The war on terror has not reduced the threat of terror but increased it. When those responsible for the war in the West see that they have reduced countries to rubble, created millions of displaced people, killed hundreds of thousands, and the militant opponents of the West are increasing instead of decreasing, why don't they stop it? This war has also failed to promote the postulated war aims: Democratisation and human rights. Here, too, it has worsened the situation for the people. So was and is this war the right means against terrorism at all? Why is this not being discussed now after Afghanistan? Is this not already a clear sign that these were not the goals of this war? Otherwise, when everyone can see that the opposite is being achieved, would it have to be stopped immediately?
If you, if you, are of the opinion that this war must be stopped, then we invite you, then we invite you: Let's network to create majorities for ending the war, in Germany and internationally. We invite you to a meeting soon: info@internationale-friedensfabrik-wanfried.com.
What is this war about?
These are the reasons these critics or supporters - which I got to know and are for me eyeopner - of this war see
Alain Badiou, the French philosopher, says: You want to secure the control of raw materials again directly for your corporations, as in colonial times. You may not want to or be able to colonise directly, but you can destroy the states. By cooperating with militias, you can then get hold of the raw materials at cheap prices to pay for the weapons needed for the war. Badiou says this is hell for the people in these regions. Don't they have a right to escape this hell?
The US geographer, David Harvey, says that with its war on terror, the US wants to bring the resource-rich region, the Middle East or West Asia, the world's petrol station, under its control. They see this as an opportunity to permanently secure their global supremacy against possible emerging challengers to their dominance, such as Japan and the EU in the past and above all China today.
To this end, under the label of revenge for 9/11 and the war on terror, they have bombed an entire region into death, destruction and chaos, destroying the developmental progress made decades after independence from the European colonial powers. Is it not legitimate for people to flee from there and move to where it is still possible to live in dignity without the constant threat of death?
The US political advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the young people who are now educated and connected via the internet are a danger to the USA, especially in poor countries. Their desire to live in dignity would only be at the expense of the people and countries at the top of the world income pyramid, especially the USA. These young people could no longer be controlled: Hence his recommendation: it is easier today to kill a million people than to control them. That is the way to control the discontent. Don't these people have the right to escape death?
more: The "worldwide awakening" of the masses feared by Brzezinski is now here - PROPAGANDAFRONT
Former senior NATO officer, Gen Wesley Clark, criticised the US for having a strong army and using it to militarily enforce interests in the control and exploitation of oil. He revealed that the wars, which have always been presented to us as reactions to alleged human rights violations, were and are prepared for the long term:
Former US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul sees the war as aimed at redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top: "The total cost of the Afghanistan war is more than two trillion dollars. That means millions of Americans have become poorer for a predictably failed project. Thousands of well-connected contractors and companies lurking around the US government pushing the war have become much, much richer. Typical of US foreign policy, you take money away from middle-class Americans and transfer it to the elites of the US military and foreign policy establishment."
His institute coordinates Scott Horton, who describes the war on terror to us with texts and videos based on the information available in the USA:
Maj. (ret.) Danny Sjursen is the director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN).
He entered West Point in July of 2001, two months before the September 11th attacks and served as U.S. Army officer from 2005-2019, with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is contributing editor at Antiwar.com, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy (CIP), and his work has appeared in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, The Huffington Post, The Hill, Salon, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, ScheerPost and TomDispatch, among other publications. He taught American and Civil Rights History at West Point and is the author of two books: Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge (2015), a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, and Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War (2020). He has a BA in history from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and a MA in American and military history from the University of Kansas. In 2019, he was awarded the Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship. He also co-hosts the podcast “Fortress on a Hill,” along with fellow vet Chris “Henri” Henriksen.
Does this paint a clear picture?
The war on terror is a war that the Western states have been preparing for a long time. They want to use the war to secure direct access to the world's raw materials for themselves and their corporations and wealthy. Through this control of raw materials, which every industrialised country needs today, the West wants at the same time to prevent losing its supremacy to a possible emerging rival state.
The states of the global South had only been able to gain independence from the colonial powers through military victories: The wars in Vietnam and Algeria were key events. Moreover, the independence movements supported each other. And the wars cost many people their lives in the Western countries as well. Especially in the USA, which has dominated the West since 1945, the war in Vietnam claimed many victims among its own countrymen. The colonial powers no longer had the strength to hold on to their empires. The independent states built up their countries. In the 1970s, OPEC was able to break through the price dictates of the "markets" for the first time and set its own prices for its raw materials.
Since then, the West has worked to change the balance of power in order to directly re-appropriate the raw materials that contribute significantly to its prosperity. They then used the September 11 attacks to stage themselves as the aggressors and to present their wars as defensive wars. The majority of their populations accepted and still accept this. They do not - or only weakly - resist the fact that their public funds are used for this war and that their soldiers are sent to war.
The war on terrorism is a throwback to the time before the UN was founded. Until the Briand-Kellogg Treaty in 1928 and the adoption of the UN Charter, states still claimed the right to go to war to advance their interests.
Driven by the horrors of the two world wars, the populations of the world were able to achieve the prohibition of war. But they have not yet been able to enforce its observance and compliance with the UN Charter precept that all conflicts must be resolved only by peaceful means. The West, which is highly armed and militarily superior to all other states, is once again using violence and war as a means of its policy: The mass killing and dying that was supposed to end with the establishment of the UN continues, at present above all in its "war on terror".
From the International PeaceFactory Wanfried, we promote international networking for the enforcement of the end of the war on terror. If you want to help build this, write to us: info@internationale-friedensfabrik-wanfried.com
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
コメント