Spring Time

The Middle East and The Mass Demonstrations

The Middle East and the Arab Spring

©2011 By edwardforrester00@gmail.com

Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Bahrain and Yemen, are all in
turmoil and demonstrating against the regimes that exist there. Calls to the
leaders to step down is the predominant rally cry.

It is interesting that they are Muslim countries that are
energy producers (oil, natural gas and coal). Another interesting thing is that
all of these nations rose up against their governments almost simultaneously.
Within 1 week of each other all of these countries were in turmoil.
Furthermore, after the first country, Egypt, began its uprising, the media
announced that all of the other countries mentioned were all planning the same
kinds of demonstrations the following week. This is something that never
happens, in a coordinated sense, most especially across Muslim countries. How
did the media know? How did the word get out of these countries and reach the
western media. No matter what means we can think of, just the thought of
coordinating such an action simultaneously across various countries of which
each are very tightly controlled (given their structure) is hardly common or
believable. Yet the media reported this coordinated effort and it came true!

Many of the people in these countries don’t have radios,
much less TV’s or Internet except for the more liberal or democratized countries
like Egypt, Iran and Syria. I don’t see how such a coordinated action, between
countries yet, be able to form when in terms of communication, they rank among
the lowest in the world. The governments of Iran, Syria and Bahrain are really
the last three holding out. Notice that these countries have a higher number of
Internet users and the population is therefore, more informed. The media is
blacking us out too with this “he-said” “she-said” business when speaking of
what the leaders of these countries are saying to the world. We are very rarely
given a live feed to a speech by the leaders of these countries with an accurate

According to 2008 figures,



Radios/1,000 pop

TV sets/1,000 pop

Internet Users









































Never has the media reported on any leaders of these “insurrections”
in any of the countries because apparently there are none. They seem to be all
civilians demonstrating against these regimes in every country. One report out
of Libya, while interviewing some of the rebel combatants, revealed that these
so-called combatants were all civilians (doctors, teachers, mechanics, etc) and
not soldiers. The total number of them was estimated to be around 2500. This
was the real size of the uprising. This is an insignificant amount compared to
the total population of Libya. To say that the people of Libya were in danger
is at least an exaggeration. So the appearance that all of its people
were revolting was “blown up” in the media because of the media’s own nature.
The media works on a rating scale, it is a corporation after-all, and so it has
a tendency towards exaggeration and sensationalism sometimes to get that rating.
Advertising dollars depend on it.

So, this very small number of protesters grew a bit with
time and was enough to call out planes from the US, Canada and NATO and
mobilize aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. Not to mention setup a no-fly
zone and defend it. President Barrack Obama was stating in many news
conferences that he did not wish to get the US involved in Libya. This
statement was just to gather public opinion on the matter. In the end they were
going to get involved but they just didn’t know how. If public opinion was for
intervention then the US could do it openly. If however the public opinion was
against an intervention they would have to do it covertly. The public however
did want a limited action of some kind to help out the demonstrators. Jeez. In
the west we regularly have demonstrations in the thousands (compared to the
relatively small number in Libya) but the UN never jumps in to help, or cry out
that we need help against our tyrannical regime.

I find this more than just interesting. The US knows that it
must secure energy (especially oil) in this post-peak-oil world to maintain its
lifestyle. Daddy Bush said that America would never give up its way of
life. They have tried war in Afghanistan and Iraq and failed miserably because
in real war, there are no rules. Why are there “rules” for wars like the
treatment and exchange of prisoners, the Geneva convention, etc., if war is not
a game? Only games have rules. Nations have agreed to follow the rules of the
game. The US knows it can’t win these countries by war, so it tried a different,
but well-known tactic called infiltration. So, the plan was get a few hundred
or thousand into each of these countries and start spreading dissent about the
government into the population (propaganda and rumors). Then amass as many
adherents as you can and start wreaking havoc and rioting. The natural reaction
from the establishments is to suppress such a thing. All governments react this
way, including ours. They don’t want to lose control of course. They play into
the money giants hands by their very own predictable nature. The US has been
announcing for years that “they want to redraw the map of the middle-east”. It
is in your face, but the majority won’t believe it. Besides, I gotta
watch the new Justin Bieber video.

This whole thing smells like black-ops to me, big time. In
guise of protecting lives and defending peace, democracy and blah, blah, blah…,
they have public support, say worldly support, to get in there. The heroes are coming
to save you. My friends, are we still lead by “glittering generalities”?
Especially knowing that the world has such a rich history concerning such

The Occupy movement latched on to this “Arab spring” and
started seeing the injustices around them, a very good thing. However, they
were not aware that this was black-ops as I knew “immediately”. That was a good
thing too. Then the word got around that George Soros was behind the Occupy
movement and let the air out of the balloon. I’m willing to believe that George
Soros was behind the “Arab spring” black-op but not the Occupy movement. The
Occupy movement was something that was spontaneous and Soros et al. weren’t
expecting it. The movement grew large and they were worried. Furthermore and
especially, that it was peaceful. “Oh no!”, nobody to kill, mame, or lock up in
the FEMA camps or in new jails. So they spread the rumor that this well-unliked
person was behind the movement to dissolve it. Disinformation this one is
(voice of Yoda). Have they succeeded in all their plans?

