This page will be updated periodically as new video reports are made available.
From Ireland to the southern tip of Africa, from East to West and beyond, the coming of the year 2011 brings fresh new turmoil, new wars and rumors of wars, across the globe. The end time Kali Yuga period rages on, and man’s inhumanity to man is on display around the world. Civil unrest, dissatisfaction, political upheaval and other signs of unusual evil and personal cruelty are everywhere.
Anymore it is hard to open the news and read it without being sickened by it. I find I want to take more days off and do pleasant, soul nurturing things that have nothing to do with bearing witness to more death, killing, war and human horrors, and readers will note that some days the blog is silent.
On those days I am doing something beautiful that has nothing whatsoever with any of this hell on earth that is breaking out everywhere and I hope others are doing the same. That having been said, here is the grim news report of who is warring with whom, where, and a brief video round-up of what’s happening today on the besieged planet earth.
Chase Kyla Hunter
- Americans start to wake up, MSM ignores them (politics.ie)
- Obama’s Position on Libya Intervention Contradicts 2008 Campaign Statements
- Horror in Japan (hellerbrittani.wordpress.com)
Copyright 2011-3011 Alternative News Forum, All Rights Reserved.
As the Obama administration ponders arming Libyan Rebels, the danger and irony of such an action is not lost on American Patriots, who are opposed to more foreign interventionism. What is emerging cannot be minimized or disregarded. The evidence clearly points to an emerging theme of global Islamic jihad among the Libyan rebels, as it is also being noted among other uprisings throughout the region.
This is a moment when American lawmakers need to clear their heads and their resolve and put a stop to US involvement in a war which will eventually result in arming more Jihadists against Americans and the West. We have already done that once when earlier administrations armed and trained a young freedom fighter for the Afghan people named Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s.
Informed observers who are not affiliated with a party, an agenda or a political strategy one way or the other can see that what is taking place now in the Mideast has a specific undercurrent. That undercurrent is flowing along ideological lines that pour straight into the existing river of hatred for the west that has inspired the radical Islamic dream of global Jihad.
If the Obama administration continues to support the Libyan rebels with arms and more tactical and missile support, we will be inadvertently helping to pave the streets they will run on later as they eventually begin to unify their disparate dreams across the Mideast into one colossal united Islamic army with the goal of annihilating the West. THAT is exactly where this is all going.
It’s insanity for the Obama administration to be supporting what is taking place in Libya. This will come back to harm us in ways we cannot imagine at this time.
Here’s what one rebel fighter said who is a University student in Libya. My guess is that he is not alone in his sentiments.
“Freedom of religion, we don’t want it,” he said. “We want the freedom to practice our religion, but we don’t want freedom for Jews and Christians and to have naked women and alcohol.”
Years from now when historians are trying to pick through the rubble of the third world war, looking for evidence of just exactly when and where it all started, they will be looking squarely in the eyes of the American decision makers in the Obama administration who chose to do the most catastrophically foolish thing in any modern American presidency, to choose to arm the very people whose ultimate goal in life is to destroy us, our civilization, our religion, our way of life and everything that we hold dear.
That’s where the accountability will lie after the great and final war is over.
Chase Kyla Hunter 3.30.11
- Al Qaeda’s Libya Pilgrimage (thedailybeast.com)
- Are Libyan rebels al-Qaida sympathizers? U.S. doesn’t think so (openchannel.msnbc.msn.com)
- US Finds Hints of al-Qaeda Among Libyan Rebels (newser.com)
- “The Libyan debacle continues – now its mission creep: Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels” and related posts (crackersquire.blogspot.com)
- Libya rebels not anti-West, but Qaeda a worry-group (reuters.com)
- “Libyan Rebel Commander Admits His Fighters Have al-Qaeda Links” and related posts (theodoresworld.net)
- Intelligence on Libyan opposition shows “flickers” of al-Qaeda, says top Nato commander (telegraph.co.uk)
- Should the US Arm Libyan Rebels, Despite ‘Flickers’ of Al Qaeda Influence? – New York Magazine (news.google.com)
- Analysis: Al Qaeda may spy opportunity in Libya violence (reuters.com)
- Libyan civil war: An opening for al Qaeda and jihad? (cnn.com)
- Constitutional Problems With The Libyan War (mountainrepublic.net)
- West’s fears over spectre of al-Qaeda among rebels (telegraph.co.uk)
- Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links (telegraph.co.uk)
- For Discussion: Should The US Give Libyan Rebels Weapons?? (bossip.com)
- Obama considers arming Libyan rebels (thehill.com)
March 2011 has brought Americans yet another dire omen of political and foreign policy ill winds to come: we are now inching toward becoming embroiled in Libya, against all better common sense and judgment. I do not agree with Sarah Palin on this one. Sometimes you just have to let these nations work out their own destinies without sticking your foreign policy fingers and your overbearing cruise missiles into the mix, thus making it all potentially much worse.
Anymore, what we used to call “foreign policy” in America has seemingly become just one long intellectual justification for the U.S. military machine to do whatever the hell it wants to, whenever and where ever it wants to.
Whatever happened to the will and consent of the American people in all this? It’s our money that’s being spent here.
While the US military rained down at least 100 cruise missiles onto Libya, causing more than 60 civilian casualties, Barack Obama gave a speech on human rights in Brazil. The resulting utter political and humane cognitive dissonance was loud enough to be heard back in the states all the way from South America.
