There will be a 3rd part. I'm trying to keep these to readable lengths :)Very briefly reiterating: The protests that occurred in Iraq a couple of days ago, we’re NOT new protests. Nor was this the first time the protests had taken place in and around the Green Zone. Protests have been taking place since at least March of 2016. So, why did the war mongering media decide to report on these repeating protests, at this specific time?1.The US and company need the cover of chaos to create the new order2.The illusion of a central government in a unified Iraq is no longer necessary3. Mosul I will relink all posts related to the above statement at the end of this latest entry As expected, the media began immediately spinning on specific concepts/memes they want their audience to accept as reality. These memes should be rejected. As I’ve already pointed out, the presentation of the protests was intentionally misleading therefore we should be prepared for more misdirection and obfuscation from the NATO media to advance the war making agenda!The first batch of memes came in an approximate 24 hour period, from the Guardian:I pointed some of them out in the comments section from yesterday..
PennyMay 1, 2016 at 1:06 PM
I was waiting for it!And it didn't take long to appear...The news talk for the week, from the Guardian!
Viability of Iraq's government in Questionhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/01/viability-of-iraq-baghdad-…
"In one afternoon, the fragility of state control was exposed by the power of the street"
Ignoring the lie about one afternoon, you get the grass roots aka "power of the street" meme.
"Iraq’s legislature had three time refused to agree to reforms that would replace a corrupt cabinet with technocrats"
Technocrats just like Ukraine---- such a familiar themeItaly too.
"At issue now, is the very viability of Iraq"
Well, that's what the msm want's you to believe? Note the reinforcement of the originating premise? However, I've repeatedly quoted Ash Carter" “The U.S. plan to accelerate the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq is not dependent upon whether Iraq can achieve political unity” Making very clear that the viability or the unity of Iraq is not even a consideration!
"Public officials are starting to talk openly about a future state that is not bound by the same borders or political system"
"Talking openly"? Dismantling Iraq has been spoken of quite openly for some time now- Ditto for remaking the middle east. Is the Guardian article telling us that now the media is going to 'talk openly' , publicly and more often, about the dismantling/balkanization of Iraq since the time has come to move the agenda forward?Followed up by Al Jazeera:
PennyMay 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
"People power" looks to be the meme, again.Is people-power emerging in Iraq?http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2016/05/people-power-em…
Today there have been numerous news reports framed along the same lines. With headlines such as this. Days of Chaos in Baghdad: Protest or Meltdown? Pay attention to the words emplyed by NYT's:
"Mr. Sadr resurfaced in February to lead protests supporting measures by Mr. Abadi to reduce government waste, tackle corruption and end sectarian quotas" (as I've mentioned the protest have been ongoing for months now)
"Mr. Sadr is nominally an ally of Mr. Abadi, and the protests were seen as an effort to push Mr. Abadi’s opponents to approve a cabinet filled with technocrats rather than officials loyal to a party or sect"
Nominally? That's interesting. Nominally means "in name only- ostensibly" You could assume because Abadi is Shiite and Sadr is Shiite they are allies. You would be mistaken!
Nominally defined: by or as regards name; in name; ostensibly: Example: He was nominally the leader, but others actually ran the organization.
Sadr is not an ally of Abadi- Sadr is an ally of NATO. He played a role in the ouster of Maliki. He is repeating this role.
"Mr. Sadr is unpredictable and cannot be seen as a reliable ally"
Why did the protest end so quickly?
"It was a tactical withdrawal. After they jubilantly occupied Parliament on Saturday afternoon, the demonstrators moved by evening to another area of the Green Zone"
The protests have been going on weekly for months now- NYT's already informed you all of that, as did I, yesterday.
What really happened?
"Images of Iraqis storming Parliament over the weekend made it seem as though a popular revolution were at hand. In reality, it was something else: partly a legitimate expression of popular anger, but partly political theater"
"seem as though it was a popular revolution" Entirely "political theater" in my estimation.And how was it the protestors were able to make such political theater? Inquiring minds want to know. Since this makes Abadi look really lame, I'm more apt to believe the nugget below.
" And a militia aligned with the protesters took over security around Parliament, suggesting a deal with the security forces"
Repeating this statement of fact:
And a militia aligned with the protesters took over security around Parliament, suggesting a deal with the security forces.
Militia aligned with protestors took over the security- YUP, looks to be the case. The NYT's article ends with a very interesting link back to an article from 2006 written by Joe Biden:
A decade ago, as a senator, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called for the partition of Iraq, an idea that is likely to resurface if Iraq continues on the path it is taking.
From Joe Biden - 2006: "The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security"
No central government really necessary.Finally: If Iraq PM fails to survive chaos, Washington must decide what's nextThe Iraqi PM will fail as Washington has already decided. Joe Biden: Gettin' er done! US Vice-President Joe Biden steps off a C-17 military transport plane upon his arrival in Baghdad on Thursday.Biden visits Iraq Thursday April 28/16.Nashirwin Mustafa reappers in Iraq on Thursday April 28/2016On Saturday we get the show from the Green Zone- Coincidence? No, of course not! That's what I'd call Coordination! Cooperation! Collusion! All actions undertaken when people Conspire.
The feeling of the vice-president and his advisers was that Iraqi politics were on a trajectory to greater calm and that the battle against IS would now proceed more effectively.
No one is talking that way now. "There's a realisation that the government, as it's currently structured, can't hold," said Doug Ollivant, a former military planner in Baghdad and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "It's just not clear how the Iraqis get out of this. I just don't see how they will."
It is equally unclear how the administration will move forward if Mr Abadi is unable to consolidate his tenuous grip on power.
Because Iraqi society is so fractured along ethnic and sectarian lines, Mr Khedery said the administration should adopt a more decentralised approach, working directly with individual Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders. "What you have is a society that is deeply polarised between communities and even polarised within those communities," he said. "We need a radical new formula."
I for one am quite certain that Washington has already decided on a plan.
- Stay tuned for Part 3
Refresh or reread?