Why Western Governments Don't Really WANT to Win the “War on Terror”

Well, that's easy. To grab more power. And for politicians to pose as Great Leaders. Already the unpopular François Hollande, president of France, has risen in the polls.

But first, let me demonstrate that it is indeed true they don't really want to win. And by win, I mean defeat the Islamofascist jihadists who are treated as synonymous with “terror” and “terrorism.” (Even though that makes no sense since terrorism is a tactic, not a group, not a person. But it doesn't matter how many times this obvious fact is observed, “the” media- the dominant propaganda systems- and governments keep pretending “terrorism” is a thing or entity or living breathing monster. A useful bogeyman with which to scare the populaces they rule. Many, many more people are killed in Western nations in traffic accidents, or by carcinogens, or in the U.S. by guns wielded by non-”terrorists.”)

Let's take the current campaign against the “Islamic State,” IS, also referred to by older acronyms ISIS or ISIL.

After the rampage in Paris a little over a week ago by a handful of young, violent malcontents acting as puppets of IS, the Hollande French regime launched some demonstration airstrikes against IS targets in IS' “capital,” the city of Raqqa, Syria. This was reported (by BBC for example) as “the heaviest French airstrikes yet.” The “heaviest airstrike yet” consisted of twenty- yes, 2-0- bombs. The targets were said to be IS's headquarters and a training camp. (Or a munitions dump- media claims varied.) Which immediately raised a question in MY mind, but not in the various establishment medias (propaganda systems) of the U.S. and UK, at least. Namely, how come these targets weren't bombed until now?

But since the power structures of “the West” didn't ask themselves that question (not in public anyway), unsurprisingly we didn't get an answer either.

Next, it was announced that the U.S. bombed a convoy of oil tanker-trucks, supposedly destroying 116 on a road. This was the first time the U.S. targeted oil tankers. Yet IS is said to reap $50 million a month from selling oil. If cutting off IS' funds is so important, why was this done only now? (The alibi trotted out was that the U.S. wanted to- get this, it's a very funny joke- avoid civilian casualties! Right, the U.S., the bombers of hospitals and wedding parties, the nation that has killed more civilians in aerial bombardments by far than any nation in history- think World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, in particular- spared IS oil shipments through desert highways to avoid civilian casualties. Who knew they were such bleeding hearts?) (The U.S. claimed to have destroyed another 289 fuel trucks subsequently. Or maybe that's a cumulative total. “The authorities” and their media stooges aren't always clear about things.)

Speaking of not cutting off IS funds, the U.S., which controls the world banking system, and spies on everyone's finances, and and closes accounts and steals money from obscure American political dissidents, somehow can't stop IS being funded by rich Arabs. Sure.

Just yesterday, Obama vowed that “we will dismantle their [IS'] financial network,...” WILL? How come it hasn't been done already? That's just bizarre.

Ever since September11, 2001, the U.S. media has been full of reports on draconian U.S. financial regulations, attacks on and closings of legitimate money transfer services relied upon by poor people, the turning of SWIFT (the top-level interbank communications system for arranging funds transfers between financial entities, based in Belgium) into an arm and puppet of the U.S. Treasury- but IS goes its merry way. [1]

As I've noted before, it's rather odd that this mighty “65-nation coalition” that U.S. Secretary of State John “Skull and Crossbones” Kerry is constantly invoking in his public bloviations about IS (ISIL as he calls it, following the U.S. government stylebook) can't beat a ragtag band of terrorists numbering only a few tens of thousands.

