Who’s Attacking Whom?


I just read this article about a terrorist attack in Yemen near Sanaa where five Spanish tourists were killed. I arrived at the article through a blog debate (where I left my unsolicited comments) regarding why fundamentalist terrorist groups target certain nations, nationalities and locations. Not to plagiarize myself, but I think that there is something very ironic about terrorism.

First, the great majority of victims of terrorist attacks are those people who reside within the nations that these “terrorists” claim to be defending. In other words, there are more “local victims” of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, etc than there are “foreign victims” in theoretically exploitative industrialized nations. The same is true, for example, in the Basque Country, where the Basque people pay a much greater price for ETA than does the rest of Spain.

Next, is the issue of who the fundamentalist terrorists are actually attacking. For example, the great winners of the US war in Iraq is Iran (someday someone will need to explain to me why the US wanted a pro-Iran Iraq). If, as everyone in the media claims, the insurgents who are fighting in Iraq are terrorist operatives, that would mean that the terrorists are fighting for the Sunnis and against the pro Iranian Shiites. Even if they are fighting to expel the Americans, they are fighting in favor of the Sunnis and thus against the pro-Iranian Shiites. At the same time, the Iranians (who are Shiites) are also the principle supporters of Hezbolla in Lebanon, and Hezbolla’s whole existence is premised on destroying the State of Israel.

So if the fundamentalist terrorists theoretically have two demands — the removal of all foreign military presence from Muslim soil and the destruction of Israel — why would they be fighting in Iraq against Shiites, the biggest supporters of Hezbolla? Wouldn’t that mean that fundamentalists’ actions in Iraq actually debilitate Hezbolla’s efforts in Israel? It doesn’t quite add up? So who is attacking whom?



Filed under Essays

9 responses to “Who’s Attacking Whom?

  1. TheCommentKiller

    you made complete sense until the paragraph. The answer is simply a question of control of oil profits.

    Check out the neocons webite, Project for the New American Century, it gives some insight into all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Peace in the middle east is in opposite to the neocon agenda. It is about oil and control of natural resources.

    And the real victors of the war on terror are the neocons and the corporations related to them.


  2. eric

    I wouldn’t give the Neocons so much credit. Yes, their idea was to completely control oil in the region by tipping the balance in their favor, and that meant controlling the Iraqi oil supply and its potential. But I believe that the Neocons really thought that Iraq would be a walk in the park, and didn’t perceive how fortifying the Shiites would also fortify Hezbolla — unless, of course (if they were truly brilliant), that they though that strengthening the Shiites and Hezbolla would ultimately aid Israel by polarizing the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, thus putting the Sunnis on Israel’s side.

    But, honestly, I don’t give the Neocons that much credit.

  3. TheCommentKiller

    I give the Neocons a lot of credit; they are truly brillant. They used 9/11 as a tabula rosa for a wide series of domestic and international policies they have been cooking up for years; and the neocons and their supports also got filthy rich on the war on Iraq. And they really had no domestic resistance until last November.

    However, I am not clear on whether they knew how difficult Iraq would be, but is certain is that they have financially and economically capitalized on their apparent mistakes. And at this point they must be aware of they conflict they are fostering and if their actions are not deliberate/intentional/purposeful, they are at least knowing.

    Don’t forget who is at the helm of this ship- Cheney… this guy has redefined shady, check out the latest- http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/11412

  4. Eric is right, they thought it would be a walk in the park.

    I can’t remember his name at the moment, but there was a highly decorated Vietnam General who took place in the pre-Iraq war games.

    When he used “guerrilla tactics” and completely destroyed the formal military’s ability to function, they instated new rules to prevent him from playing like a “terrorist”. The General effectively showed that the U.S. military was in no way ready for an “unconventional war”. So they kept adding rules to limit his ability to function, until he finally resigned from the project. He stated in his resignation papers that they were condemning soldiers to certain death if they didn’t come back to reality and realise that the world doesn’t operate by their “rules”.

    He has since been silenced.

    Cheney isn’t shadey, he’s evil. Bush is shadey, because he shows “the Stupid” everywhere he goes. Cheney is evil because he has not only the intent, but the insidious, multifarious intellect to make his intentions reality.

    But neither of them compare to what Hillary will do when she’s elected.

  5. TheCommentKiller

    I do not believe Ms. Clinton isn’t shady, but to put her above Cheney seems a bit much. I think real republicans even think Cheney has developed into an eviler beast than Nixon.

    Again that is not to say that Ms. Clinton, or most of the 2008 field, are particularly ethical. In fact, anyone that accepts corporate (maybe at a given amount) money has probably already sold their soul.

  6. Hillary sold her soul to Dubai for 10 million a year … ’nuff said.

    Cheney just destroys the lives of Americans for his own greed. Hillary is in bed with the enemy .. and she’s not putting out, she’s just taking the money and running.

    She’ll start providing services for those funds come her inauguration.

  7. TheCommentKiller

    I tend to view the neocons as a bit more evil than Ms. Clinton.

    In nov. 1983- Sec. of State G. Shultz (former Betchel president) receives intelligence of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons; no action is taken.

    In Dec. of 1983 Rumsfeld went met w/ Saddam to discuss a pipeline to be constructed by Bechtel (at that point Cheney was Rumsfeld’s chief of staff); Saddam cancels the deal b/c he feels like Betchel is overpricing the job.

    But in 1988, Betchel secures a job w/ Saddam to building a chemcial plant outside of Baghdad.

    Skip to april 2003- Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defense, Shultz is a board member of Betchel and Betchel is awarded an $680 million contract for the reconstruction of Iraq.

    I haven’t even started the history lesson w/ Halliburton or any of the energy companies connected to Cheney or Bush.

    When discussing being in bed w/ the enemy, Ms. Clinton is not the answer, but she is a saint compared to the neocons.

  8. Mustapha

    I am not sure who is killing who but conflict in the Mid-East is definitely a good thing for the Neo-cons. I think the N.Cs did underestimate the response of the Iraqis but that does not mean they thought it would be a cake walk. Nevertheless, it does not matter as continued conflcit perpetuates war which in turn perpetuates oil profiteering and no-bid contracts.

    Assuming that the people doing the killing, other than the Americans, are fundamentalists with agendas, the fundamental difference between Shiite and Sunni prevents them from working together. In terms of creed, they are as different as Unitarians and Trinitarians. But, to their credit, if you recall, they did join arms to fight the invading Americans. Then there was the inside job mosque explosion blamed on the Sunnis.

    In Lebanon, all that matters is that you are Lebanese. Christians Lebanese have been known to strap bombs to themselves in defense of the nation. The country is run by the Christians but the “real” defense agency is run by Hezbollah -Shiites. The dynamics of the Mid-East is vast, as is the rest of the world. What we hear in the news is rarely, if ever, honest or correct.

    Take for example the claim that Ahmedinijad want to wipe out Israel and Jews. If that’s so, as one commentator wrote, then there are more than 20,000 Jews in Iran that he could kill first. There are three Jewish members of the Iranian parliament that he could also kill – then make his way to Israel. I rarely, if ever, believe anything I hear on the news anymore. Rarely.

  9. eric

    Yes, you really can’t trust the news. Have you noticed that no one in the US ever mentions that Lebanon has a large Christian minority (you cannot really trust the Lebanese government’s figures) or that not all Palestians are Muslims (although most of the Christians fled).

    The news in Europe and in the US differs 100% when relating to Israel and even to terrorism. Frankly, I don’t trust either views.

    At the end of the day, the media is a company that does marketing research and has a target audiance. People to not want to watch the news if it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s