‘The Guardian’ continues in an established tradition of reporting no news, or no real news, and one of today’s headlines informs us that “Islamic State claims attacks at Brussels airport and metro station”. No surprises here and expect to hear from this particular rag and the rest of the daily drivel over the next few days that one of the reasons was the failure of the security services and what are the odds on this leading to intensified surveillance of all and sundry in the foreseeable future?
Of course, any real analysis of the true nature of the ISIS link is outside the remit of the mainstream media. Therefore, it is important that we engage cognitively with alternative sources before reaching any conclusion, even if a great deal of academic caution might still be advisable once those conclusions are reached.
However, with more than thirty dead in Brussels, people are angry and in a state of shock, and that, along with the subliminal messages that the mainstream media sends out, will ensure that there will be very little rational engagement with the events in the Belgian capital.
That is the real pity, because it is by understanding not only what has happened, but also why it happened, that the likelihood of it happening anywhere again can be reduced. Furthermore, at least for us in the so-called West, there are sources of information that can be considered and, while caution might be advised on reaching conclusions based on those sources, they do offer an alternative to us just accepting the repetitive rubbish spouted out in unison by the conventional media throughout the globe.
Tony Cartalucci writing at ‘Gobal Research’ points out that terrorists are being allowed to travel freely and carry out attacks despite their being “under the nose, on the radar, and in the prisons of Western security agencies on and off for years”, before going on to argue that the West created ISIS to achieve its own geopolitical goals. If there is substance in this contention, and there is evidence to suggest that there is, then It would follow logically that his article, which concludes by stating “the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity appears to be within rather than beyond the West – and aiding rather than opposing Western special interests”, has much to recommend it.
On a number of occasions this blog has come to similar conclusions and, only a few days ago it stated it was common knowledge that “Turkey buys oil from ISIL” and “Turkey is fighting the Kurds fighting ISIL in Syria,” while elsewhere the United States, and its allies in the Gulf, role in supporting ISIS was discussed. Closer to home France was also put under scrutiny and it was pointed out that in Mali “the French airforce didn’t prevent the Islamists from escaping north to Algeria using the only road available, even if they could quite easily have bombed that road and prevented that escape.” An element of hedging is advisable, no doubt, but it would do no harm to follow Tony Cartalucci’s prompting and ask how ISIS aids the West’s special interests?