MIDLIFE CRISIS-19, Monday, March 25, 2024 – Not on My Bucket List? Neither, None of It.
My best crystal ball observation is that corrupt elements of the U.S. government have their hands in so many nefarious activities around the world, that the consequences of such behavior are converging into telling domestic, and global, events.
First, not on my bucket list?
Being in the hands of Russian authorities investigating the Friday terror attack on the auditorium at Crocus City Hall, Russia. Albeit horrific as an event, the handling of the alleged perpetrators is really just a sub-distraction from the broader theater of events regarding global terror operations.
Regarding the attack on Russia?
"'All perpetrators, organizers and instigators of this crime will suffer fair and inevitable punishment,' [Russian President Vladimir Putin] added. 'Whoever they are, whoever guides them. I repeat: we will identify and punish everyone who stands behind the terrorists, who prepared this atrocity, this attack on Russia, on our people'" (1.).
As to the broader theater of events regarding global terror operations, and second, not on my bucket list?
A look back, and the witnessing of years to come in terror consequences because of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2021 surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban. The U.S. surrendering of Afghanistan – a consequence of Biden, not Trump – was a nod and greenlight to terrorists, who are ultimately proxies of the collective “Left,” ultimately, proxies of various actors including: U.S. Democrats, globalists, China, Iran, extremist Muslims, and some within the Russian oligarchy, although that might be hard to digest here in this context.
A look back:
“Beyond weapons, the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan gave an ideological boost to radical militants in Kashmir and elsewhere, said Ahmad Shuja Jamal, a former Afghan civil servant living in exile in Australia.
“Such militants, he said, ‘now see in clear terms the political dividends of long-term violence’” (2.).
---
Background on the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan, and abandoned U.S. arms:
“More than $7.1 billion in U.S.-funded military equipment was in the possession of the Afghan government when it fell to the Taliban in August 2021 amid the withdrawal, according to a Defense Department report published last August. Though more than half of it was ground vehicles, it also included more than 316,000 weapons worth almost $512 million, plus ammunition and other accessories” (2.).
---
Here is one known example of those weapons making it into a regional conflict, foreshadowing the general likelihood of long-term effects from more U.S. weapons being sold regionally, and internationally.
“While the U.S.-made weapons are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the Kashmir conflict [January 2023, northern most region of the Indian subcontinent controlled by India, Pakistan, and China], they give the Taliban a sizable reservoir of combat power potentially available to those willing and able to purchase it, said Jonathan Schroden, director of the Countering Threats and Challenges Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group based outside Washington.
“’When combined with the Taliban’s need for money and extant smuggling networks, that reservoir poses a substantial threat to regional actors for years to come,’ he said” (2.).
---
Regarding Friday’s attack in Russia, "ISIS-K stands for ISIS-Khorasan, the terror organization’s affiliate that is active in Afghanistan and the surrounding region" (1.).
---
“The terror group ISIS claimed responsibility for the deadly incident [in Russia]. A US official said Friday that Washington had no reason to doubt ISIS’ claim” (1).
Coming to fruition, the plausible full-circle consequences of U.S.-sponsored, global corruption.
***
Also regarding Friday’s attack in Russia, and the UN response, the UN sounded pretty soft on global terrorism, with “cooperation against ISIS” (1.), which would support my hypothesis – why not “defeat”?
“The development prompted UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Saturday to call for global cooperation against ISIS.
“’ISIS is a terrorist organization that is operating in several parts of the world, and it is a very serious threat to us all … and we encourage all countries to work with each other in order to make sure that ISIS will not have the capacity to strike again anywhere else in the world,’ Guterres said at a news conference” (1.).
***
Follow the plausible correlation.
Friday morning, March 22, 2024, the United Nations cease-fire vote, including China and Russia’s veto (3.).
Friday evening, March 22, 2024, the ISIS-K terror attack on the auditorium at Crocus City Hall (1.).
Then look at Russia’s reasoning for their veto of the U.S.-sponsored resolution, accusing the U.S., Antony Blinken, et al, as being propagandists, in their attempt to appease radicals, ultimately, terrorists (3.).
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S.-sponsored U.N. resolution calling for ‘an immediate and sustained cease-fire’ in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza to protect civilians and enable humanitarian aid to be delivered to more than 2 million hungry Palestinians.
“The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 11 members in favor and three against, including Algeria, the Arab representative on the council. There was one abstention, from Guyana.
“Before the vote, Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow supports an immediate cease-fire, but he criticized diluted language that referred to moral imperatives, which he called philosophical wording that does not belong in a U.N. resolution.
“He accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of ‘deliberately misleading the international community.’
“’This was some kind of an empty rhetorical exercise,’ Nebenzia said. ‘The American product is exceedingly politicized, the sole purpose of which is to help to play to the voters, to throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a cease-fire in Gaza … and to ensure the impunity of Israel, whose crimes in the draft are not even assessed’” (3.).
Russia’s Ambassador to the U.N., Nebenzia, was calling out the fact the U.S. is playing to both sides, that a ceasefire should speak to the neutrality of the conflict, advocating for a “demand” or “call,” for an, “immediate and sustained cease-fire,” stopping the fighting, and end to the violence, but not speak to one side of the conflict.
As noted:
“A key issue was the unusual language that said the Security Council ‘determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire.’ The phrasing was not a straightforward ‘demand’ or ‘call’ to halt hostilities.
“The resolution reflected a shift by the United States, which has found itself at odds with much of the world as even allies of Israel push for an unconditional end to fighting.
“In previous resolutions, the U.S. has closely intertwined calls for a cease-fire with demands for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. This resolution, using wording that’s open to interpretation, continued to link the two issues, but not as firmly” (3.).
Basically, the U.S. re-crafted language that politicizes the conflict, leans, humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, which tips a hand that the international community is picking a side. U.S. Democrats tried to appease radical elements of their base, while more broadly and ultimately appease terrorists. It made support of the Palestinians the objective of the resolution, not in indirect outcome of ceasing the violence between the parties of the conflict.
It is political, contrary to conflict resolution, but in black and white, and laid bare on the table of the world stage.
***
Israeli response to U.S. efforts before the U.N.?
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations Security Council on Monday [March 25, 2024] issued its first demand for a cease-fire in Gaza, with the U.S. angering Israel by abstaining from the vote. Israel responded by canceling a visit to Washington by a high-level delegation in the strongest public clash between the allies since the war began.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the U.S. of ‘retreating’ from a ‘principled position’ by allowing the vote to pass without conditioning the cease-fire on the release of hostages held by Hamas” (4.).
While the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas is a condition, those Israelis are not combatants, while Israel holds combatants as prisoners of war, so any expectation by Hamas for a “prisoner” exchange, are blatantly false. To the terrorist, everyone is the enemy, so all in opposition are combatants, thus fair game. This is a huge shift by the international body, to allow the conflating of the two.
***
It is a lot to follow, but U.S., UN, actions are serving too many masters, auspices under the faux-virtue of peace, while directly in support of propagandists, the terrorists. It is kind of like U.S. “criminal justice reform,” there is no reform, no peace, only the perpetuation of violence because there are no consequences, as terrorists do not play by the rules, they only use the rules in order to defeat their enemy. A cease-fire in Gaza is a terrorist win.
***
Not on my bucket list? Neither, none of it.
- Matfucius
1.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-suspects-crocus-concert-101010790.html
2.) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-weapons-afghanistan-taliban-kashmir-rcna67134
3.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-vote-us-resolution-declaring-045435124.html
4.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-vote-resolution-demanding-cease-040143367.html
COMMENTS