U.S. Military increases involvement in African conflict


As confessed last week by Hillary Clinton, the world can expect the United States to continue balkanizing sensible regions of the planet indefinitely. With major combat operations ending in the Middle East, recently growing economic and political tension in Africa opened the door for the U.S. to launch another operation in a supposed effort to curb the spread of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in that continent.

Now, the United States reached an agreement with the Government of Niger for immediate installation in that country of a drone base, which will be used to ‘support’ France’s military operation in Mali, which means the beginning of a greater U.S. military involvement in the fight in North Africa.

With this agreement, the Pentagon will start reconnaissance flights over Malian territory and deploy any number any number of troops anywhere in Mali or even neighboring countries. It is possible that, at a later stage, the drones could be used to directly attack the groups identified as enemies, as is being done in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, where the U.S., almost on a daily basis, murders men, women and children are thought to be members of terrorist organizations or who are deemed as collateral damage — as the military says.

The U.S. military presence in Niger, whose scope has not been officially confirmed in Washington, represents a significant shift in the so-called war against terrorism, so far concentrated in the Middle East and Asia. The steps taken by the Pentagon now open a new front in Africa. So far, the U.S. only had one official base in the small state of Djibouti, where the military stations about 2,000 soldiers and from where it launches attacks over Yemeni territory.

This base, however, is too far away for operations in ​​Mali, Algeria, Libya and Mauritania, where the U.S. Al-Qaeda affiliated groups concentrate their forces.

The agreement with Niger, which was confirmed by official sources in the country, will allow the U.S. to have military installations in the desert area of ​​Agadez, in northern Niger, near the borders with Mali and Algeria.

“Niger has given the green light for the use of its territory for collecting surveillance to improve data collection of Islamist movements,” said a source quoted by Reuters. Other U.S. media say that the U.S. is negotiating a similar agreement with Burkina Faso, on the southern border of Mali, and that the permanent presence of drones could be extended even to Algeria, a country with which Washington maintains good relations and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited last October to discuss the security situation and the supposed extremist threat.

The African command of U.S. armed forces (Africom) based in Germany, has refused to comment on this information, on strategic issues  and negotiations or possible agreements with any of the aforementioned countries. However, it is confirmed that General Carter Ham, visited Niger this month to negotiate the agreement.

The military penetration of Africa, though cautious and limited for now, is complex and risky. The U.S. is now engaged in a region where it does not have much experience and will fight against an enemy that has as many branches as the United States can use to destabilize governments all over the world. Any unexpected setback, as a direct Islamist attack against U.S. interests at home or abroad could accelerate a crisis of various magnitudes. Perhaps that is what the American government is looking for: a stronger reason to immerse itself in Africa.

The strategy being used in Africa certainly mirrors the pattern of military involvement that Barack Obama favors since he arrived to the White House. Incredulous on the effectiveness of large ground operations, the Government favors limited missions and precise in its objectives, such as the attack on Libya. Moreover, the danger that terrorist expansion in Africa represents has been recognized in recent days even by President Clinton and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The U.S., a full supporter of the incursion of France in Mali, aims to coordinate its own deployment with the French Government. At the end of last week, Obama spoke by telephone with Francois Hollande, and the defense secretary, Leon Panetta and the French defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Hillary Clinton reaffirms U.S. commitment to continue stirring conflicts in Africa and the Middle East


As major conflicts in the Middle East wane down, the United States prepares itself to ramp up wars and conflict in other regions of the world. In fact, history shows that U.S. interventionism has been a potpourri of attempts to destabilize governments by activating proxy terrorist groups that do the dirty work on behalf of Washington.

If Hillary Clinton’s words were to mirror what is coming in the next few months and years, the world will see a continuation of the current foreign policy, which in addition to military attacks, is also composed by financial and economic warfare.

In her latest relevant appearance as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton warned Congress on Wednesday that the United States will have to fight Al Qaeda in North Africa and the instability and insecurity caused by revolutions in several Arab countries, which the U.S. itself helped instigate. In her opinion, the U.S. government will be forced to become directly involved in preventing the spread of terrorism in the region. Clinton forgot to say that most if not all acts of terrorism are either carried out by U.S. special forces and members of the intelligence community or executed by terrorist groups armed and financed by the United States government.

