prominently mentioning Baker’s suggestions in his speech, he managed to publicly humiliate Baker and all of Bush’s father’s friends (I wonder if Bush’s father’s hip replacement surgery removed the father’s influence at a critical time). Bush could have, for example, called for some kind of reevaluation of American strategy while avoiding mention of Iran and Syria. Instead, by making bellicose attacks on Iran and Syria, he rejected the entire tenor of the Baker plea for some sort of diplomatic sanity in the Middle East. He had a clear choice between the Zionists and the American Establishment, and he chose the Zionists.

Now we will get to see the unedifying spectacle of the Democrats squirming around as they try to appear critical while rushing to provide Bush, and their Zionist masters, with everything they need for the disaster. I don’t want to hear any more quibbling about how the ZOG isn’t running America. We have absolutely conclusive proof.

The ‘surge’ is itself another Bush lie. The Pentagon doesn’t have the troops, so the ‘increase’ will just be Pentagon crooked bookkeeping (crooked bookkeeping is something the Pentagon is good at). The real plan is much worse. It is a covert change in the rules of engagement. From Bush’s speech (emphasis in red):

“Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhoods that are home to those fuelling the sectarian violence.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighbourhoods - and [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

 

[iggy]

Xymphora has it right most definitely. I'd suggest people go back and listen to Laura's podcast "It's the end of the world as we know it"... She is especially correct when talking about dropping nukes.

By the way Laura, any room out there for a SWM from Cali who's mom is French?

I'd also suggest judicial-inc's new prophetical "Samson Option" post...

Also Justin Raimondo's new post

 

[Laura]

By the way Laura, any room out there for a SWM from Cali who's mom is French?

I'd say if your mom is French, you might want to try to get French citizenship. You just never know.

 

[iggy]

Unfortunately, she's French-Canadien. I do have an aunt I haven't seen in 25 years in France though.

 

[Joe]

It's hard to tell what the next move in Iraq will be. It is hard to imagine a further upping of the ante in terms of US troops attacking "insurgents" or "al-Qaeda".

At least 1 million Iraqis have been killed directly or indirectly by US forces in the last 4 years (almost), that's proportionally equivalent to over 11 million Americans, and that so few are aware of this is a testimony to the extent of the control of the press.

I can't see a major "surge" in the killing of Iraqis unless some external factor allows for nukes to be used, which would probably be easy to manufacture (could be wrong though).

Historically, the most effective way to decimate a population is starvation, which also usually forces mass migration which usually leads to decimation of the migrants, a plan which may already be underway in Iraq.

An attack on the Israeli population or another on the US would be very "useful" also.

What seems to be the case is that something "big" needs to be manufactured to create the mass "mind-freeze" which creates a window in which a new forced reality, in an "no other choice" scenario, can be presented to the people of the world. This was what happened on 9/11. Nothing happens without first ensuring that a large portion of the population (particularly in the West) are made the unwitting accomplices in their own destruction, or that of their fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, she's French-Canadien. I do have an aunt I haven't seen in 25 years in France though.

Canadian citizenship is a start, with your mother being Quebecois, that might open some doors to some kind of French residency.

Joe

 

[Mr. Premise]

I do think it is possible to up the ante, in the sense that more U.S and British forces will be doing more killing and outright destruction of cities. The 1 million indirect deaths include sectarian and militia killing as well as disease and lack of functioning medical infrastructure. How the ante can be upped is to have more U.S. forces and Iraqi Army forces doing more massacres themselves hand to hand.

I think what they want is to increase U.S. casualties, whereas up until now I think they were trying to minimize U.S. casualties. They may think the U.S. public will not want them to have died in vain or some such nonsense. In pushing the Iraqi "government" to attack Shiite militias in Baghdad they seem to be pursuing an apocalytic strategy there. They may be hoping for a huge bloodbath in the Green Zone.

Not to say they aren't working on a few more galvanizing events.

Don

It's hard to tell what the next move in Iraq will be. It is hard to imagine a further upping of the ante in terms of US troops attacking "insurgents" or "al-Qaeda".

.

Joe

 

[Mr. Premise]

No doubt they are also trying to provoke Iran with a whole range of things, but my guess is that Iran is too smart to fall for the provocation, so they will have to mount a false-flag op.

 

[Joe]

I do think it is possible to up the ante, in the sense that more U.S and British forces will be doing more killing and outright destruction of cities. The 1 million indirect deaths include sectarian and militia killing as well as disease and lack of functioning medical infrastructure. How the ante can be upped is to have more U.S. forces and Iraqi Army forces doing more massacres themselves hand to hand.

I think what they want is to increase U.S. casualties, whereas up until now I think they were trying to minimize U.S. casualties. They may think the U.S. public will not want them to have died in vain or some such nonsense. In pushing the Iraqi "government" to attack Shiite militias in Baghdad they seem to be pursuing an apocalytic strategy there. They may be hoping for a huge bloodbath in the Green Zone.

