Peter St. Onge on libertarianism and in-group/out-group politics

“Paul Rubin’s Darwinian Politics posits that genetic dispositions make lefties fight in-group domination (i.e. equality), while righties fight out-group domination (i.e. “making America strong”). Libertarians, I would argue, think that freedom counters both types of domination — free markets are the best way to help the weak within society, and free-markets plus pacifism makes us both rich enough to deter potential enemies, and peaceful enough to not have many enemies in the first place. Hence libertarianism’s potential appeal to both left and right.” - Peter St. Onge

Justin Raimondo on "The Real Axis of Evil": Al Qaeda, the Saudis, and Israel

Lumping all his enemies into a single sinister amalgam, Bibi went ballistic:

“After the Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad axis, Iran is conducting a pincer movement to the south to conquer the entire Middle East. The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity, and must be stopped.”

The "Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis"? (...)

Bibi’s evocation of an "Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis" sounds like something that might have come out of Riyadh. While the Saudis are careful to maintain their traditional anti-Israeli stance in theory, in practice the reality is that the two nations are on the same side. Both target Iran as the main danger to their national interests, and both are pressuring Washington to give up any thought of a deal with Tehran. Furthermore, this complementary relationship has taken on a military aspect in Syria, where the Israelis are now openly supporting Islamist rebels of the Al-Nusra Front – although so far they have only publicly acknowledged giving wounded Nusra fighters medical aidand releasing them across the border. Meanwhile, support to al-Qaeda affiliated fighters is pouring in from the Gulf states. 

In the religious civil war tearing the Muslim world apart, the Israelis are clearly rooting for the Sunnis – led by the Kingdom. When it comes to the conflict in Yemen, Israel’s chief concern is alleged Iranian influence – the presence of al-Qaeda is never mentioned. Israel’s surrogates in this country have spent the last few years demanding US support for Islamist rebels in Syria, most of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. 

Al-Qaeda, for its part, has never laid a glove on Israel. For all the ranting against "the Zionist-Crusader alliance," the heirs of Osama bin Laden have been remarkably pacific when it comes to attacking Israel proper. Bin Laden always advocated generally ignoring the "near enemy" – Israel and the Arab despotisms – in favor of attacking the "far enemy," the United States – a strategic orientation that suits the Israelis just fine.

And although Bibi and the Islamists would seem to be polar opposites, there is an odd congruity going on there: as long as medievalists such as al-Qaeda predominate in the Arab world the entire region will be stuck in the Dark Ages, backward and riven with religious conflict. The Islamists, on the other hand, need the Zionist bogeyman as a convenient ideological hate object, without which their appeal would be considerably lessened.

This weird symbiosis has given rise to what might be called the axis of Tel Aviv, Riyadh and al-Qaeda – an informal de facto alliance of converging interests. And it’s no accident that its main targets are not only Iran but also the United States.

Cradle to Grave and Back Again

Cradle of Civilization? Bomb and invade it. Then starve it. Aren't we good?

What's this? Terrorism? They must hate us because we're free.

Graveyard of Empires? Bomb, invade, and occupy it. What could go wrong? Aren't we wise?

While we're at it, bomb and invade the Cradle again. And this time occupy it, for good measure. Aren't we exceptional?

Still more terrorism? They must hate us because we're awesome.

Blowback: Paris Terror Suspects Recently Returned from Syria and Demonstrated Military Training

Briefly noted in the third paragraph of a USA Today report about the Paris terror attack: "Both brothers returned from Syria this summer."

What would French radical Islamists be doing in Syria around that time? Quite possibly getting training from the US and its allies to fight Assad. And as Ben Swann reports: "Analysts have said that this attack was carried out by men who had formal military training and was carried out by men who acted like a 'special forces unit'."

Although, such training is by no means certain, for as Mitchell Prothero reports:

"Other evidence suggests they could be linked to a top French al Qaida operative, David Drugeon, who’s been the target at least twice of U.S. airstrikes in Syria over the last four months."

Yet, even if they didn't manage to get past U.S. "vetting," and instead received training from al Qaida alone, the fact that the war they earned their spurs in was persisting at all was due to U.S. aid to the rebels.

This is the kind of blowback that is so quick to follow intervention that Scott Horton incisively terms it "backdraft."

And once again, just as with Sony and North Korea, the implications concerning empire are getting lost in the hullabaloo over rogue groups allegedly seriously threatening freedom of speech.