A HALF DECENT EDITORIAL, BUT...

The Independent has published a half decent editorial. The focus of that editorial is the Global War on Terror, and its obvious failure.

Twelve and a half years after 9/11, al-Qa’ida-type organisations control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. Include Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia and the territory they rule is larger in size than the UK. What is so extraordinary – and blameworthy – is that this vast expansion of jihadi groups comes even as the US, Britain and others are waging a “war on terror”. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been spent; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. But attempts to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

[source : The ‘war on terror’ has failed. Al-Qa’ida-type jihadis are proliferating, and the West bears partial responsibility, Editorial, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/the-war-on-terror-has-failed-alqaidatype-jihadis-are-proliferating-and-the-west-bears-partial-responsibility-9205951.html, 20th March 2014]

The editorial then goes on to question our relationship with Saudi Arabia, surprisingly mentioning the still classified 28 pages that refer to Saudi involvement in 9/11.

The editorial then ends:

The reason why Washington, London and other states have been so gentle with the Saudis and their allies, responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement, is the kingdom’s financial might, the West’s hunger for arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals. The “war on terror” has failed and failed unnecessarily. Were there to be a repeat of 9/11, then those responsible for that defeat should be held accountable.

But as someone who has been following and investigating current affairs, though this editorial is encouraging in its attempt to blame Saudi Arabia for all the worlds terrorist ills, it is disappointing in that it overlooks one thing: ISRAEL!

The whole Clean Break/PNAC/Rebuilding America's Defenses agenda is not mentioned once.

Why?

The editorial proudly names Patrick Cockburn as the author of a series of reports exposing "the extent to which jihadi organisations identical in ideology and methods to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida have survived, flourished and are now stronger than ever".

But at a time when Ed Snowden's revelations are telling us that we are all being spied on, when such an investigation into the rise and rise of al Qaeda and its affiliates is published, this investigation will make a lot of the general public very thankful for all the intrusive surveillance of their lives by the state. And it may even push the general public into supporting wars to eliminate these Islamic terrorists.

But what do you notice about the editorial?

No mention of the Covenant of Security between MI5 and the Islamic terrorists.

No mention of the Zionist Clean Break/PNAC/Rebuilding America's Defenses agenda.

No mention of the plan for war on seven nations in five years revealed to General Wesley Clark.

No mention of The Redirection agreed between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia in which the latter would unleash the most medieval cutthroat Jihadis onto several nations named to Clark not yet attacked.

Could this be because Cockburn married into the Montefiore family? The same Montefiore family who with the Rothschilds began to push for Palestine to become a Jewish state in the early 19th Century?

It is good that Saudi Arabia is being discussed in editorials of such papers as The Independent with a wide circulation, but we do have to ask why it is so one-sided when an even bigger suspect, Israel, is not mentioned once.