“The terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, which killed four brave Americans, are part of a broader strategic challenge for the United States and our allies in North Africa,” Clinton told the Foreign Affairs Committee Senate investigating those events. No one in the Committee questioned Clinton about the role of U.S. special forces or other groups in the conflict and neither did any congressman asked about why U.S. forces were ordered to stand down, even though  they were close enough to intervene during the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi.

Clinton has taken personal responsibility for any errors that may have been made to prevent the death of Americans in Libya, but said it is not a single event, attributable to the lack of security measures at the consulate in Benghazi, but a broader offensive to which the U.S. is obliged to respond with urgency. “Which means,” she said, “to intensify our efforts to combat terrorism and to find ways to support the emerging democracy in North Africa and elsewhere.”

“We face,” she recalled, “a menacing environment rapidly changing, and we must work to increase the pressure on al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other terrorist groups in the region. We’ve decimated al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but its members have dispersed to other countries,” she added. As it has been reported by the media, U.S. sponsored al Qaeda-affiliated groups arrived in Libya and Syria as part of an international contingent of terrorists who worked with government opposition groups to bring down Gaddafi and who are now working to dethrone Bashar al-Assad.

The Secretary of State has referred particularly to Mali, “where instability,” she said, “has created a large sanctuary for terrorists, seeking to extend their influence and prepare new attacks like the one we saw last week in Algeria.”

Clinton did not refer to the current French military operation in that country, but said that “it is important that the U.S. maintain its leadership in the Middle East, North Africa and the rest of the world. We have come far in the past four years and we can not leave now,” she said, reaffirming the American commitment to occupy some of the most volatile regions in the world, where, according to the BBC, France and other allies have returned to reconquer what once was part of their colonies.

U.S. has begun helping France by providing air transport of French troops and military equipment.

Clinton said that American diplomacy is in full operation in the area — that means military infiltration — which suggests that other stronger measures will be taken in the coming months. “When the U.S. is absent,” she said, “there are consequences: extremism takes root, and our security interests at home are threatened.”

The Secretary of State has admitted that revolutionary movements occurred in the last two years in the Arab world “have complicated power dynamics and have destroyed the security forces in the region”, which provides the ground for the spread of terrorism. She stated that “many of the weapons used by terrorists in Argelia and Mali come from Libya”, where the current authorities are powerless to control all armed groups that emerged during the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi. In reality, powerful weapons were provided by the U.S. to those same terrorist groups to carry out attacks on innocent civilians in Libya.

Only John McCain and Rand Paul showed a bit more dissatisfaction about Clinton’s excuses. Congressman Paul told Clinton that given her lack of leadership he would have dismissed her from her position at the State Department. However, Paul and the other members of the  Foreign Affairs Committee failed miserably to ask real questions about what really happened in Benghazi.

Democrat John Kerry will be Clinton’s substitute at the State Department once he is confirmed in Congress.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

The Devil came to the U.S. as a man of Peace


While the United States rightfully mourns the death of 20 innocent children who were murdered last week in Newtown, Connecticut, few people realize that as awful as those murders were, the man who has been given the Peace Prize for his supposed work to bring about peace on this planet, is also the same man who knowingly ordered and continues to order the assassination of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East, but for whom he drops no tear.

The death of innocent people in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria due to attacks conducted by American troops, NATO armed forces, rebel and terrorist groups supported by the United States is hypocritically understood as collateral damage as supposed to be observed and rejected as the murder to human beings of the same kind than those of us who live in the western hemisphere.

Leaving race, politics, ideology and religion aside, the murder of innocent men, women and children must always be identified as murder; not only when it is convenient to call it so. Only an immoral society can justify the murder of some people and condemn the death of others because of their skin color or the geographical area where they live.

Unfortunately, ours is an immoral society, so war and the casualties that war produces are labeled by western leaders as “humanitarian aid” while condemning it as murder when they happen in the United States, France, the United Kingdom or Canada.

