'Jihadi' Mall Attack in Kenya Is Perfect Pretext for America to Spread Its Empire Deeper into Africa

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/world/why-jihadi-mall-attack-kenya-perfect-pretext-america-spread-its-empire-deeper-africa


Dick Cheney’s Al-Qaeda dream

But all this is only part of the story. For the Big Picture, we need to go back to NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Libya into a failed state; a development that spawned the Libya-Syria connection.

We need to remember that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) had merged with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in 2007; this was announced by Ayman al-Zawahiri himself. After the destruction of Libya, AQIM invaded northern Mali – which led to yet another French delirium of grandeur. And then the LIFG, now ‘supported’ by NATO, activated the connection with Syria – with jihadis, funds and weapons fueling non-stop the so-called ‘Free’ Syrian Army.

In parallel, al-Shabaab also connected to the LIFG and AQIM; and, ultimately, they all connected with - guess who - Al-Nusra Front in Syria. Even the head of AFRICOM, Gen. Carter Ham, had to admit part of the story in 2012.

In fact this was no admission; it was supposed to happen. NATO propelling the Libya-Syria connection would inevitably expand Al- Qaeda’s operational reach, from AQIM to AQAP and by extension al-Shabaab. The serpent bites its own tail; a Western military offensive leads to scattered jihadi response; blowback ensues; and thus the need for more Western military muscle, ad infinitum.

[Democracyinkind]

1. Someone should coin the term "imperial dialectic".

[jakeXT]

2. "The problem was, there was very little terror in Africa."

And what America was trying to do or the Bush administration was trying to do was to justify the militarization of Africa. In other words, the early seeds, the growth of AFRICOM. It wanted a reason, an excuse, to, if you like, secure Africa, primarily for its oil resources, the gradually increasing threat of China on the continent. But it hadn’t got a reason, or it hadn’t got an excuse or a justification to do so. And the war on terror provided just such a reason. It provided the justification for the Bush administration, if you like, to get a grip on Africa and to launch the war on terror in Africa.

The problem was, there was very little terror in Africa. In fact, if we exclude the incidents in Mombasa in the hotels in 1998, a few incidents in Egypt, in North Africa and the Algerian coast, all of which are rather marginal to the main oil areas of Africa, which are around Nigeria and West Africa, there was effectively no terrorism on the continent.

And so, what happened was they fabricated it. And what they did was to kidnap, hijack and take hostage seven different groups of tourists, Europeans, traveling in the Central Sahara in Algeria, the Central Algerian Sahara. And over a period of about three to four weeks, seven different groups literally just disappeared into thin air. There were all sorts of stories of sort of Bermuda Triangles in the Sahara and so forth. Gradually, the idea or the news came out that these had been taken by Islamist or Islamic terrorists. But there was no certainty. It was being manipulated by Algeria, the Algerian secret services, working with the Americans

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/6/keenan

I told NIS of the attack, says Sonko

Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko has accused the National Intelligence Service of culpability in Saturday’s Westgate attack.

Sonko sensationally claimed in the Senate yesterday that he had two months ago warned the NIS of the imminent attacks but he was ignored.

He made the remarks when the House adjourned to debate the attack in which 69 people died.

Sonko told the Senate that he had received information concerning the attacks from three Asian women, who reside in Westlands and Parklands areas.

- See more at: http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-137195/i-told-nis-attack-says-sonko

[dipsydoodle]

3. NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Libya into a failed state.

'nuff said.

NATO had no place whatsoever doing anything in Libya. NATO is an anachronism which should be left to die when the USSR folded.

[pampango]

4. It was, of course, a UN "humanitarian bombing". It was not NATO bombing without UN approval.

The UN does not have its own army, air force or navy. (Now that would be an interesting idea and would set the anti-UN/One World Government folks on the right into a tizzy.) If the body authorizes military action, it has uses military assets of willing states. Frequently soldiers of African or Asian countries are used. That does not mean that those countries are invading the country they are sent to.

Libya certainly has problems. Their have been few countries that have been in a post-revolutionary stage that did not have many problems. It is very difficult to emerge for decades of dictatorship and become a new Sweden in a short period. And I hear few calls in Libya to bring back the "safety and security" that comes with being ruled by a brutal dictator.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Using a bent resolution carefully crafted by the US to allow action beyond its intent.

Hence the background as to why neither Russia nor China will play ball on current issues in Syria. Fool me once........

[pampango]

6. All true but, nonetheless, a UN-authorized intervention, not a unilateral NATO action.

Also I think that the UK and France were more the driving forces behind the push for UN action, not Obama.

You are right that what happened in Libya is a factor in Syria, though it will never be known how willing Russia would have been (absent the experience of Libya) for the UN to intervene on Syria and jeopardize their greater national interests there.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Fair comment.