It was no wonder to me that Egypt was the first to rise. It
was also no surprise that it was the first to fall with almost no resistance. Among
all these Muslim countries, it is the one that is the most “Americanized”. So
the money giants have much more influence in this country than the others. This
has been so, ever since the days of Anwar Sadat. The roots of Anti-Americanism
and the whole Al-Qaeda myth and even one of its founders, Iman Al Zawahari and
the “Islamic Jihad” can be traced back to this point in time when America, was “unwelcome”
in that part of the world. Al Zawahari became Bin-Laden’s second in command in
the infamous “Al-Qaeda” of today. The money giants have been in Egypt at least
40 years. This is a good example of what is know as “blow-back”. By the US
meddling, they created what would be later labeled, by themselves no
less, as Al-Qaeda.

Since we are on the subject of Al-Qaeda, we come to the
question of Bin-Laden. Anyone who doesn’t yet realize that 9-11 was a staged
“coup” to wrest your freedoms from you, amongst other things, is in denial.
This is another human defense mechanism. When the truth is unbearable, or your
mind cannot possibly imagine a thing so unbelievable and horrible, our psyche,
as a defense mechanism, tries to deny it and will try its best to find reasons such
that the denial is justified. It’s human nature 101. What about the death of Bin-Laden?
What do you think of the whole story the US gave?

Here is some truth. I heard a report a very short time after
the attacks of 9-11, Al-Jazeera had a tape made by Bin-Laden which was
authenticated (or so they said) as coming from him. This is the first ever
response by Bin Laden on 9-11. Trust me, I followed this war closely, daily,
over 5 channels all the time. In this tape, he said (or at least the
translator did): “I don’t know who did it, but I applaud them”. Upon hearing
this, my ears went straight up. Wait a minute, he’s saying it isn’t him? The US
meanwhile already had him pinned as the guilty party. If it really was
him, I think he would have taken credit for it right away, but he didn’t.

Here is what probably happened. When no one came forward, to
claim responsibility, he took the credit. Human nature again. To consciously
take credit for something you know is not your own. Why not take credit? No one
else is coming forward, and he would become a hero in the Arab World. Thus, Al-Qaeda
was born, but only because he was dishonest in taking the credit. He was a
victim of his own dishonesty. He took the bait not knowing that this would
cause the hell it did (and does) and pave the way for a “corporate takeover” of
the middle-east. He did not contemplate the consequences. He came to the
realization later on, that he had been duped and was going to blab to the media.
The US always knew where he was and had him under surveillance well before
9-11. The thing is that Bin-Laden thought he was safe the whole time, until the
day of his death, and nobody knew where he was. The Bin-Laden buddies like Baby
Bush and Daddy Bush of course had no idea where he might be.

The US had to shut him up because he would dismantle
everything they planned. I believe they truly did kill him. I hear rumors that
he isn’t dead and I’m sorry, but I don’t subscribe to this. This reason is, if
they didn’t kill him, and they’re announcing to the world that they have, and
somebody sees Bin-Laden walking around, the jig would be up and the lie
exposed. He’s dead alright. This is a variation on a similar model they used
for Lee Harvey Oswald (the dupe) except they had the media to deal with here
and had to complicate the trail more. It required a lot more effort,
coordination and therefore, money. When the real facts start to get out they
begin to muddy the waters, provide disinformation and divide opinion so nobody
knows what to think anymore. This is so obvious and so, Old School.

So, they quickly got rid of Bin-Laden and got rid of the
body too. Which is, once again, strange, to say the least. If you just killed
the most wanted man alive, you would parade his body around everywhere and milk
it for all it’s worth. That’s what all governments do. Hey, what a photo-op!
Rather, the US immediately dumped it at sea and only took 1 or 2 photos? Heh heh…yeah.
Did I mention that I’ve got beachfront property in Arizona for sale? This is
prime property, so I’m not going to let it go cheap you know. J Greed.

The reason of course, was given as “sensitivity” towards the
families of the 9-11 victims. I am not one of those that suffered a loss that
day, thank God, but I bet they would have liked to stare him in the face. At
least it would place some “closure” on their lives that this man was dead for
real and that justice was done. This would be justified of course, if we take
the government created myth to be true, that Bin-Laden was responsible for

Finally, how come Saudi Arabia didn’t fall victim to the
“Arab spring”?

Well, anyway, that’s my take on this whole mess…

No comments: