Archive for the ‘Algeria’ Category

Qaradawi incites publicly on” revolution” in Algeria!

April 1, 2013

 
 
القرضاوي يحرض علنا” على ’’ثورة’’ في الجزائر !
.related { background-color:#F5F5F5; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; } .related ul { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-right: 10px; padding-right: 10px; } .related li { list-style-image: url(images/themes/default/bullet.jpg); color:#000000; } .related a { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } .related a:hover { color:#666666; }

علمت صحيفة ”الفجر” من مصادر على صلة، أن الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي، رئيس الاتحاد العالمي لعلماء المسلمين التقى مؤخرا بالدوحة عددا من الشخصيات الإسلامية الجزائرية،

منهم إطارات بحركة مجتمع السلم وشخصيات من الجبهة الإسلامية للإنقاذ المحلة يتقدمهم عباسي مدني ونجله، إضافة إلى رابح كبير، حيث حث القرضاوي بكل صراحة على ضرورة استثمار الإسلاميين بالجزائر موجة الغضب الذي تجتاح جنوب الجزائر.

بحسب ما نقلته المصادر نفسها، والتي عادت مؤخرا من قطر لـ ”الفجر”، فإن رئيس الاتحاد العالمي لعلماء المسلمين الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي، يتحرك في كل الاتجاهات لتنفيذ مؤامرة تحاك ضد الجزائر التي صمدت أمام موجة خداع الربيع العربي التي أطاحت بالعديد من الأنظمة السياسية العربية دون الملكيات الديكتاتورية الشمولية في المشرق العربي كالسعودية والبحريين وقطر التي يقيم بها القرضاوي، والذي التقى مؤخرا في الدوحة بكل من عباسي مدني ونجله الذي يملك القناة المغاربية ببريطانيا، وكذا رابح كبير القيادي السابق في الفيس المحل، إلى جانب عدد من مبعوثي أبو جرة سلطاني من قيادات حركة مجتمع السلم إلى قطر في مهمة غطائها الإنساني تحت يافطة جلب المساعدات الإنسانية لقطاع غزة.

وتمحورت اجتماعات القرضاوي مع الإسلاميين الجزائريين حول الأوضاع في الجزائر، وتم التركيز على موجة الاحتجاجات الأخيرة للبطالين التي عرفتها بعض ولايات الجنوب، حيث أفتى القرضاوي أنه من حق المسلم نصرة هذه الاحتجاجات التي تثار ضد ما سماه بالظلم الممارس ضد الجزائريين، ولم يكتف القرضاوي الذي أباح قتل دماء الحكام العرب وبعض علماء الإسلام من أمثال العلامة السوري المرحوم الشيخ محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي، بل شحن بطاريات قيادات الفيس وإسلاميين آخرين لتعفين الأوضاع بالجزائر من الخارج، بل راسل عددا من الشخصيات السياسية الإسلامية يدعوهم فيها إلى الاستثمار في حراك الشارع بالولايات الجنوبية.

وتأتي حركة القرضاوي الذي كان متزوجا من جزائرية طلقها فيما بعد وهي الآن نائب عن حزب جبهة التحرير الوطني في المجلس الشعبي الوطني أسماء بلقادة في محاولة منه لزرع الفتنة بالجزائر، في الوقت الذي فشل فيه التيار السلفي التوغل في احتجاجات الجنوب بفتاو تحريضية تكفيرية، وهو الأمر نفسه لقادة الفيس المحل وسياسيين آخرين من خلال رفض شباب الجنوب تسيس المطالب الاجتماعية للبطالين.

واعتبر عدد من الملاحظين، حركة القرضاوي هذه، ازدواجية في التعامل والمواقف، حيث لا يتوانى هذا الأخير في الإشادة بالرئيس عبد العزيز بوتفليقة في العلن في مناسبات عديدة.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

France Increases its Support to Terrorists in Syria

March 19, 2013
Yusuf Fernandez

In late February, some international agencies reported that hundreds of foreign rebels were fleeing from the Idleb Province in Northwestern Syria through Turkey under the claim that they were planning to join al-Qaeda militants in Mali in order to fight against French troops deployed there.
terrorists in SyriaThe reason of this withdrawal is not clear.

Some observers said that the real reason behind it was the Syrian army´s offensive against terrorist groups in the province and the disappointment of some militants who have seen that their fight is not popular in Syria, as their recruiters had made them believe before going to Syria.

The irony is that France, which invaded Mali some weeks ago to theorically fight against radical groups in that country, will have to end up fighting against the same groups that the French government has been openly funding. These militants have used French money and training in Syria in order to gain combat experience and they will implement this newly-acquired knowledge against French troops in Mali.

According to observers, France has become the most prominent Western backer of Syria´s armed opposition and is now directly funding terrorist groups around Aleppo and other parts of the Arab country as part of a new attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. Large sums of money have been delivered by French government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against government forces.

Laurent FabiusOn March 14, French FM Laurent Fabius announced that France and the UK would ignore a EU ban on sending weapons to Syria in order to supply terrorist groups fighting there with more arms. The goal remains the same: to overthrow Bashar al Assad´s government. The French newspaper Le Figaro also reported in those days that French military advisers had recently met with rebel groups inside Syria, in an area between Lebanon and Damascus. It is worth pointing out that sending military personnel to a country without the permission of its government amounts to a military invasion.

Despite all this support, the political goal of France in Syria seems to be as far as ever. “Things are not moving. The solution that we had hoped for, and by that I mean the fall of Bashar and the arrival of the (opposition) coalition to power, has not happened”, acknowledged Fabius on January 24. In December 2012, he had claimed that the “end is nearing” for the Syrian president. A senior Lebanese official who visited France towards the end of last year told the daily Al Safir that “France was surprised by the fact that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, his regime and his army could resist”.

