ISIS Praying For Donald Trump Victory

By N Oji Mzilikazi

1 November 2016

Shady people often employ the technique of avoiding and deflecting criticism of themselves, their ideology and/or platform by pointing out to others the flaws and errors in their competition or in another. Donald Trump has mastered that art.

At a January 2016 campaign rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, the then Republican presidential hopeful in his typical mischaracterization and impugnation of the character and records of others style, declared: “They’ve created Isis. Hillary Clinton created Isis with Obama.”

Donald Trump is not the only Republican to state such.

In November 2015, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told supporters at the Florida GOP’s Sunshine Summit in Orlando, Florida: “ISIS is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations.”

Republicans cannot but point fingers and blame Obama (And Hilary Clinton, his then heir designate.) for all the ills he inherited—from an 8-year Republican administration. Doing so is much better that putting a mirror to their face. Thus, blaming Obama was one of the GOP main talking points.

How can Republicans explain to the American and British public among others, that the many lives sacrificed in Iraq in pursuit of Iraqi Freedom, and the hundreds of thousands of bodies (and minds) broken and mangled, as well as the families of soldiers damaged and wrecked by their father, son, brother, husband or boyfriend/lover answering the call to duty was for nought; given that many of cities they fought and died for ended up in the hands of Isis—only to be fought for again?

The Republican Party gave birth to Isis. The Republican Administration under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair created Isis by their illegal invasion of Iraq.

Forget what you heard, ignore what was written, even the findings of the British Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry Report. George Bush invaded Iraq for one reason and one reason alone: To ensure Israel’s safety. WMDS was just a ruse.

Courtesy American and Coalition hands, Mesopotamia, one of the great cradles of civilization was bombed into the stone ages—is in disarray. One less enemy for Israel. A nation under reconstruction lacks the wherewithal to engage in any sort of concerted military aggression. One less enemy for Israel.

Didn’t Israel and its lobbies ratchet-up the screams about the threat to civilization that is Persia—the need to bomb Iran, immediately after Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein toppled? George W. declared it would be World War III, if Israel was attacked by nuclear Iran.

Bush never had a U.S. exit strategy for Iraq. The Republicans were prepared to have American boots on the ground in Iraq for the next 1000 years.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain criticized Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama’s calls for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. McCain declared that a U.S. pullout would harm Israel’s security. McCain will have them stay 100 years.

At a Washington 15 Conference, a United Jewish Communities event, Republican Lawrence Eagleburger, a former U.S. Secretary of State stated “that those people who might want to ‘cut and run’ from Iraq now are endangering Israel,” and that leaving Iraq made Iran stronger.

In a 15 December 2011, op-ed piece in the British Guardian, John Bolton who has served in several Republican administrations, lamented the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He called it a tragic mistake and stated: “It jeopardises the gains made by President Bush’s (and Tony Blair’s) eminently correct 2003 decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”

To paint an illegal war to which Blair, Bush and company deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity as “eminently correct” underlines the neocon ideologies of prevarication and mendaciously defending the indefensible in promotion of their politicised version of truth.

For all the evils attributed to Saddam, America’s invasion of Iraq set the country back at least 100 years, and Bolton has the audacity to speak of “gains.”

Given the widespread destruction unleashed upon Iraq by Coalition Forces, and the subsequent increase of sectarian violence and suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians, pray tell, what were the gains, and who were the real beneficiaries of said invasion?

It is one thing for a foreign power to overtly or covertly support an insurrectionist movement in a sovereign state, and quite another for a foreign power to invade that state.

America was not invited by Iraqis to invade the country nor did they do so in support of revolutionary forces trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

So, other than the companies for whom war and reconstruction are multi-billion industries, who was the true beneficiary of America’s invasion of Iraq? Israel, I submit.

Bolton had no qualms exposing the neocon agenda: “Overthrowing the regimes in Iran and Syria could have been substantially advanced during the US military presence in Iraq,” he wrote.

And who would be the main beneficiary of a destabilised Iran and Syria? Not the United States for sure. Talk about hubris and imperial ways to strategically reshape power in the Middle East—destroy Israel enemies by proxy.

It’s interesting the way Americans are so cavalier about overthrowing of regimes. Yet, when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour and Al Qaida on 9/11, they invoked the mantle of righteousness and displayed wonderment as to why they were attacked.

Per the adage, “Nature abhors a vacuum,” the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the dismantling of his party—and soldiers, a country in disarray; severely broken infrastructures, shortages of every kind, anger, resentment, frustration, massive employment, the increase in sectarian violence, the human hard-wiring for strong and organised leadership—and therein the vacuum—filled by Isis.  Isis is George Bush’s baby, and Donald Trump’s godson.

