It is understandable that not everyone understands the reason we cover the news we do, or how drug violence in Mexico, nationalization of grocery stores in Venezuela, "bank robberies" in Baghdad, and protests in Syria or Cairo can possibly related. Others believe there is a nefarious, secret council that is not only plotting, but implementing a plan to take over the world. How does the average citizen come to conclusions of what is real, what is connected, and what is overreaching the bounds of reasonable conclusion, i.e. nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Let's be frank, but not paranoid, there are individuals which conspire to advance their power. They're often called political parties, and while they will avoid the term conspire, their means are to increase their group and personal power through conspiring together with a common theme and goal. But to think that political opponents are nothing more than puppets to a small group of secret power mongers would ignore the fact that other groups also vie for that same power.
The world is in fact at a key point in history. After decades, centuries even, of oppression, the people of the Middle East are rising up and demanding change. But not every participant in the protests has the same ideals of what government should be. Not every protest is led by people of the same ideals, and not every person holding a sign understands who they are following. It is puzzling how the Administration in Washington is choosing whom to back and who to attempt to ignore.
That came less than 2 years after the administration stood mute as Iranian protestors were murdered in the streets. The Iranian People were almost able to overthow their tyrannical dictatorship by sheer will to die rather than remain oppressed, and needed only the weight of an Eagle's Feather to be successful in putting down the region's worst dictatorship.
And when the Libyan people were being shot down in the streets by an oppressive African dictator, from the sky, the Obama Administration did nothing. It finally acted, not out of compulsion to protect people from an oppressive dictatorship, not having received authorization or even consulting Congress, but in following the lead of France and Britain, with permission from the UN. It claimed it was not opposing Qaddafi and was protecting civilians by bombing tanks that opposed armed rebels. The US Administration has been utterly dishonest in doing anything in Libya, from the start when it said "a no fly zone would be too complicated" to implement, to who was being protected by the actions.
There are grounds to take sides in Libya, but it is duplicitious to claim one is not taking sides when attacking the ground troops of one side in a Civil War. Just come clean and say we do hope that the rebels win against a decades old foe. Get in or get out of the conflict, but don't try to swindle the people. The world is smart enough to see through the ruse.
In Syria, we also find an old foe, which has at times allied itself with the Iranians, Saddam, and other tyrants, as well as Al-Qaeda, but almost always with the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas, even though the Ba'athists at the helm in Syria have been brutally atrocious in rooting out the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations within their own borders. Ba'athism and Islamism have one commonality: anti-Semitism. They both grew out of a Nazi alliance in WWII, though they also preceded the rise of Hitler.
Why does Syria in particular, support terrorists that it roots out on its own soil? A weakened neighbor presents less of a threat to its own power. It is a common theme in the Middle East to foment violence in neighbors that would otherwise rival one's own power.
As Syria continues to murder its citizens, it is difficult to know what the post Ba'athist regime would look like, but it is known that there is a Muslim Brotherhood component to those leading the protests. It is also known that the Syrian people are less prone to islamism and that MB role may kill the opposition to the Ba'athist government. Again, the US Administration stands mute as citizens are killed in the streets.
In Bahrain and the UAE, we see the reverse. The people of these countries don't have as much of a democracy, but they do have more freedoms. In Bahrain in particular, we can see the tentacles of Iran rallying islamists against the government. Iran has an old territorial claim to Bahrain, and has long fomented to get it back. Here, the administration has pushed against the ally that hosts Our Navy and has afforded a place for Our Troops to get some time away from the combat zone as long ago as Desert Storm.
In Tunisia, we've seen the return of Islamist leaders and the rise of fear in women as they do in the aftermath of the spark of the first overturned government in the Islamic world. The flood of refugees out of Tunisia has turned into a nightmare for Italians attempting to assist them, while the EU ignores pleas by the Italians for assistance in dealing with the flood of freedom loving Tunisians.
But how do events in Nigeria or the Ivory Coast play in? Or the Division of Sudan?
The Sudan is a primary battleground in the expansion of Islamism. The well-known atrocities at the beginning of the century were the slaughter of non-Muslims by government backed Islamist forces. Sudan was a primary partner with both Al-Qaeda and Iran, and hosted International Conferences of Terrorists, as well as served as staging ground for terrorists fighting in both Egypt and Somalia. It was the Sudan where Osama himself staged actions in Somalia against US Rangers and Delta.
In Nigeria, islamism is less an ideology as a rallying cry. The true Africans have little true belief in Islam as they do a division line to fight their neighbors. Nigeria is an oil rich regional powerhouse with a long history of civil violence. Nigerian islamists are active in the financing of terrorist activities. They are deeply involved in identity theft, credit card fraud, and other financial scams to relieve Americans and Europeans of their money to fund the islamist rise to power. This is not a government sanctioned activity.
The Ivory Coast has also seen great violence over the last several decades. The French have demonstrated the will to maintain order in their former colony, but this boiling point could easily involve US Troops. Should the Ivory Coast erupt, it could effect nations that have recovered from Civil War, including both Sierra Leone (former British Colony) and Liberia (formerly a very close US ally, with a very pro-American population).
And what about the Israel-Palestinian Dispute? Israel and India are two of the most prolific targets of terrorists. The Israelis have been in a fight for their survival since before the modern state of Israel was established. Hezbollah has been backed by Syria and Iran, the later of which runs the organization, from Tehran, since the early 80's. Hezbollah gained its name and power, not because of its attacks on Israel, but as the one that bombed the US Embassy and US Marines in Beirut. Until 9/11, the terrorist with the most American blood on his hands was Mugniyah, leader of Hezbollah.