For its part, the Syrian government has condemned this French interference in its internal affairs. “France is acting like a hostile nation”, said National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar to AFP. “It is as if it wants to go back to the time of the occupation,” he added, referring to the French rule in Syria after World War I. Damascus has made it clear that France´s current policies will weaken or even eliminate its political, economic and cultural influence in Syria, maybe forever.

Moreover, France is now getting nervous about the possibility of reprisals from the al-Qaeda-linked groups, similar to those it is funding in Syria, for its intervention in Mali. On March 1, three suspected militants were arrested in southern France for allegedly planning an attack in the deays ahead, the Paris prosecutor said.

Change of foreign policy

The boomerang effect of supporting terrorism in Syria is just one of the disastrous consequences of the change of the French policy towards the Arab and Muslim world, which started when the pro-Israeli and pro-NATO Nicolas Sarkozy became President. Prior to that fact, France had gained a solid reputation due to its Gaullist foreign policy, one of whose pillars was the independence of the country with respect to the United States. In February 2003, French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, was universally applauded when he opposed Colin Powell´s pathetic attempts to justify the then-forthcoming invasion of Iraq with blatant lies about the non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

French soldiers in MaliThe new French foreign policy, under influence of Zionist politicians such as Sarkozy himself, Bernard Kouchner or Laurent Fabius and Zionist activists as Bernard Henry-Levy, changed the equation. France began to promote pro-Israeli and neo-colonial policies in Africa and the Middle East, where France adopted an even more radical stance against Syria and Iran than any other Western country.
In Africa, Paris has increased its military presence in recent years. France´s intervention in Mali, with a contingent of 750 troops, has sought to bolster the Malian army against the al-Qaeda rebels, who have controlled the north of the country for about two years. However, the war in Mali is still beginning and, even worse, it is becoming another asymmetric and far-reaching war which could involve France for years, although Paris has repeatedly announced its willingness to evacuate its army from the African country as soon as possible.

Qatar, France´s ally, supported extremists in Mali

On the other hand, Qatar, which just happens to be a major ally of France in the Syrian question, has criticized Paris´s intervention in Mali arguing that the force would not solve the problem. French officials have openly accused Qatar of funding the Mali rebels.

Hamad, HollandeThe first accusations of Qatari involvement with Tuareg separatists and al-Qaeda-linked groups came in a June 2012 article in French weekly the Canard Enchainé. The publication quoted an unnamed source in French military intelligence saying: “The MNLA (secular Tuareg separatists), al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Dine and MUJAO [movement for unity and Jihad in West Africa] have all received cash from Doha.” “The French government knows perfectly well who is supporting these terrorists. Qatar, for example, continues to send so-called aid and food every day to the airports of Gao and Timbuktu.”

The speculation is that Qatar is keen to increase its influence in Mali in order to develop business ties with this nation, which is believed to have significant oil, gas and uranium resources. Moreover, its presence in Mali “greatly increase the Emirate´s influence in West Africa and the Sahel region”, regional geopolitical expert Mehdi Lazar, who specialises on Qatar, wrote in French weekly news magazine L’Express in December. Qatar would also be trying to destabilize Algeria, one of the Arab countries remaining free from its political influence.

France, for its part, is determined to help the pro-French military junta rule the entire nation and sees Qatari activities in Mali with dismay. The Canard Echainé wrote: “Earlier this year, several notes from the DGSE (the French Intelligence Service) alerted the Elysee Palace on international activities and, dare we say, the emirate of Qatar.”

On 22 January, French news site France24 published an article entitled “Is Qatar fuelling the crisis in north Mali?” which claimed that Doha had taken sides with the Mali insurgents. According to author Segolene Allemandou, Qatari rulers aim to spread extremism in Africa with the help of these rebels. The subtle message was clear: the emirate´s support for terrorism will damage its long-term image in Europe.

Destroying a pluralist Syria

Assad praying at Sunni mosqueIn this context, everyone can understand that Saudi and Qatari support extremists who fight against a multifaith and multicultural Syria and against all the religious groups supporting interfaith cooperation and coexistence, such as mainstream Sunni Muslims, Shiites, Alawites and Christians. After all, in Saudi Arabia only the Wahabi current enjoys full religious freedom. The rest of the faiths are discriminated, persecuted or banned. But some people can find it difficult to understand why the West, including France, is allied with extremist Salafist groups persecuting Christians and destroying churches.

The anwer is that France and other Western governments are actually not interested in democracy or political and religious freedom but in pursuing their own political, strategic and economic interests at any cost. French aggressions in Africa have led to the death of thousands of innocent people and have ruined the lives of millions of others, not to mention its involvement in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. With its current policies towards Syria, Paris only tries to reimpose their neo-colonial yoke on that country. However, after many decades of independence and of enjoying their sovereignty, Syrian people are not willing to become slaves of European goverments or of corrupt, backward, terrorist-friendly and despotic regimes as the Saudi or the Qatari.

By funding and delivering weapons to terrorist groups, the French government, alongside with its allies, is not only violating the international law but it is also destroying the possibility of a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict and leaving its resolution in the hands of the military. In this way, Syria´s friends should take good note of this fact and multiply their military aid to Syria in order to prevent their own interests from being damaged. The Syrian state is strong and its people is indomable, but there is no doubt that Syria will need all kind of support from free people in the world in order to resist this aggression.

Source: Al-Manar Website
18-03-2013 – 14:11 Last updated 18-03-2013 – 15:45

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Mali, Algeria, Libya: the real reason Britain signed up for war on Africa

February 17, 2013

The truth behind the ‘war on terror’ is that it is part of Western powers’ imperialistic quest to secure natural resource reserves for their corporations

By Patrick Kane
Huff Post
14 February 2013


With the start of 2013 the ‘war on terror’ has burst back into the headlines. The attack on a BP gas plant in Algeria sparked declarations from David Cameron which identified North Africa as the new front line.

