Specifically today, we'd like to know if any of you have noticed that the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria has been liberated by the Syrian army. And if you have noticed, do you understand what it means?
You may recall hearing that ISIS had taken control of Palmyra last year, and of the significant fears that the jihadis might destroy much of the impressive Roman ruins there. As part of the West's "Christian" historical heritage, you might have thought that the threat of a gang of extremist Muslims destroying those ruins would provide lots of motivation for Western governments to move in to rout the infidels and protect the city.
Bizarrely however, not only did Western governments largely ignore the capture of Palmyra, the general response of US and European politicians to the impressive advance of ISIS across Syria and Iraq over the last 2 years has been to engage in lots of hand-wringing and issue warnings of the dire threat that these grotesque caricatures of Muslims pose to you and your children. We think it's fair to say that the general impression given to Western populations was that, despite their military bases, long-term presence in the Middle East and vast military machines, there was nothing NATO countries could do to impede the march of the jihadis.
But if you recall, the US and its allies had no problem delivering 'shock and awe' to Iraq and then occupying the country for 10 years with hundreds of thousands of US troops and mercenaries, yet we are asked to believe that Western powers were completely impotent in the face of a relatively small band of cutthroats as they rampaged across Syria, killing and maiming Syrians and sending millions fleeing towards Europe in the process.
You'll agree, that narrative is a little difficult to swallow.
So it really is a bit perplexing to realize that all it took was 6 months of Russian bombing of ISIS targets in Syria and direct support for the Syrian army in its fight for national sovereignty to render ISIS no longer a significant military threat in Syria or Iraq, for 500 towns and villages to be liberated - including Palmyra - and a peace process - largely put in motion by Russia - to be established.
You could be forgiven for thinking that that Western governments didn't really want to do anything about ISIS and their march across Syria and Iraq or the threat they pose to the people of European countries, as represented by recent bombings in Paris and Brussels.
When you consider what we have said, and the fact that the dominant rhetoric of Western politicians has been about getting rid of Assad, and you remind yourself of the mainstream media stories about the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar arming the "rebels" in Syria, and throw in the repeated demonization of Russia by Western governments, what rational and unemotional conclusion do we draw about the situation in Syria (and the Middle East in general) as it has evolved over the past few years? Or perhaps a better question is, is it possible that Western politicians might be saying one thing about 'Islamic terrorists' in public, and acting in a very different way towards that problem in private?
Is it possible, even, that Western political leaders might see the threat and commission of Islamic terror bombings as a useful tool for enhancing their control over Western society? Let's face it, the direct result of such bombings is the increase of a police state infrastructure in Western nations. The only question left fully unanswered is if the political 'elite' in the West are troubled by this lurch towards totalitarianism, or if they are actively supporting it.
As an essayist and print author, Joe has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many news sites and he has been interviewed numerous times by Sputnik News and Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net.
Reader Comments
Responsibility for protecting this site from demolition was allocated to UNESCO.
Is this organisation strong enough to protect the world's ancient records?
The eradication of ancient sites, to me, means the eradication of civilization. What is being introduced in it's place is a world void of of beauty, intelligence and appreciation for the value of humanity to create such structures that had meaningful significance in there architecture. What do we have today. Wall to wall concrete and glass structures.
And of course the most dominant glass and concrete structures are predominately owned by corporations. One could argue that they are the architects of totalitarian control.
In October 1981, we entered Humanity's Next Cycle. Our world is in an Ending Which Is A Beginning.
The answer to the last question is clearly that totalitarianism is actively supported, and that most power-holders in politics are not at all troubled by their actions.
George GW Bush had no problem killing a US President, just as his dad had no trouble making the family fortune from slave labor at Nazi death camps.
Hillary the Beast cackles whenever she thinks of how many deaths she has caused.
Obama enjoys deciding to kill people.
Totalitarianism is actively supported, because that's what psychopaths with power do.