Given all Donald Trump’s pronouncement on Muslims, the prospects of a Donald Trump victory has Isis and every other extremist Islamic groups ecstatic. They have circled November 9 as the beginning of the Trump Era and the rise of America’s Muslims.

They see a Trump presidency as enthronement of deeply held anti-Muslim rhetoric and exploiting that is the perfect Pablum to mobilize the mass of American Muslims contended to live quiet and peaceful lives in the “bowels of the Great Satan.”

Lest we forget, on the heels of The Donald call for a total ban of Muslims from entering the United States, Somalia’s Islamist militant group al Shabaab used his words in a recruiting film.

A Trump presidency is bound to increase homegrown terrorism, especially by lone wolves, as well as encourage copy cats; bored youths in pursuit of thrills.

With a Trump presidency, I not only have to look over my shoulder; be on guard from the police and subtle acts of racism, but I must now profile/be wary of everyone when I’m out and about, especially people from the Middle East for fear that…

John Bolton Has No Shame

John Bolton Has No Shame

By N Oji Mzilikazi

December 19, 2011

In a December 15, op-ed piece in The Guardian (Uk), John Bolton lamented the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He called it a tragic mistake and stated:It jeopardises the gains made by President Bush’s (and Tony Blair’s) eminently correct 2003 decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”

To paint an illegal war- to which Blair, Bush and company deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity as “eminently correct,” underlines the neocon ideologies of prevarication and mendaciously defending the indefensible in the promotion of their politicised version of truth.

For all the evils attributed to Saddam, America’s invasion of Iraq set the country back at least 100 years, and Bolton has the audacity to speak of “gains.” Given the widespread destruction unleashed upon Iraq by Coalition Forces, and the subsequent increase of sectarian violence and suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians, pray tell, what were the gains and who were the real beneficiaries of said invasion?

It is one thing for a foreign power to overtly or covertly support an insurrectionist movement in a sovereign state, and quite another for a foreign power to invade that state. America was not invited by Iraqis to invade the country nor did they do so in support of revolutionary forces trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Other than the companies for whom war and reconstruction are multi-billion industries, Israel was the sole beneficiary of America’s invasion of Iraq. Iraq was invaded on behalf of Israel- to make Israel safer. It was Israel getting its war against an ancient enemy on by proxy.

Some years ago at a Washington 15 Conference, a United Jewish Communities event, Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State made the point “that those people who might want to ‘cut and run’ from Iraq now are endangering Israel.” He added that leaving Iraq made Iran stronger. Clearly the invasion of Iraq was all about Israel.

In the aftermath of Iraq in ruins, the entire world was a witness to Israel summarily beating the drums of war against Iran- another ancient enemy, and doing everything in her power to get Bush to bomb Iran before he left office. Especially after Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

Since as a senator, Obama had opposed the invasion of Iraq, the proponents for the bombing of Iran knew that in no way, shape or form would Obama as president of America sanction the invasion of Iran. Thus Obama opponents oft described him, prior to becoming president of America and after, as “not a true friend of Israel.”

Nevertheless, we have seen Israel, and both Canadian and American Israelophile hawks continually push the “bomb Iran to save democracy” line. And they always bring it up at times when the Obama administration is under severe stress.

Americans and others have a right to fear the consequences of American troops leaving Iraq. And for that- Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rove and the Field Marshal with their imperial games are to be blamed. They toppled Humpty Dumpty and didn’t clean up the mess – put the country infrastructures back in place. Not that they had any intention of doing so.

How would you feel, if someone broke into your home and completely trashed it? Wouldn’t you be out for revenge and or want to see them caught and punished?

Legally, a person who damages the property of another must make the person whole either through repairing the damage or paying for it. Sometimes the case is made for punitive damage to further punish the wrongdoer.

Millions of hungry and angry Iraqis who experienced the devolution of their nation state by American hands open the door for blowback.

“Karma can be a devastating bytch.”

Is it any wonder in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McClain indicated he was for staying the course in Iraq. He was willing to turn the invasion for the liberation of Iraq into an occupation – keep American troops in Iraq for one hundred years.

Since the withdrawal of American troops was a done deal, Bolton had no qualms exposing the neocon agenda. “Overthrowing the regimes in Iran and Syria could have been substantially advanced during the US military presence in Iraq,” he wrote. Consequently, he characterized Obama as weak and indecisive.

Who is the beneficiary to a destabilised Iran and Syria? Israel.

It’s interesting the way Americans are so cavalier to the overthrowing of regimes. Yet, when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour and Bin Laden on 9/11, they invoked the mantle of righteousness and displayed wonderment as to why they were attacked. One cannot sow the wind and not reap whirlwinds.