Already the UK has backed military intervention in Mali and upgraded military support for Algeria and Libya. In Algeria, Cameron announced a strengthened ‘military partnership’ to combat terrorism and “improve security in the region”, and in Libya he pledged more British training for security forces and support for securing the country’s borders.

The reality of the never-ending ‘war on terror’ is that it is integrally bound up with an imperialistic drive for resources.

Central to understanding David Cameron’s rapid reaction to events in North Africa is a government document published in November last year to little or no fanfare.

That document is the UK’s Energy Security Strategy, released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change: the first time the UK has ever produced such a strategy. The document rings the alarm for the UK’s future energy security, stating, “Declining reserves of fossil fuels in the North Sea are making the UK increasingly dependent on imports at a time of rising global demand and increased resource competition”, which is leaving the UK “increasingly exposed to the pressures and risks of global markets”.

The point is illustrated with some dramatic statistics: UK oil production, which currently provides for 70% of UK oil demand, is “expected to decrease by 5% per year”, meaning that within 20 years the North Sea oil supplies will have run out, leaving the UK completely dependent upon imports, whilst global demand for oil is predicted to increase by 15% by 2035.
 
There will be even more competition for gas supplies, with global demand forecast to rise by 55% by 2035. Again, declining North Sea supplies mean that the UK will go from importing about 50% of the gas it uses currently “to nearly 70% by 2025”.

At international level, the document identifies the importance of “energy diplomacy” in securing UK supplies of oil and gas for the future. Energy diplomacy, it says, includes “maximising commercial opportunities” for UK corporations, forcing open new markets to guarantee them unrestricted access to valuable energy resources.

Here we get to the crux of the strategy: it is not the ordinary UK citizen that is being protected- for evidence look no further than the exorbitant energy bills crippling Britain’s poor- but the interests of UK corporations which supply the energy.

This ‘energy diplomacy’ is of course a euphemism for militaristic British foreign policy. This includes the provision of military aid and weapons sales to regimes which control strategic energy reserves regardless of how repressive and violent they may be, as well as the readiness to use military force against states or groups which threaten UK energy security interests or those of UK allies.

Of course, militaristic British policy focussed upon securing energy resources at the expense of human rights is not new, for evidence just look at Nigeria. What we are witnessing currently is an increased sense of urgency to take control of strategic energy resources.

The Ministry of Defence in 2010 laid out its analysis of future strategic threats to the UK, and predicted that in coming years major powers are “likely to use their defence forces to safeguard supplies [of hydrocarbons]”. It identified North Africa as a strategically important area where a key focus of European states’ engagement will be on securing access to energy resources.

The military cooperation agreements announced last month with Algeria and Libya are part of UK ‘energy diplomacy’ aimed at securing access to strategic resources in North Africa. Both countries are identified in the UK Energy Security Strategy as producers of gas and oil which are important trading partners and hence countries which are important to the UK’s energy security.

Algeria now supplies 5% of the UK’s gas needs, whilst Libya is not only an important trading partner, but is a country whose oil supply is so important to the global oil market that the price of oil rose by 10-20% when armed conflict erupted there in 2011. Before the conflict in Libya had even finished, it was reported that BP had begun talks with rebel leaders aimed at securing access to the country’s oil wealth, and the French foreign minister publicly stated that it was “fair and logical” for French companies to benefit after French military intervention in the country.

In Mali, France’s UK-backed intervention is in support of a regime which violently seized power in a coup d’etat last April which led to the country’s suspension from the African Union. Could the large, as yet unexploited uranium and oil reserves thought to be contained in the deserts of Northern Mali and Eastern Niger explain the eagerness to back such a regime?
For a clear example of the link between Western commercial energy interests and militarism in North Africa, just look over the border from Mali at Niger. Last week, the president of Niger announced that French special forces have been deployed to the country to protect the huge Arlit uranium mine owned by French multinational Areva, in response to instability in the region. French companies used to have exclusive access to uranium supplies in Niger, however a change in government policy in 2007 ended the exclusivity, meaning they now face competition from Chinese and Indian companies.

The truth behind the ‘war on terror’ is that it is part of Western powers’ imperialistic quest to secure natural resource reserves for their corporations. We should all fear for the peoples of energy-rich regions as the global resource grab plummets new depths.

 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Post-Gaddafi Libya at Heart of Regional Violence

February 4, 2013

Dogon ethnic group women walk back to the village on 1 February 2013 in Binta. (Photo: Eric Fefenberg – AFP)
 
Published Sunday, February 3, 2013
 
What comes to pass along Libya’s vast southern border can impact not just North Africa, but countries around the world.
World powers suffer battle fatigue quite easily, principally because of the unpopularity among the electorate of drawn-out wars.

When such fatigue set in five months after France launched its first air raid on Gaddafi forces, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy sent Gaddafi an offer of safe passage to the Fezzan with 200 of his supporters, in return for leaving Tripoli. Gaddafi countered by demanding that he instead be joined by 2,000. Surprisingly, Sarkozy – after consultation with NATO allies – agreed.

The agreement was drafted and everyone – including Gaddafi’s closest confidants – began working out the logistics. Gaddafi soon surprised everyone by tearing up the agreement and travelling to the coastal city of Sirte to make his last stand. However, his convoy was captured en route heading south towards the desert. Was this because the French led Gaddafi to believe that the offer for a safe southwards passage might still be available? That is something we will never know from Gaddafi himself.

Leaked documents suggest that it was the Algerians who provided NATO with Gaddafi’s coordinates by monitoring his calls to his daughter Aisha. Privy to the sarkozy offer, the Algerians were probably alarmed at the prospect of Gaddafi’s presence near their south eastern borders given his alliance with the Touareg separatist movement, otherwise known as the “lords of the desert.”
 
The situation in the Sahel region would have been far more complex and the threat to Libya and its neighbors would have been far more perilous had Gaddafi accepted the Sarkozy offer and lodged himself in northern Niger, where he has always enjoyed sympathy and support. This could not have escaped the attention of France’s policy makers. Perhaps Gaddafi’s calculation that the Sarkozy offer was in effect a trap might not have been far off the mark.
 

