babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
It depends on which country we're taking about. Regime change in Libya is desirable for the hawks and oil companies, banks etc. And the fomenting of rebellion is apparently not finished with the current countries in chaos. The neocon cabal and London apparently want to destabilize more Muslim countries and deeper into the heart of Asia. The Yanks and Brits have been meddling in Asia long time. There was Chiang Kai-shek in China and Syngman Rhee in Korea - right bloody bastards. There is a list of brutal US-backed dictators who were eventually abandoned by the west when their regimes became too oppressive. And the resulting "democracies" are only slightly better than before and sometimes not. Again it depends on timing and when the people decide on their own that change is needed. And they must be provided or allowed an illusion of democracy where things seem to be freer or at least in the beginning. Ask Russians or "East" Germans if they feel any better off under state capitalism. Ask any Latvian youth who has emigrated to any grass is greener country if things are better under the new liberal capitalism in their birth country.
And then they jockeyed into position in Vietnam by the 1960s. Afghanistan by July 1979. Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan and created a militant Islamic base in Bosnia and Macedonia by the 1990s.
Belarus, Kyrghyzstan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Xinjiang, Tibet etc are longer term projects for the Brits and U.S.
In Egypt, for example, nothing has changed only cosmetic leaders. The US-backed military is still in charge. However, as Engdahl says, the Israelis are upset about all of the destabilization happening in countries surrounding Israel. Mubarak says US-backed Egyptian Military plotted his ouster And he is one who might know.
And most of the CIA's connections in Pakistan's army intelligence have been purged in recent years. A former ISI General has accused the US of perpetrating a false flag operation on 9/11 with the aid of the ISI and British-Pakistani intelligence agents, and some who are now in prison.
Meanwhile regime change in Libya is worth NATO and al-CIA'da assistance. They really do want Qadaffi out and to seize the oil fields, or corrupt the new leaders who have probably already worked out a deal. A western style central bank was on the agenda for al-CIA'da and rebels recruited from the military and U.S. Gov't funded Islamic Front for the Salvation of Libya. Foreign funding for overthrow of any government is illegal around the world but apparently not for the CIA who have been doing just that for a long time. This is quite normal for the CIA and nothing out of the ordinary as certain babblers seem to want to suggest.
Brzezinski's infamously racist quote regarding Muslims used by the CIA in their war against secular socialism in Central Asia.
What's more important in the CIA's world view of history? Brzezinski's world view and looking a lot like Halford Mackinder's? Democracy or the expansion of John Foster Dulles' "Middle East" into the heart of Asia and pressing against the borders of their old cold war enemies Russia and China? Do we lefties really need to go over this same old ground in 2011? This is everything they accused the Soviets of pursuing, and lo' and behold it has nothing to do with democracy.
World domination!
So despite there being a link between April 6 and the CIA fronts, and the evidence that April 6 was instrumental in leading the Egyptian revolutions, you still won't buy it? Isn't it enough to establish that the CIA had its hand in this? Every mass movement needs its set of instigators. If those instigators were trained and funded by the CIA, it casts your whole theory into doubt, regardless of what you might assume of America's methods.
Do you realize how incredibly presumptuous it is to assume you know how the American hegemony operates? Do you realize the stakes? By accepting the official story wholesale, everything else is swept under the rug, the consequence being that we may have just handed these front groups the single largest victory ever by not acknowledging their role.
I am all for revolution and true progressive change. When I see signs of the devil's handiwork (not to be taken as "supernatural") in the details, I give pause.
To add more insult to injury, another Babbler has created a thread questioning the foundations of the Arab Spring.
... with even more half-baked theories originating from a looney guy named Tarpley who relies on the Alex Jones show for his "information".
[My apologies in advance to all babblers who are looney or who work with looney people.]
Your apology is meaningless and disingenuous. You have a giant vocabulary with which to expand upon your POV of this person's theories. Using a derogatory term that references people with mental illness is beneath you.
Closing.