Forum Thread

Obama and Hollande: an anti-terrorist alliance

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    On the 24th of November in Washington, a meeting between Hollande and Obama took place. The main goal of the discussion was to create effective strategies in the fight against terrorism and it’s center – ISIS.
    The meeting of Hollande with Obama is geopolitically symbolic, it means that France intends to join the American pole in anti-terrorist work. The fact that Hollande begins to build an anti-terrorist coalition after visiting the Atlanticist powers (a meeting with Cameron took place on November 23rd, 2015) shows his geopolitical priorities. On November 23rd, 2015 – meeting with David Cameron, November 24th, 2015 – with the US;, and only at the end of the week will he meet with Vladimir Putin. Today there exists two poles fighting against terrorism: thalassocratic (represented by US, UK, NATO and all, who are supporting American liberalism) and tellurocratic (Russian Federation, BRICS) poles. In the thalassocratic Atlanticist pole they have their main enemy – ISIS and terrorism, but if we make a deeper analysis we will see that the situation is more complicated. The US declares war against terrorism but in fact it supports terrorism to modulate a controlled chaos in the middle east and further: like in in Europe where it exploits the liberal doctrine of tolerance and the concept of “free borders”. The Atlanticists are openly financing the Free Syrian Army, the US indeed was destabilizing the situation within in Syria from 2011 onward, and engendered the rise of ISIS. The Russian Federation - representing the tellurocratic Continental pole - on the other hand, has consistently supported Bashar Al-Asad in order to have Syria as one of possible allies in the creation of a multipolar world.

    • The French case (Friday the 13th) is similar to the terrorist attack on the US on September 11th. After the terrorist attack, the US improved and enlarged its control over civilians. The same scenario is realized now in France by the French government: the measures of security are strongly reinforced and it means the toughening of control and the broadening of the term ‘’terrorist”. Anybody who opposes the so-called social-democratic French government can be qualified as a potential terrorist. It will mean the diminution of the liberty in France.

    • The legitimacy of the present French president in the view of French people is becoming increasingly weak. The terrorist attacks of November 13th, 2015 revealed to the French people the inability of the French government to control the internal political situation. And furthermore meeting with Obama – whose hidden aim is the destabilization of Europe – is the last step in it. This can affect the results of the Socialist Party during upcoming regional elections scheduled for December 6th, 2015.

    katehon.com/topic/geopolitics/1334-obam...

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes good story; my feeling is that all the parties have different goals; therefore I think any "unity efforts" will fall by the wayside. One of the reasons is that the whole of the middle east ( except the rich part, like Saudia, Bahrain, Quatar, Dubai etc. which we made rich) is in a huge mess or will become one; no one in the Western world will be able to solve that; because we refuse to understand the cultures and history of that area. Especially the creation of Israel and the US pampering it, will stay like an heart disease. Since the US only "meddles" but always want it our "way" it never works. We always look at it "what is there in it for me" or "how can we score". Sorry that does not work in the middle east.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    katehon, you give too much attention to the idea that obama wants to destabilize europe. this is nonsense. a destabilized europe will impact the u.s. negatively on a large scale. chaos is only profitable while profit can be garnered. the danger inherent in too much instability would impact profitability negatively. we have seen the danger in attempts by small-minded men to attempt to imprint a model of political economy at gunpoint. we have seen those same men, just wearing different clothes and masks, attempt to imprint a model via disaster capitalism as was done in russia when the ussr collapsed. the political economy of the u.s. is heavily tied to various geographies and the desperate need to maintain social structure and stability in the u.s. means that those geographies must continue to supply bread & circuses in the form of cheap goods.

    i agree completely that terrorism is acceptable. the third world which i call the not-allowed-to-develop-world must continue to be exploitable for raw materials. in certain cases terrorism is acceptable as long as the flow of materials is not interrupted. when it is threatened then anti-terrorism agitprop rises from governments. but unfortunately events are beyond constant and firm human control.

    this all arises from the need for capitalism to continuously expand. on a finite planet this cannot continue and we are seeing the worldwide beginning signs of negative response to the model of profit uber alles.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    katehon, you give too much attention to the idea that obama wants to destabilize europe. this is nonsense. a destabilized europe will impact the u.s. negatively on a large scale. chaos is only profitable while profit can be garnered. the danger inherent in too much instability would impact profitability negatively. we have seen the danger in attempts by small-minded men to attempt to imprint a model of political economy at gunpoint. we have seen those same men, just wearing different clothes and masks, attempt to imprint a model via disaster capitalism as was done in russia when the ussr collapsed. the political economy of the u.s. is heavily tied to various geographies and the desperate need to maintain social structure and stability in the u.s. means that those geographies must continue to supply bread & circuses in the form of cheap goods.

    i agree completely that terrorism is acceptable. the third world which i call the not-allowed-to-develop-world must continue to be exploitable for raw materials. in certain cases terrorism is acceptable as long as the flow of materials is not interrupted. when it is threatened then anti-terrorism agitprop rises from governments. but unfortunately events are beyond constant and firm human control.

    this all arises from the need for capitalism to continuously expand. on a finite planet this cannot continue and we are seeing the worldwide beginning signs of negative response to the model of profit uber alles.

    Lonely, absolutely correct ; our model of " profit uber alles" does not cut it; neither our thought that we can "dictate" the world and "push" our "holy greed" culture onto them.