Even without a Gaddafi-run enclave, Libya’s south – bordering Sudan, Chad, Niger, Egypt, and Algeria – remains the country’s soft underbelly. The strip of land from northern Chad all the way to Mauritania and the Atlantic Ocean is known as the Sahel region, one of the world’s poorest areas and a site of vast socio-economic deprivation.

In the Sahel, central government control is at its weakest, hence the heightened potential for non-state actors like al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to recruit, arm, and train. Recent events in Mali and Algeria illustrate this threat. The Algerian extremists who seized Westerners at a natural gas plant in the desert reportedly got their arms from Libya, as did the insurgents in Mali who France is now trying to crush.

The insurgents’ activities are not confined to the Sahel or to south Libya. The danger emanating from the south poses a real threat to the whole of Libya, as well as its neighbors to the east, west, and south.

Over the past two years, from the uprising to the overthrow of Gaddafi, Libya has been one of the main recruiting centers for Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda fighters. Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton spoke to the US Congress about the events in Benghazi, warning that jihadist groups have formed a complex network of alliances in North Africa, using south Libya and Mali as their main bases.

Members of the group who recently seized the Tigantourine gas field in southeastern Algeria, leaving 38 hostages and 29 extremists dead, included several Egyptian jihadists active in Libya. Sources in Algiers reported that Mohamed-Lamine Bouchneb, the militant leading the attack, had purchased arms for the assault in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Before their attack, the kidnappers gathered – undisturbed – in the southern Libyan town of Ghat, just across the border from Algeria.

A senior Algerian officer also claimed to have definite evidence that the organizers of the Tigantourine attack are the same group who carried out the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. This correlates with statements from US State Department officials that some members of Ansar al-Shariah, the local group that the US believes carried out the attack in Benghazi, had connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, one of the militant groups now entrenched in the Sahel region.

It’s still unclear how far the French will take their present pursuit of this network of extremists operating all along the Sahel region. Will France extend its operation to Libay to target the source of arms directly?

France will calculate any action in Libya with extreme caution. Old rivalries for influence in the Sahel die hard, particularly those between “old Europe” and the US. The latter will look askance at any attempt by France to seek to gain long-term military dominance in southern Libya. No doubt France knows where this line is drawn and will probably not seek to cross it.

Europe is extremely concerned for its interests in Libya. Most recently, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia have urged their citizens to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi due to a “specific, imminent threat to Westerners” linked to French actions in Mali and the danger of new kidnappings by extremists.

As if there is not enough intrigue in the Sahel, a recent report issued by the French Directorate of Military Intelligence (DRM) stated that Qatar is helping to fund armed groups. In particular, the Qatari special forces are supporting certain rebel factions in northern Mali, including Ansar Ed-Dine.

The report is more speculative than factual and begs the question of Qatari interests in the Sahel and its ability to operate independently of the US and Europe and against the interests of Algeria. If Qatar’s financial and military involvement in the Sahel is confirmed, it has the potential to inflame an already combustible region.

This brings us full circle to Libya, where a combination of a rise in militant extremism, a weak central authority, an abundance of heavy arms, and growing regional secessionist sentiments is pushing the country towards the “failed state” precipice.

While the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Libya is of concern to neighboring countries and beyond, only Libya can solve the problem of factionalism, arms trafficking, and al-Qaeda’s increasing influence in the region. This catastrophic blind march towards the edge of disaster has to be halted by any means.

Nor can Libya’s neighbors afford to be complacent about the repercussions of such a scenario. If Libya does not enforce government control throughout the country, the country will most certainly join the ranks of “failed states.” In the gathering storms of turmoil and instability of the region, the Mediterranean will have to pay an exorbitant price. This is justifiably so because the fate of the Sahel is intertwined inexorably with that of Libya.

Abdullah Elmaazi is founder and CEO of Trakon Consulting & Training. He is a regular contributor to The Tripoli Post.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

Want to publish a (thoughtful) response to one of our opinion pieces? Send your contribution to our Submissions editor.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Mali “Resource War” Extends into Niger

January 30, 2013

Mali “Resource War” Extends into Niger: France sends Troops to Secure Niger Uranium Mines

Niger.uranium.areaBarely two weeks after invading Mali with over 2,000 troops of the Foreign Legion, France has dispatched special forces troops to neighboring Niger to secure uranium mines run by the French state-owned nuclear power company Areva.


The new French military intervention in northwest Africa was first reported by the weekly magazine Le Point and confirmed by military sources contacted by other sections of the French media. Le Point reported that French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had quickly agreed earlier this week to a “major innovation” in ordering the Special Forces Command to send troops to protect the Areva uranium production sites in Imouraren, and 80 kilometers away in Arlit. The magazine noted that this is the first ever use of the French commandos to directly defend the assets of a corporation.

The magazine reported that French government officials had taken the decision following the botched attempt to rescue the French hostage, Denis Allex, in Somalia and the recent bloody hostage-taking incident and siege at the Armenas gas facility in Algeria, where over 80 people were killed.
Those two events “in addition to launching the ‘Serval’ operation in Mali have significantly increased risk factors for French installations, including industry and mining in the region,” Le Point reported.
In reality, the dispatch of French commandos to the uranium mines in Niger only underscores the overriding economic and geo-strategic motives behind the French military intervention in Mali. Under the cover of a supposed war against Islamist “terrorists” and a defense of the central government in Mali, French imperialism is using its military might to tighten its grip on its resource-rich former African colonies.

Official spokesmen at both Areva and the French Defense Ministry refused to discuss the new military deployment, citing security concerns.

In Niger itself, officials denied any knowledge of the dispatch of the special forces commandos. “It’s true that the terrorist threat has increased today, but as far as I know there is no such agreement in place at the moment,” one official told Reuters.

A Niger army officer told the news agency that there were already security arrangements in place that had been agreed to with France and imposed after the September 2010 kidnapping of seven employees of Areva and one of its contractors in the northern Nigerien town of Arlit.

“We also have counter-terrorism units in the Agadez region,” said the officer. “For now, I don’t know of a decision by the Nigerien government to allow French special forces to base themselves in the north.”

Failure to inform the Nigerien government of its plans would not be out of the question. Ever since its independence in 1960, France, which had ruled the country as a colony for 60 years, has treated Niger as a semi-colony.

The uranium extracted from the mines in Niger have been considered of strategic importance by successive French governments. The yellowcake produced from Niger’s uranium ore has been used to make France’s nuclear bombs as well as to fuel its nuclear reactors, which account for over 75 percent of the country’s electricity.

While vast profits have been reaped from Niger’s uranium, the mining operation has benefited only a thin layer of the country’s subservient bourgeoisie. According to the United Nations human development index, Niger is the third poorest country on the planet, with 70 percent of the population continuing to live on less than $1 a day and life expectancy reaching only 45.

Moreover, the mining has exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions within Niger. Uranium production is concentrated in the northern homeland of the nomadic Tuareg minority, which repeatedly has risen in revolt, charging that whatever resources do accrue from the mining operations go to the southern capital of Niamey. One of the main demands of the Niger Movement for Justice (MNJ), a largely Tuareg armed militia that has battled the Nigerien army, has been the more equitable distribution of uranium revenues.

Moreover, the exploitation of uranium by Areva has created an environmental and health disaster in the mining areas. The environmental group Greenpeace found in a 2010 report that water wells in the region were contaminated with radiation levels up to 500 times higher than normal. In Arlit, site of one of the major Areva mines, deaths from respiratory diseases occur at twice the national average.
France has every reason to fear that its intervention in Mali, which has already seen the bombing of civilian populations and the torture and execution of civilians by the French-backed Malian army in predominantly Tuareg areas, could cause armed conflict to spill over the border into Niger.
However, in addition to securing its profitable facilities from “terrorism” or popular revolt, France has other reasons to flex its military muscle in Niger. In an attempt to increase its share of the uranium profits, the Nigerien government has recently issued exploration permits to Chinese and Indian firms. By dispatching armed commandos, Paris is asserting its domination of the former colony as part of its African sphere of influence.

As France stepped up its African intervention, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used testimony before a Senate committee Wednesday to affirm Washington’s determination to escalate its own intervention in the region.

“We are in a struggle, but it is a necessary struggle,” said Clinton. “We cannot permit northern Mali to become a safe haven.”

Clinton acknowledged that the rebellion in Mali as well as the hostage siege at the gas plant in Algeria had been fueled in large measure by the US-NATO toppling of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, where Washington and its allies armed and supported Islamist militias as a proxy ground force in the war for regime change.

“There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya,” she said. “There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.”
She argued that, while there was no evidence that any of these forces in North Africa posed a direct threat to the US, Washington should launch a preemptive campaign against them anyway. “You can’t say because they haven’t done something they’re not going to do it,” she said 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Is Algeria Paying for the Malian War?

January 25, 2013

The armed group that abducted foreign nationals working in British Petroleum Company, Southern Algeria threatens of the battle led by France in Mali and its neighboring countries. Spectators reiterated that the abduction will not be the last amidst this new chapter of “Western War on Terrorism”.

Al-Qaeda threatened to strike France, and experts stressed that it does in fact possess this logistic ability, seeing that there are several Southwestern nationals in France and other countries in the ancient continent.

This explains Western and European countries’ reluctance to support the unguaranteed French venture in fear becoming targets to Jihadist Fundamentalists.

Lack of Expertise

The uneven terrains of the Great African Sahara, the difficult transportation due to its quick sands, and lack of expertise regarding ground operations, make Europeans and Westerners averse in directly participating with French forces in the war.

However, they suffice to logistic support and at most sending troop trucks to transfer soldiers to the Malian capital Bamako.

France is truly alone (though it claims to be leading an alliance with the fragile African Army) in this ongoing battle that will apparently last for months, despite Algerian support of opening its airspace for French military planes and closing its borders with Mali.
The French President, therefore, had no choice but to address the Arab Gulf to fund its new war on the armed groups that run merrily in North Mali and threaten the capital Bamako.

The United Emirates was the foremost to support Hollande due to military and educational ties between the two countries, where French forces have military bases on Emirates lands and a branch of the Louvre Museum.
Moreover, strategic agendas Paris had plotted in Mali turned head over heels; Hollande and Sarkouzi had intensively gathered international support to declare this war and restore an area that France deems a part of its welfare in the coastal area.

Paris was given, however, permission from the UN’s Security Council to militarily intervene, and underwent this war beside the African forces expert in the secrets of fighting in the desert.

However, the Islamic fundamentalist fighters’ advances towards Bamako made France hasten to deploy land and air forces and counter these groups that are mastered in fighting in the vast Sahara.

Hefty Cost

Most observers in Southwestern Africa as well as Western Europe see that this war has a hefty financial, human, and political cost not only to France but to all neighboring countries. Probably the Western workers’ abduction from the British Petroleum Company is the best example; Fundamentalist groups began targeting vital Algerian interests in oil excavations and exports.

A French Minister’s declaration that Algeria opened its airspace to French military aircrafts will make Algeria a target for Jihadist organizations in North Mali. The foreign workers abduction in BP is but the beginning of targeting Algerian interests.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Exploited and Misused: The Impossible Discourse of the ‘Arab Spring’

January 25, 2013


    

The 'Arab Spring' has become an Arab springboard for regional meddling and foreign intervention.

<!– By Badran —————————-

The ‘Arab Spring’ has become an Arab springboard for regional meddling and foreign intervention.

<!– AddThis Button BEGIN

–>

By Ramzy Baroud
Jan 23 2013 / 11:10 pm

A reductionist discourse is one that selectively tailors its reading of subject matters in such a way as to only yield desired outcomes, leaving little or no room for other inquiries, no matter how appropriate or relevant. The so-called Arab Spring, although now far removed from its initial meanings and aspirations, has become just that: a breeding ground for choosy narratives solely aimed at advancing political agendas which are deeply entrenched with regional and international involvement.

When a despairing Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire on December 17, 2010, he had ignited more than a mere revolution in his country. His excruciating death had given birth to a notion that the psychological expanses between despair and hope, death and rebirth and between submissiveness and revolutions are ultimately connected. His act, regardless of what adjective one may use to describe it, was the very key that Tunisians used to unlock their ample reserve of collective power. Then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s decision to step down on January 14, 2011, was in a sense a rational assessment on his part if one is to consider the impossibility of confronting a nation that had in its grasp a true popular revolution.

Egypt also revolted less than two weeks later. And it was then that Tunisia’s near-ideal revolutionary model became prey for numerous, often selective readings and ultimately for utter exploitation. The Egyptian January 25 revolution was the first Arab link between Tunisia and the upheavals that travelled throughout Arab nations. Some were quick to ascribe the phenomenon with all sorts of historical, ideological and even religious factors thereby making links whenever convenient and overlooking others however apt. The Aljazeera Arabic website still has a map of all Arab countries, with ones experiencing revolutionary influx marked in red.

Many problems have arisen. What tools, aside from the interests of the Qatari government, for example, does Aljazeera use to determine how the so-called Arab Spring manifests itself? And shouldn’t there be clear demarcations between non-violent revolutions, foreign interventions, sectarian tension and civil wars?

Not only do the roots and the expressions of these ‘revolutions’ vastly differ, but the evolvement of each experience was almost always unique to each Arab country. In the cases of Libya and Syria, foreign involvement (an all-out NATO war in the case of Libya and a multifarious regional and international power play in Syria) has produced wholly different scenarios than the ones witnessed in Tunisia and Egypt, thus requiring an urgently different course of analysis.

Yet despite the repeated failure of the unitary ‘Arab Spring’ discourse, many politicians, intellectuals and journalists continue to borrow from its very early logic. Books have already been written with reductionist titles, knitting linear stories, bridging the distance between Tunis and Sanaa into one sentence and one line of reasoning.

The ‘Arab Spring’ reductionism isn’t always sinister, motivated by political convenience or summoned by neo-imperialist designs. Existing pan-Arab or pan-Islamic narratives however well-intended they may be, have also done their fair share of misrepresenting whichever discourse their intellectuals may find fitting and consistent with their overall ideas. Some denote the rise of a new pan-Arab nation, while others see the ‘spring’ as a harbinger of the return of Islam as a source of power and empowerment for Arab societies. The fact is, while discourses are growing more rigid between competing political and intellectual camps, Arab countries marked by Aljazeera’s editorial logic seem to head in their own separate paths, some grudgingly towards a form of democracy or another, while others descend into a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ – a war of all against all.

But reductionist discourses persist, despite their numerous limitations. They endure because some are specifically designed to serve the interests of certain governments – some with clear ambitions and others are simply trying to ride the storm. In the case of Syria, not a single country that is somehow a party in the conflict can claim innocence in a gory game of regional politics, where the price tag is the blood of tens of thousands of Syrians.

Western media continues to lead the way in language-manipulation, all with the aim of avoiding obvious facts and when necessary it misconstrues reality altogether. US media in particular remains oblivious to how the fallout of the NATO war in Libya had contributed to the conflict in Mali – which progressed from a military coup early last year, to a civil war and as of present time an all-out French-led war against Islamic and other militant groups in the northern parts of the country.

Mali is not an Arab country, thus doesn’t fit into the carefully molded discourse. Algeria is however. Thus when militants took dozens of Algerian and foreign workers hostage in the Ain Amenas natural gas plant in retaliation of Algeria’s opening of its airspace to French warplanes in their war on Mali, some labored to link the violence in Algeria to the Arab Spring. “Taken together, the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the Islamist attacks on Mali, and now this Algerian offense, all point to north Africa as the geopolitical hotspot of 2013 — where the Arab Spring has morphed into the War On Terror,” wrote Christopher Helman, in Forbes, on Jan 18.

How convenient such an analysis is, especially when “taken together.” The ‘Arab Spring’ logic is constantly stretched in such ways to suit the preconceived understanding, interests or even designs of western powers. For example, it is now conventional media wisdom that the US is wary of full involvement in Syria because of the deadly attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. When seen from Washington, the Arab region appears less compound and is largely understood through keywords and phrases, allocated between allies and enemies, Islamists and liberals and by knee jerk reactions to anything involving Israel or Iran.

One only needs to compare media texts produced two years ago, with more recent ones. Whereas the first few months of 2011 were mostly concerned with individuals and collectives that had much in common with Mohamed Bouazizi – poor, despairing, disenfranchised, and eventually rebellious – much of the present text is concerned with a different type of discussion. Additionally there are almost entirely new players. The Bouazizis of Tunis, Egypt and Yemen remain unemployed, but they occupy much less space in our newspapers and TV screens. Now we speak of Washington and London-based revolutionaries. We juxtapose US and Russian interests and we wrangle with foreign interventions and barefacedly demarcate conflicts based on sectarian divisions.

“Arab awakening is only just beginning”, was the title of a Financial Times editorial of Dec 23. Its logic and subtext speak of a sinister interpretation of what were once collective retorts to oppression and dictatorships. “The fall of the Assads will be a strategic setback to Iran and its regional allies such as Hizbollah, the Shia Islamist state within the fragile Lebanese state,” the editorial read. “But that could quickly be reversed if Israel were to carry out its threats to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, enabling Tehran’s theocrats to rally disaffected Muslims across the region and strengthen their grip at home. It is easy to imagine how such a conflict would drag in the US, disrupt the Gulf and its oil traffic, and set fire to Lebanon.”