The devil has arrived, and it has done so while disguising himself as a man of peace. He has even been awarded a Peace Prize for ordering and conducting the murder of thousands of people in the Middle East, while calling such murders peace actions. This man, who from a comfortable air-conditioned room in the White House, cowardly directs his armed forces to use drones to kill people who pose no threat to him, his country or his people names himself and is named by his supporters in the media and on the streets as the reincarnation of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi. Others who are even more ignorant call him our Savior.

After the watching the following video you will discover, if you haven’t done so yet, that the savior is nothing more than soulless murderer, who deserves no prize other than being identified as the most deceitful sack of garbage that has even occupied the White House. Why him? Haven’t previous presidents committed similar crimes as well? Yes, but they were confessed war mongers. The most disgusting aspect about Barack Hussein Obama is that, both in public and in private, he uses a double standard to carry out his murderous agenda while dragging a bunch of imbeciles who have been captivated by the tenderness of his voice, his fake tears and the color of his skin.

Barack Obama is not a disgusting creature because he is black, or because he has Arab roots, or because he is from Chicago or for any other reason anyone can think of or associated him with. He is a disgusting creature because he is a wolf in sheep’s wool and he uses such disguise to confuse, swindle and murder. I dare you to watch the following video from beginning to end so you can realize the kind of creature that this man is and how he is not out there to help or comfort anyone, but to carry out an agenda of murder and conquest.

Viewer discretion is advised.


For every child that was murdered at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, for every person that was killed during the Colorado mass shooting, for every victim of the Oregon shooting, there are hundreds of people who are murdered by the president of the United States, Barack H. Obama. How about we start mourning their deaths as well? Perhaps that mourning will bring back some sensitivity to all of us, so that we can recognize murder when we see it.

Thanks to Infowars.com for putting together irrefutable evidence that instead of being praised for murdering people, Barack H. Obama should be tried for the murder of innocent people who have died by his sword as well as for treason for wanting to use the death of innocent children in the United States to end the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms while he kills men, women and children across the world.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

U.N. will vote for Palestinian, Israeli States based on 1967 Borders


The resolution that, in all likelihood, will be approved Thursday by the United Nations General Assembly, includes a recognition of the right of Palestinians to a state on the 1967 borders. According to the draft that was circulated in the hours before the vote, it would be the same territory that was suggested in previous peace negotiations with Israel that found no support from the Jewish representatives. This time however, the nation led by Benjamin Netanyahu may not have many options to pick from. Despite the fact the country is in a delicate diplomatic situation while its people await the next election, its government seems less receptive than ever to talk.

The UN vote will certainly be a moral victory for the Palestinian Authority. His representative in this international organization, Riyad Mansour, has predicted that the resolution to be introduced Thursday and that is sponsored by about 60 countries, will get overwhelming support. “I think most of the nations vote with us because there is an international consensus on the two-state solution,” said.

The Palestinians believe that they have at least 150 votes of the 193 member countries of the General Assembly, which would raise immediately the level of its representation of observant entity to “non-member State observer”, the same status awarded to the Vatican. “Without prejudice”, as stated in the draft resolution, “acquired rights, privileges and role of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the representative of the Palestinian people.”

Unlike the Security Council no one has the right to veto in the General Assembly, so that whatever is decided, will be adopted immediately. The resolution also “reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and expressed “the urgent need to revive and accelerate the peace process in the Middle East” in order to “reach a lasting peace agreement, fair and balanced between Palestinians and Israelis to resolve major issues such as Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water.”

In addition, a strengthening of the Palestinian position should also serve to foster the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, weakened in recent months by the resurgence of radical competitor, Hamas. The problem is to know how far this success, with all the resonance that will have today, can make a difference starting tomorrow. The United States, the indispensable partner of any negotiation process, has shown its opposition to the recognition of Palestine as an Observer State.

Obama will certainly not remain quiet as Israeli – Palestinian relations deteriorate after the resolution is approved — if it’s approved — The same situation will take place within the U.S., where Congress seems to be ready to freeze financial aid to the Palestinians.