I projected the 1 million deaths figure by taking the last survey data and adding 1/3. The survey attributed approx. 300,000 deaths to US troops and the rest (more or less) to "death squad" activity. These "death squads" are simply US and Israeli sponsored mercenaries. It is very unlikely that there have been any real sectarian killings or conflict in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has no forces to speak off, it is an impotent entity totally controlled by the US. The forces at work in Iraq today are the US troops, the 100,000+ US mercenaries, possibly the same number of foreign, Iraqi ex-pat or Kurdish mercenaries, and the true Iraqi resistance which is made up of both Sunni and Shia, although their numbers may have been hit by the fear-inspired by the so-called "Shia" and "Sunni" death squads. There are no Shia and Sunni death squads, these are mercenaries in the pay (indirectly) of the US government, that is perhaps the only real function of the "Iraqi government": to funnel money to these killers and to launder Iraqi oil money (and oil) out of the country and into the coffers of US, Israeli and British corporations and individuals.

I think everyone (and by everyone I mean alt news pundits) are missing one of the major reasons for the Middle East adventure:

Basically, it is not about the Middle East per se, it is not about oil, it is about people. It is about killing large numbers of people and controlling the rest. This is already under way in the Middle East, but there is a big target painted on the backs of Western populations.

Look at us, sitting here with a front row seat on the Iraqi madness, smug in our bourgeois happiness, thinking ourselves untouchable, at least in terms of the horrors being experienced by the Iraqi people at the moment.

An attack on Iran will be carried out as a means to an end - the end being an attack on Western populations, apparently (or perhaps actually) carried out by Iranians or Hizb'allah (supplied by Iran) or Syria (supplied by Iran). It is the "clash of civilisations" that is being pursued here, and at the moment the process of goading the "other side" is being implemented.

What do we think the burgeoning police states, particularly in the US and the UK are for? Mass mayhem is expected because it is planned. Of course, there is likely to be many twists and turns on the road. We must factor in the likelihood of natural cataclysms, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and a mini ice age. There may also be revelations about the true perpetrators of 9/11, the London bombings and Madrid. What would be the possible social effects of these? Hard to tell, but nothing is being left to chance, or so they hope.

We in the west are the last remaining enemy. Another round of the continuous "revolution" is what they are after, they have a few years in which to do it, and when all is over and the dust has settled, a "new world" will have dawned, probably only to survive a few years before "kaboom! splat!"

Joe

 

[Mr. Premise]

I projected the 1 million deaths figure by taking the last survey data and adding 1/3. The survey attributed approx. 300,000 deaths to US troops and the rest (more or less) to "death squad" activity. These "death squads" are simply US and Israeli sponsored mercenaries. It is very unlikely that there have been any real sectarian killings or conflict in Iraq.

Oh, I don't find it so hard to believe after all the false-flag provocation that real sectarian killings would result. Iraqi society has been heavily ponerized for a long time. Tribal ethic of blood feuds almost guarantees it.

The Iraqi government has no forces to speak off, it is an impotent entity totally controlled by the US. The forces at work in Iraq today are the US troops, the 100,000+ US mercenaries, possibly the same number of foreign, Iraqi ex-pat or Kurdish mercenaries, and the true Iraqi resistance which is made up of both Sunni and Shia, although their numbers may have been hit by the fear-inspired by the so-called "Shia" and "Sunni" death squads. There are no Shia and Sunni death squads, these are mercenaries in the pay (indirectly) of the US government, that is perhaps the only real function of the "Iraqi government": to funnel money to these killers and to launder Iraqi oil money (and oil) out of the country and into the coffers of US, Israeli and British corporations and individuals.

True but the Kurds operate in the rest of the country (outside Kurdistan) from within the Iraqi army. Same with some of the Shia militias. Why not operate inside the "Iraqi Army" and get some of the arms and money flowing into that fraud?

I think everyone (and by everyone I mean alt news pundits) are missing one of the major reasons for the Middle East adventure:

Basically, it is not about the Middle East per se, it is not about oil, it is about people. It is about killing large numbers of people and controlling the rest. This is already under way in the Middle East, but there is a big target painted on the backs of Western populations.

No argument there, I was just saying that the U.S. military itself could still, as bad as it is now, be killing more Iraqis, and, for the Pathocracy, that has the added benefit of ruining the psyches of those U.S. soldiers who survive with their bodies intact.

Look at us, sitting here with a front row seat on the Iraqi madness, smug in our bourgeois happiness, thinking ourselves untouchable, at least in terms of the horrors being experienced by the Iraqi people at the moment.

An attack on Iran will be carried out as a means to an end - the end being an attack on Western populations, apparently (or perhaps actually) carried out by Iranians or Hizb'allah (supplied by Iran) or Syria (supplied by Iran). It is the "clash of civilisations" that is being pursued here, and at the moment the process of goading the "other side" is being implemented.

What do we think the burgeoning police states, particularly in the US and the UK are for? Mass mayhem is expected because it is planned. Of course, there is likely to be many twists and turns on the road. We must factor in the likelihood of natural cataclysms, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and a mini ice age. There may also be revelations about the true perpetrators of 9/11, the London bombings and Madrid. What would be the possible social effects of these? Hard to tell, but nothing is being left to chance, or so they hope.

We in the west are the last remaining enemy. Another round of the continuous "revolution" is what they are after, they have a few years in which to do it, and when all is over and the dust has settled, a "new world" will have dawned, probably only to survive a few years before "kaboom! splat!"

Joe

Well put, as usual.