Note how in the new reading of the ‘Arab Spring’, people are mere pawns that are defined by their sectarian leanings and their usefulness is in their willingness to be rallied by one regional power or another. While the language itself is consistent with western agendas in Arab and Muslim countries, what is truly bizarre is the fact that many still insist on contextualizing the ever-confrontational US, Israel and western policies in general with an ‘Arab Spring’ involving a poor grocer setting himself on fire and angry multitudes in Egypt, Yemen and Syria who seek dignity and freedom.

Shortly after the Tunisian uprising, some of us warned of the fallout, if unchecked and generalized discourses that lump all Arabs together and exploit peoples’ desire for freedom, equality and democracy were to persist. Alas, not only did the reductionist discourse define the last two-years of upheaval, the ‘Arab Spring’ has become an Arab springboard for regional meddling and foreign intervention. To advance our understanding of what is transpiring in Arab and other countries in the region, we must let go of old definitions. A new reality is now taking hold and it is neither concerned with Bouazizi nor of the many millions of unemployed and disaffected Arabs.

– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"Salafi-jihadis in Mali have got a huge problem: they chose the wrong battlefield. If this was Syria………."

January 21, 2013

“Salafi-jihadis in Mali have got a huge problem: they chose the wrong battlefield. If this was Syria……….”

[The same applies on Salafi-jihadis in Sinai, but as far as I see the target is Algria and Mauritania] Algerian army launches final assault on gas complex 

Unlike their Algerian counterparts, Mauritanians are overwhelmingly against France’s attacks on Mali. Local clerics have issued a fatwa stating that France’s true aim is an occupation, while others fear spillover from the border region.

“… Salafi-jihadis in Mali have got a huge problem: they chose the wrong battlefield. If this was Syria, they would have been showered by now with weapons, logistical bases, a London-based “observatory”, hours of YouTube videos and all-out diplomatic support by the usual suspects of US, Britain, Turkey, the Gulf petromonarchies and – oui, monsieur – France itself. …”

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

N Syria learns to hate FSA occupation, NATO errs to add new front

January 21, 2013


Members of the terrorist Free Syrian Army (file photo)

Members of the terrorist Free Syrian Army (file photo)
 

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:19AM GMT

 

NATO commanders have committed, what may turn out to be, a fatal strategic blunder by opening a new fighting front against Algeria and Mali – sending Libyan-based death squads to take hostages at the In Amenas natural gas facility, shortly after France had dispatched troops to northern Mali to confront the advancing Tuareg — before they had succeeded in finishing off Assad.”
 

Related Interviews:
 
When the history of the NATO destabilization in Syria finally comes to be compiled, this past week may be regarded as the turning of the tide against the foreign death squads and in favor of the Assad government.
On the one hand, official Washington – the principal sponsor of the foreign fighters – has been deeply shaken by reports coming from circles close to the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) which depict a rising wave of hatred in northern Syria against the catastrophic misrule experienced under the death squad occupation there.

Ordinary Syrians of all backgrounds are increasingly disgusted by the corruption, incompetence, and oppression of the FSA regime. The rebel chaos is contributing to a significant increase in the popularity of Assad and his regime, which had guaranteed stability and freedom from the worst privations for decades.

On the other hand, NATO commanders have committed, what may turn out to be, a fatal strategic blunder by opening a new fighting front against Algeria and Mali – sending Libyan-based death squads to take hostages at the In Amenas natural gas facility, shortly after France had dispatched troops to northern Mali to confront the advancing Tuareg — before they had succeeded in finishing off Assad.

In this, the NATO bigwigs are repeating the same mistake made by Hitler in June 1941 when he launched his Barbarossa attack on the USSR before he had achieved the decisive elimination of the British. The result became an unwinnable two front war which doomed the Nazi dictator.

Who is out of touch with reality – Assad or Obama?

 
 

The imperialist think tanks of Washington had been optimistic during the late autumn and early winter of 2012-2013 that the collapse of the Assad government would occur in short order. They were taken aback in early January by Assad’s defiant and self-confident New Year’s speech to his supporters. With her usual snide cynicism, the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland hissed that Assad was “out of touch with reality.”

This week The Washington Post was forced to quote an expatriate Syrian journalist’s remark that “many Syrians wonder whether it isn’t the United States and its allies who are out of touch….” (Liz Sly, “Assad still confident that he can control Syria,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2013)

Then came the shocking reports that the rebel-held areas, far from becoming a paradise of freedom and democracy under FSA rule, were exhibiting the grim features of a “failed state.” As David Ignatius, a veteran speaking tube for the State Department and the intelligence community wrote on January 13, “this stark analysis is contained in an intelligence report provided to the State Department last week by Syrian sources working with the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Describing the situation in the area from Aleppo to the Turkish border, where Assad’s army has largely disappeared, the report draws a picture of disorganized fighters, greedy arms peddlers and profiteering warlords.” (David Ignatius, “Anarchy in Syria,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2013)

Sly, working from the same reports, stressed the inability of the rebels to win decisive battles, “The rebels have been systematically overrunning government positions in many locations, but they have not demonstrated the capacity to make headway against the tough defenses ringing Damascus, the capital, and the key prize for whoever claims to control the country.”

The rebels were able to take control of the Taftanaz military airbase located in northern Idlib province after five months of fierce fighting, but this was immediately canceled out by the final defeat of a death squad brigade after a three-month-long campaign in the Daraya neighborhood near Damascus, the key to an even more important military facility. At about the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry once again underlined that it would not be a party to forcing Assad to give up power.
Conditions rapidly deteriorating in rebel-held areas of Syria

According to Musab al-Hamawi, an anti-regime agitator from Hama, quoted by Sly, “conditions are deteriorating dramatically in rebel-held areas…Assad is confident because he knows we are losing ground in terms of popularity among the people…”
One thinks of Florentine secretary Niccolo Machiavelli’s 1509 report to his government describing conditions in the parts of Venetian territory, which had been occupied by French forces after the battle of Agnadello during the War of the League of Cambrai. Machiavelli wrote that the French occupation was stupid and oppressive, and that the occupiers would soon be driven out, giving the Venetians a new lease on life. This forecast was quickly proven true.

