President Barack Obama said that boots on Syrian ground to uproot ISIS could lead to “unintended consequences” the worst of which could be the U.S. and its European allies getting uprooted from the Middle East…or is that what we are supposed to read into it?

The problem is with intentions. The problem is to see through that what is presented to a gullible public isn’t actually the whole truth. It is done primarily through strategic communications and perception management by making people look at slices of time rather than the whole process of time, of deliberately conditioning people to see only selected trees instead of the entire wood, for that would come dangerously close to exposing the truth. Humans live to a large extent on myths and legends, which suit the real intent of any superpower just fine.

Thus what we are made to regard as ‘unintended’ consequences are really intended, which is not to say that some consequences are not indeed unintended. Thus when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan the consequences it faced certainly were unintended, for it would never have intended defeat leading to its collapse. That often happens because of wrong assumptions, not taking the enemy’s possible reaction into account, not knowing his own intentions and strengths and your own weaknesses. Pakistan’s misadventures of the 1965 and 1971 wars with India certainly led to unintended consequence caused by the wrong assumption that India would never retaliate across the international boundary with full force in the first instance and not interfere in its internal affairs in the second.

Intentions are difficult to predict, much less predicting the future, for we too live in the comfortable cocoon of our own hubris, deluding ourselves that the world as we know it would not essentially change except in minor detail, that the status quo and life with it would largely remain the same. Hardly anyone comprehends that we could well be witnessing the fall of another civilization, particularly since such decline is slow and incremental and takes generations. It’s only that we happen to be alive to witness and live it happening, which for my part I consider very lucky indeed to witness history in the making at high tide and low. In any case, because a civilization falls slowly over time the human capacity to adapt doesn’t allow him to realize what is happening and where it is leading.

Every interventionist strategy demands that you make plans for all possible consequences, ‘what if’, including a post-victory and a post-defeat withdrawal plan. Important elements in making viable strategies are to know your enemy, not just his weaknesses but also his strengths while knowing your own weaknesses and strengths without overblowing your strengths and underplaying the enemy’s and overblowing the enemy’s weaknesses and underplaying yours. Today the enemy is ISIS, a misnomer, for calling it ‘Islamic State’ is pejorative to Islam and Muslims. It is best described as ‘UnIslamic State of Arabia’ but its acronym U.S.A. would clash with another state’s famous acronym. Why not ‘UnIslamic Arab State’ or U.A.S. or, most accurately ‘UnIslamic Terrorist State’ or U.T.S. But like David Cameron I opt for Da’esh, not least because the gang hates the name. Understand that Da’esh’s greatest strength is religious zeal over which its fighters are ready to die. Your fighters are not. How do you defeat an enemy who is prepared to die because he thinks he will go straight to heaven and that real life begins after death, as here on earth it begins after school? You count body bags; the enemy counts martyrs who go to Heaven to play with beautiful, doe eyed, virgins. (What’s so great about doe-eyed virgins, I wonder, and 72 of them to boot? Could be quite a pain.). The question is: was the creation of Da’esh an intended or unintended consequence of disbanding the defeated Iraqi army? If so, has this monster really gone out of its creator’s control or is it camouflage? God knows best.

Strategies also include doing away with all contradictions, like wanting to topple President Bashar ul Assad and at the same time defeating his enemy ISIS that would topple him too. To try regime change would mean taking the side of ISIS; to destroy ISIS would mean helping Assad, a crass contradiction. Makes more sense to do it one after the other – unless the real unrevealed plan is to spread chaos out of which the American-designed phoenix would rise, replacing the European-designed phoenix that rose from the ashes of World War II. Thus what seems like contradictions could well be the real plan to destroy the Middle East and recast it anew by redrawing European made borders that suit America’s purpose and worldview.

There are always flies in the ointment. Russia jumping into the fray to protect Assad complicated matters enough, but now NATO Turkey’s downing Russia’s warplane and killing one pilot in the air while parachuting down makes a right imperial mess. That, I would imagine, was an unintended consequence.

Thus the other view asks: are consequences really unintended or are they made to look unintended as a decoy while they really were intended all along to justify a war or some other perfidious adventure? This is what false flag operations are all about, a vile tactic used by Hitler earlier. The other view asks: was 9/11 really the handiwork of Al Qaeda alone or was it planned and controlled by someone else to cause an effect in the future, i.e. to create the justification for attacking and occupying Afghanistan and launching the ‘War on Terror’ that is now increasingly being seen, even by non-Muslims, as actually a ‘War Against Muslims’ in which thousands of people of all religions are equally expendable, as in Paris, cannon fodder all. The Crusades still continue, begging the question: are we still as primitive as we were a millennium ago?