From the perspective of the U.S. administration, this vote is an exercise in exhibitionism where Palestinians indulge to demonstrate the wide international support available to them, whilst the Europeans are satisfied with their open support for Palestine. Last week, the European Parliament publicly expressed its support for a State of Palestine, with Spain and France being the most outspoken nations in favor of a two-state solution. Only Germany has shown its opposition to the negotiation that includes the conditions as they were in 1967.

The absolute best thing that can come out of this day is a new sense of urgency to help expedite Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the only way in which the Palestinians may have a state. Nothing indicates, for now, that such negotiation will happen, but today’s vote, if it favors the Palestinian cause, will be the starting point to draw the conditions for a territorial framework during future negotiations. In a sense, the vote will help clarify the most difficult points that previous meetings haven’t been able to clear up. For the first time since its creation, the U.N. may actually do something that favors, at least at first, the peace process in the Middle East, after pretty much originating and promoting the conflict that has existed in modern times. A good question to ask, though is, Chi Bono? Who benefits?

It is likely that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will use the vote for a Palestinian State based on the conditions of 1967 as a tool to cheat his people. Most likely he will use it as an example of Arab radicalism and will try to turn it into a threat for the Israeli people. The fact that there is a vacuum in world leadership at this moment, could cause two different outcomes. First, the vote in the U.N. could become more relevant than expected, and for the first time a significant group of nations may exercise their will to end a conflict that is thousands of years old. The Israeli leadership may decide to isolate itself from any negotiations despite the growing support for a two-state solution. Second, there may be hope to resolve the conflict if Israel is shaken up by the upcoming elections, if the people of Israel send a clear message to Benjamin Netanyahu, if they make it clear that everyone is sick and tired of having to run underground whenever terrorist leaders on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides decide to bomb each other just to show their muscle.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

United States plays along with Israel, sends warships to Mediterranean


Even though it is obvious that Israel’s goal is to use the military intervention in Gaza as a ploy to delay or postpone elections, the United States has decided to play the same game that the Israeli leadership started last week. The U.S. has now sent warships to the Middle East region in case it is necessary to evacuate people before and during an eventual attack from Gaza.

The Pentagon has ordered three of its warships in the Mediterranean to head for Israel in case people need to be evacuated. Those people include U.S. citizens, of course, who would be in danger should an escalation of violence occurred in the next few days. Although such escalation is unlikely to begin from the Palestinian side, Israel is acting as if the rocket launchers posted in Gaza pose a tantamount threat to the security of the country, when it is quite the opposite. Since the exchange of fire began last week, more a 100 Palestinians have died as a result of Israeli bombing on Gaza, and some 600 people were injured. Meanwhile, on the Israeli side, the number of dead did not reach a dozen.

Official U.S. sources said that the need to evacuate U.S. nationals is still “remote” and that the decision to send warships to the region was a “precautionary measure”. “It is better to be prepared if there is a need,” said the source, who insisted that the ships would be used only to help Americans and would have no combat role.

Currently, citizens who want to leave the region still can using commercial airlines, although this action demonstrates the increasing concern about the length that the conflict between Israel and Gaza may have. Egypt has volunteered to work as mediator and called both sides to be careful in the use of force, however, Egypt has already thrown its support behind the Palestinian people and Hamas, the terrorist organization fighting from within Gaza.

U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on how to curb the escalating conflict in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, which has caused over a hundred deaths.

Repositioned vessels – the USS Iwo Jima, USS New York and USS Gunston Hall, were located west of the Straits of Gibraltar last week before being ordered by the Pentagon to change the course in the direction to the eastern Mediterranean, where they will remain for now.

Besides Egypt, Turkey and Iran have also spoken openly about their support for the Palestinian people. Both regimes have called Israel the “usual aggressor” and have said they will not stand calm if Israel launches full attacks or invades Gaza. The current conflict between Jews and Arabs began early last week, after Israel murdered one of Hamas’ leaders and threatened to take out all the other heads of the terrorist organization. The Israeli strike came in anticipation of the United Nations vote to allow Palestine to become an observer state in the organization, which the Israeli leadership opposes vehemently.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.