As the Obama White House adds yet another overseas military Op to it’s list of “things to do when you are utterly bankrupt”, it seems more and more that the US does not exactly “go to war” in a definitive manner anymore. We just kind of kick around, hands in pockets, muse it all over, then more or less sort of “stumble in”, and fall into some kind of rote in so doing that makes me really wonder not only who’s really in charge, but what kind of thinking allows that in the shape we are in financially here at home, what orchard where money grows on trees are we now plucking from now to justify the cost of yet another military intervention?
I am sick over this, just sick over it. I am sick of death, and men and their ridiculous wars, and the insane justifications that are conjured up each time our military does this. We literally can’t afford to do this. I avoided reporting on it for a week because I just COULD NOT BELIEVE that in the wake of Iraq, that we were going to crank up yet another overseas military involvement. Our miserable UN assigned “job” as the world’s military police force has bankrupted our nation, cost thousands of precious young American lives, and is now soon to incite world war three in the Mideast if we don’t stop this.
If we are now going to intervene in Libya, it would stand to reason we would then intervene throughout the entire Mideast region. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Just the mere thought of Barack Obama making a speech in Brazil on human rights as US military intervention cranks up in Libya makes me ill with the utter sight of the duplicity of it all. I have never wanted a man OUT of the White House like I want this man OUT. It goes without saying that this is the most disastrous president I have seen in my lifetime. 2012 cannot get here fast enough for me. Vote this incompetent SOB out of the White House in 2012 before he leads us straight into a final nuclear conflagration in the Mideast that could spread all around the world.
Copyright 2011-3011 By Chase Kyla Hunter, All Rights Reserved.
You know it’s bad when the new world order “White House” directed mass media agencies begin to tell the truth about the cluelessness, insulated narcissism and inept foreign policy of the Obama administration.
Imagine: everything that tea party blogs and truth researchers have been screaming on the internet for five years now about this man, this calculatedly aloof and inept President, who pretended he was America’s new political Messiah four years ago, is finally, four years too late, being discussed in “official” American media outlets. I could just shake the men and women at Newsweek, clanking their heads together.
Where was all this truthful reporting with “eyes wide open” when we needed it four years ago? I personally hope Newsweek goes out of business in karmic retribution for their absolute and purposed failing to vet and investigate this man four years ago when he came out of far left field, [where he lives], to run for national office, three years after admitting to reporters he did not have the experience to do so.
The mass media numbskulls who elected this man now have the sad and silly karmic duty of reporting on his collapsing presidency to the nation, as if we didn’t already know. We were all three to four years ahead of you, Newsweek. You are so fired.
NEWSWEEK’s new columnist on Obama’s Egypt debacle and the vacuum it exposes.
“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.
Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity … and missed it completely.
In Bismarck’s case it was not so much God’s coattails he caught as the revolutionary wave of mid-19th-century German nationalism. And he did more than catch it; he managed to surf it in a direction of his own choosing. The wave Obama just missed—again—is the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy. It has surged through the region twice since he was elected: once in Iran in the summer of 2009, the second time right across North Africa, from Tunisia all the way down the Red Sea to Yemen. But the swell has been biggest in Egypt, the Middle East’s most populous country.
In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around, in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”
The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.
Last week, while other commentators ran around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, hyperventilating about what they saw as an Arab 1989, I flew to Tel Aviv for the annual Herzliya security conference. The consensus among the assembled experts on the Middle East? A colossal failure of American foreign policy.
This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried. The president himself is not wholly to blame. Although cosmopolitan by both birth and upbringing, Obama was an unusually parochial politician prior to his election, judging by his scant public pronouncements on foreign-policy issues.
Yet no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.
The best national-security advisers have combined deep knowledge of international relations with an ability to play the Machiavellian Beltway game, which means competing for the president’s ear against the other would-be players in the policymaking process: not only the defense secretary but also the secretary of state and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. No one has ever done this better than Henry Kissinger. But the crucial thing about Kissinger as national-security adviser was not the speed with which he learned the dark arts of interdepartmental turf warfare. It was the skill with which he, in partnership with Richard Nixon, forged a grand strategy for the United States at a time of alarming geopolitical instability.
The essence of that strategy was, first, to prioritize (for example, détente with the Soviets before human-rights issues within the U.S.S.R.) and then to exert pressure by deliberately linking key issues. In their hardest task—salvaging peace with honor in Indochina by preserving the independence of South Vietnam—Nixon and Kissinger ultimately could not succeed. But in the Middle East they were able to eject the Soviets from a position of influence and turn Egypt from a threat into a malleable ally. And their overtures to China exploited the divisions within the Communist bloc, helping to set Beijing on an epoch-making new course of economic openness.
The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.
Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
These were his words back in June 2009:
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice. Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.
Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”
Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.
At worst, he has no map at all.
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires – Newsweek (news.google.com)
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires (newsweek.com)
- Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy (thedailybeast.com)
- Mubarak in coma? (hotair.com)
- Newsweek Cheat Sheet: What’s in This Week’s Issue (thedailybeast.com)
- In U.S. Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift (nytimes.com)
- In US Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift – New York Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Team Looked Unsteady in Response to Egypt Protesters (businessweek.com)
- Obama’s strategy was to pressure Mubarak without intruding – Los Angeles Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Leadership Tested by Fast-Changing Egypt Crisis (businessweek.com)
- Foreign Policy: Why You Should Care About Egypt (npr.org)