France’s Hollande starts Mali adventure
alqaeda904928_n
In 2011, Libyan intelligence called attention to plans by NATO and the Israelis to utilize the Berber-Kabyle-Tuareg people – originally the non-Arab nomads of the Sahara — as an instrument of destabilization. A group of Tuareg adventurers using the cover of religious extremism left southern Libya for a military campaign, which soon gave them control of most of northern Mali, including the area around Timbuktu. Here, they installed a grim and cruel regime claiming to be Islamist, and began preparations for conquering the southern part of Mali as well.

Citing the presence of these Tuaregs as a reason, French President Hollande last week announced that France would honor the request of the Mali government to send military forces against the separatists. Opposition to this move was muted inside France. Most of the former antiwar leftists and others who had supported the attack on Libya had scant objection to the latest imperialist adventure.

Algeria had granted France overflight permission for planes headed for Mali, and this became the transparent pretext for the extremist group loyal to Moktar Bel Moktar, specialized in terrorism and kidnapping, to leave its sanctuary in southern Libya and to attack the British Petroleum natural gas facility at In Amenas, taking hundreds of Algerian workers hostage along with scores of foreign nationals.

In the past, terrorist groups coming from northern Algeria had been unable to move from north to south across the desert to strike the country’s vital oil and gas industry. But now, thanks to the availability of southern Libya as a terrorist base, this has been accomplished.

Out of the crucible of civil war: The Algerian hard line against terrorists

Because of the heritage of a long and costly war of independence to oust the French colonialists, Algeria has a tradition of asserting its own national sovereignty against the NATO bloc. Algerian President Bouteflika, a veteran of the National Liberation Front (FLN)’s resistance against the French military, took power as the GIA was winding down and has been in office ever since. He clearly figures on the CIA hit list.

In 2011, Bouteflika warned NATO that the bombing of Libya in support of the rebels would destabilize the region, and attracted the hostility of the Libyan rebels. More recently, when France announced its incursion into Mali, Bouteflika repeated his warning that the region was being destabilized. Two visits to Algeria over recent years by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not sufficed to turn Algeria into a NATO satellite.

Taking on Mali and Algeria with the outcome of the Syrian destabilization still uncertain shows the folly of the NATO generals.

Now, however, with the rebel onslaught against Damascus bogged down, and belief in an easy victory long since overwhelmed by the enormous casualties inflicted on foreign fighters by the Syrian army, Syria may no longer seem so attractive. Mali, by contrast, offers the possibility of fighting directly against French and perhaps US forces. The NATO generals have divided their forces and opened a second front – never a reliable recipe for success.

WT/HN

By Design: French Mali Invasion Spills into Algeria

January 19, 2013





Global Research, January 17, 2013

algerie
Exactly as predicted, the ongoing French “intervention” in the North African nation of Mali has spilled into Algeria – the next most likely objective of Western geopolitical interests in the region since the successful destabilization of Libya in 2011.

In last week’s “France Displays Unhinged Hypocrisy as Bombs Fall on Mali” report, it was stated specifically that:

“As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:
Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.”

Now, it is reported that “Al Qaeda-linked” terrorists have seized American hostages in Algeria in what is being described by the Western press as “spill over” from France’s Mali operations.

The Washington Post, in their article, “Al-Qaida-linked militants seize BP complex in Algeria, take hostages in revenge for Mali,” claims:

“As Algerian army helicopters clattered overhead deep in the Sahara desert, Islamist militants hunkered down for the night in a natural gas complex they had assaulted Wednesday morning, killing two people and taking dozens of foreigners hostage in what could be the first spillover from France’s intervention in Mali.”

The Wall Street Journal, in its article, “Militants Grab U.S. Hostages in Algeria,” reports that:

“Militants with possible links to al Qaeda seized about 40 foreign hostages, including several Americans, at a natural-gas field in Algeria, posing a new level of threat to nations trying to blunt the growing influence of Islamist extremists in Africa.As security officials in the U.S. and Europe assessed options to reach the captives from distant bases, Algerian security forces failed in an attempt late Wednesday to storm the facility.”

The WSJ also added:

“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. would take “necessary and proper steps” in the hostage situation, and didn’t rule out military action. He said the Algeria attack could represent a spillover from Mali.”

And it is military action, both covert and incrementally more overt, that will see the West’s extremist proxies and the West’s faux efforts to stem them, increasingly creep over the Mali-Algerian border, as the old imperial maps of Europe are redrawn right before our eyes.

Image: The French Empire at its height right before the World Wars. The regions that are now Libya, Algeria, Mali, and the Ivory Coast all face reconquest by the French and Anglo-Americans, with French troops literally occupying the region and playing a pivotal role in installing Western-friendly client regimes. Also notice Syria too, was a French holding – now under attack by US-British-French funded, armed, and backed terrorists – the same terrorists allegedly being fought in Mali and now Algeria.
….

Meanwhile, these very same terrorist forces continue to receive funding, arms, covert military support, and diplomatic recognition in Syria, by NATO, and specifically the US and France who are both claiming to fight the “Free Syrian Army’s” ideological and very literal allies in North Africa.
In reality, Al Qaeda is allowing the US and France to intervene and interfere in Algeria, after attempts in 2011 to trigger political subversion was soundly defeated by the Algerian government. Al Qaeda is essentially both a casus belli and mercenary force, deployed by the West against targeted nations. It is clear that French operations seek to trigger armed conflict in Algeria as well as a possible Western military intervention there as well, with the Mali conflict serving only as a pretense

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!