There is precedent for this strange diffidence about taking effective action against the supposed Menace To Civilization. There was 9/11 itself, in which an Al-Qaeda plane attack plot was allowed to proceed under the watchful eyes of the FBI, CIA, and Saudi “intelligence,” to cover the controlled demolitions of the three buildings in the Manhattan financial district. [2] There is the fact that Osama bin Laden was deliberately allowed to escape from Tora-Bora in Afghanistan just after the 9/11 event. (A CIA officer on the ground asked for 450 U.S. Army Rangers at Tora-Bora and was rebuffed by the Bush regime, incredibly. Bin-Laden was allowed to escape into Pakistan. Then for years afterwards, Bush adopted an insouciant attitude towards Global Public Enemy No. 1, saying “I don't think about him much.” Being a Republican, he could get away with this. No Democrat ever could. (Notice Obama doesn't even get credit for ordering the assassination of bin Laden.) Pakistan was allowed to ferry large numbers of important Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel into safety inside Pakistan abroad evacuation flights. And Bush flew out key Saudis from America at a time when all airline flight was banned, blocking the FBI from interrogating them.

Like the “war on drugs,” the “war on terrorism” isn't supposed to be “won,” in the sense most people naively think that word means here. If it were “won,” then the powers that governments and their repressive agencies have arrogated to themselves would come under criticism and perhaps even trimmed back. This is all about power, pure and simple.

Already the French parliament has approved new police state powers. Scores of the usual suspects are being rounded up. In the U.S. and elsewhere, police, secret police, and some politicians are blaming encryption of private communications for the Paris assault, without a shred of evidence encrypted communications played any role. (Belgium allowing a permanent bazaar in black market guns to flourish in their nation has plenty to do with it however, a fact seldom mentioned so far.) Also ignored in this false narrative is the fact that the NSA's power to surveil outside the U.S. hasn't even been notionally curtailed. (.n actual practice it hasn't been curtailed in the U.S. either.)

As the terrorists in this case were already under observation by the French “security services,” the question is begged as to how they could assemble an arsenal of automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives, prepare the attack, and carry it out- as a complete surprise.

I submit they couldn't have. In the world today, in Western societies we exist inside a web of surveillance, not just of our communications but of our physical selves.

Just as after 9/11/01, people are being told that “the world has changes,” “nothing is the same,” on and on with the fear-mongering to keep people anxious- while simultaneously telling them “go about your lives and don't be afraid.” But the real message is conveyed in the public display of armed soldiers and police who look like soldiers, being searched to enter a store (as in Paris now), the whole “locked-down” society that is increasingly imposed on the populace. (In Belgium the government is telling people to stay indoors and stay away from their windows until further notice!)

The French made a few dozen arrests and reportedly seized “weapons.” Notice, not “guns.” A “weapon” is nice general, and in this case misleading, as you will think they mean “guns.” A weapon could be a kitchen knife, a pocket knife, a hammer, a big piece of wood.

The Belgian “authorities” also announced a number of arrests, noting that no guns or explosives were found. (So why were they arrested? Because they're bad people, I guess.)

The power systems of the West have taken the opportunity of the Paris attacks to give everyone a booster shot of Terror War brainwashing. The attack in Bamako, Mali, on the hotel there was seized as an opportunity to keep stirring the pot. (Contrast that with how they dealt with the IS terror bombings in Beirut a day before the Paris attacks, which killed 41. Ho-hum, was the media reaction.)

Anyway, Thanksgiving is this week, an important holiday in the U.S. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

1] SWIFT, the “Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication,“ describes itself as “The global provider of secure financial messaging services” for “financial entities.” If by “secure” you mean “everything you do through us is monitored by American secret police.”

Regarding funding of ISIS, see "ISIS is making up to $50 million a month from oil sales," Business Insider [AP], October 23, 2015, and “Vladimir Putin Reveals That ISIS Is Funded by 40 Countries— Including G20 Members: The Russian president also reiterated the need to stop the illegal oil trade by ISIS,” alternet.org, Nov. 18, 2015.

2] The fact that three steel frame structures were demolished by planted nano-thermite explosives has been established by physical evidence and numerous witnesses (including firemen) beyond any rational doubt, in part by the work of the over 1,000 architects and engineers of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.