Hamas is also Iranian allied. It is their means of attaining Sunni support for their anti-Semitic terrorist goals and was even pulled into Iran during the 2009 protests in Tehran, to kill and rape Iranians back into submission. Hamas runs the Gaza Strip, keeping its people in poverty, just as Muqtada al-Sadr did the slums of Baghdad, to keep them submissive to Hamas, and riled towards Israel. Both former President Carter and a notorious far left politician from Britain have met with Hamas on multiple occasions. More recently, the more secular PLO leader, Abbas, has made an alliance with Hamas.
The official "complaint" by the Palestinian terrorists is that of property disputes against Israeli citizens. For this civil dispute, the terrorists justify the murder of children, both Palestinian and Israeli.
While, in the post 9/11 period, Pakistan has demonstrated an offensive against their old allies Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, there is considerable evidence that they've continued to support the LeT terrorists against India. Even the Pakistani resolve against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has been half-hearted at times, and more resolute under Musharraf than Bhutto or Zardari. I suppose when an old ally makes multiple attempts to assassinate you (Musharraf), you're more likely to try to rid your lands of that group.
Bhutto saw the islamist terrorists as a means to fight both India and the Soviets, while presenting a rival faction to the influx of power of Iran into neighboring Afghanistan. It worked for a time, but in the end, Bhutto was bitten by that dangerous snake, and her widow, Zardari, has not proven as resolved against the murderers of his wife as was his predecessor.
I've spoken before about the unholy alliance between communists (Chavez, il Jong, and Ahdiminijihadist) and islamists in the past. But, a trend I've noticed more recently in the Western World is an opposition to controlling illegal immigration. The Socialists and Communists of Italy united to oppose Berlusconi's attempts to crack down on illegals in Italy. The Socialists and Communists of Greece united to protest protection of its Eastern borders of a flood of islamistillegals into that country. The Socialists of France have opposed deportation of illegals in that country. One self-describe far left feminist activist Californian living in Turkey has stated that their (left wing) goal is to eliminate all borders and national citizenships.
In the United States, municipalities have set up "sanctuary cities" where illegal aliens are protected from federal authorities attempting to maintain immigration integrity. States have removed a requirement to prove citizenship to attain a Driver's License, which for decades has been a means or proving legal residence. The federal government (Obama Administration) joined foreign nations in suing a state (AZ) that enacted laws to enforce federal laws on immigration, enforcement of which is required by the US Constitution.
In the meantime, Mexico has become more deadly than Iraq or Afghanistan and American politicians have roadblocked measures to prevent that violence and illegal immigrants from flooding over the border. To an extent, the rise of drug cartels in Mexico is a result of the success of stamping them out in Colombia. It could have been prevented, but US attention was diverted to the War On Terror and corruption has long been a problem in our Southern neighbor.
But drug lords have no morals, other than the accumulation of wealth and power. This was seen in Colombia as the Communist Rebels allied and then merged with drug cartels, and it is seen in Mexico, as drug lords make deals to smuggle islamists across the Southern border into the United States. Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda have both been noted working with the FARC, Communist narco-terrorists, in Venezuela and Colombia. This is less surprising when one realizes that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorists see drug running as a doubly beneficial activity in that they make money while destroying Western brains.
And largely ignored is that Communist China is building their technological might and Military budget by leaps and bounds, in part with the interest off of American Debt, and in part by sending lead painted toys to our markets. While China unveiled it's stealth fighter, SecDef Gates cut funding for the US Stealth Fighter and continues to call for cuts to techological upgrades of US Millitary Equipment.
And while we see Freedoms eroded in the United States, to the extent that citizens are threatened with arrest and/or fines for refusing to submit to sexual assault by government officials in our airports, along with demands for decline of American pride, we have witnessed the same parties demand tolerance of pride inside our borders of other nationalities and cultures.
Do Americans not have the right to be as proud of Our Victories, Our Freedoms, and Our Heritage, as do Persians, Greeks, Italians, Mexicans, and Senegalese? Should we not be able to expect that those that are drawn to uproot their families and move to Our Nation embrace the ideals upon which this Nation was founded? That they and their children embrace being an American? This does not usurp their need to know from whence they came, but neither should an American of Scottish or Welsh or German descent be shamed from embracing their own ancestors, and how those Americans rejected the chains that bound them in favor of American Freedoms.
As Teddy Roosevelt said, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American. You're either an American or you're not." It is not dependent on skin color, or from ancestral lands, but on the ideals of Freedom.
So, are there groups of people working together (conspiring) to promote their own power and ideologies? Yes, but there also exist opponents to those groups pushing to promote an opposing group and their power. Islamists and communists have found themselves in an unholy alliance, though should those two ideologies become the primary powers in the world, the struggle will become between them rather than in alliance of each other, just as Stalin and Hitler's alliance turned to open warfare and Roosevelt and Stalin's alliance turned into a decades long struggle.
The War On Terror is not over just because one primary individual at the helm of one particular terrorist group was killed. It does not justify declaring victory and ending the struggle against terrorists. A new leader or leaders will fill the void left by the empty head of Osama. The Taliban's Mullah Omar still leads a fight against the democracy of Afghanistan, while Iran still vies for influence over it's neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan. The world is at a crossroad, a dangerous crossroad, and we need to make the right decisions for Freedom and for America, as well as the majority of Afghans and Iraqis and Iranians and Syrians that prefer freedom and democracy over oppression and islamism.