I’ve often said that while Man has made huge progress in science he hasn’t made equivalent progress as a societal animal, except at home where he has introduced democracy and everything that goes with it while using alien ‘democracy’ as a weapon against Muslim post-colonial states particularly. The reality is that the ‘Deep State’ runs all countries to varying degrees. Because of Man’s much slower societal progress, he has used much of his scientific and technological knowledge for making weapons of mass destruction and for spying and intelligence, much less for mankind’s good. Any wonder then that hardly any progress was made in medicine last century except in surgery but great progress was made in weaponry and warfare? Is that why the best brains go into the military-industrial complex, not in vocations for Mankind’s good? From third to fourth to fifth generation warfare – now cyber, space and hypersonic weapons – Mankind is wasting its time in the destructive while claiming it is working on the preventive.

The other view, which by the way is mostly western and Christian, asks: how could a ragtag terrorist organization carry out such a complex operation like 9/11 from the mountains and caves of Afghanistan where backwardness prevails? How could amateur pilots with only a few hours training fly two commercial jetliners so expertly into the Twin Towers? And how, pray, could an undamaged passport of one alleged hijacker be found in the rubble when the aircraft were vaporized? Similarly, a Syrian passport was conveniently found in the debris of a suicide bomber in the football stadium in Paris while all around him was destroyed. How? Lacking credible evidence and answers that would stand in a western court of law and don’t defy credulity, the other view gains currency. How, for that matter, could eight terrorists, all born, bred and educated in France and Belgium turn so easily on their countries of birth that their elders made their adopted homes? Could it be that they were wittingly or unwittingly working for a false flag operation under the guise of being members of Da’esh? What fortifies perceived perfidy is the attack on Iraq under false pretenses, on fabricated evidence now admitted to be so. Why the ‘Arab Spring’, another misnomer if ever there was one that has trashed Libya as well as other north African Muslim countries? Perhaps to not only get rid of Gaddafi but also Libya and make another country or countries out of it?

We cannot forget that Al Qaeda was a CIA created and controlled organization and Osama Bin Laden, once a hero of America, was, not to put too fine on it, a CIA agent. Is it possible that he remained a CIA agent while creating the impression of having turned on his creator like the monster did on its creator Dr. Frankstein? Did Uncle Sam’s monster really perpetrate 9/11 on his own or thought he was doing so on his own? Did Uncle Sam himself make him to do it as many Americans believe or was the monster controlled by a part of his empire that without his knowledge set the monster on a certain course? Or was it some other entity that planted Al Qaeda’s flag on the debris of 9/11? Don’t tell me you unquestioningly buy the Al Qaeda video claiming 9/11? We may never know the truth, but those who wanted to set the Muslim world ablaze have managed to do so with great perfection.

The other view talks of a ‘grand plan’ that started years ago. They hark back to the Illuminati. Books have been written on it like David Livingstone’s ‘Terrorism and the Illuminati. A three thousand year history’. Next week, instead of writing myself, I will give you Livingstone’s introduction to the book and see what you make of it. Frankly, I have not read the entire book yet but some of what I have makes me question the conclusions. But it is worth a read anyway.

More credible is to say that this is a post-Cold War plan to recast the former European Muslim colonies made into states that are no longer ‘viable’. So redraw their boundaries again to suit the needs and plans of the U.S., the actual purpose being to cast them in such a way that the U.S. has easy access to their resources and trade routes without let or hindrance, the same as Pope Urban’s real purpose was in trying to capture Jerusalem for its pivotal economic position straddling trade routes by kicking off the Crusades that have done such lasting damage to Christian, Jewish and Muslim minds and mindsets. Then it was for economic advantage; now it is for economic advantage. The Crusades continue, what?

In the intended process, they have thrown Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia into terrorism’s fire. They have co-opted Turkey into NATO and are dangling the dream of one day joining the European Union. America has downgraded its relationship with Saudi Arabia by tilting in favour of Iran, which was once the centre of political gravity in the Middle East. And they have foisted a western alien political system on Pakistan that they call democracy that regularly throws up weak, pliable and obedient rulers that have allowed their countries to get economically colonized by creating a huge unserviceable debt stock that they cannot even pay interest on without borrowing still more and increasing their debt stock. Demented is the word for it.

We, for our part, are happy to go through the motions of democracy, like elections whose results are predetermined anyway. In return, Pakistan’s controller insists that ‘elected’ rulers remain in power in the name of ‘democracy’ while ignoring their loot and plunder of their countries so long as they implement their controller’s will. When they lose power the controller gives them safe havens to enjoy their loot: that’s the deal and the payoff. Muslim leaders are all mindless, poorly educated, without the mental capacity to see through these plans while a lobotomized people who have been reduced to mental, economic and social apes keep supporting them. They will not see the truth even in the dying light of death.