The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
America’s War on Terror Is the True Cause of Europe’s Refugee Crisis
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Desperate refugees crammed into cockle-shell boats landing on the shingle beaches of the south Kent coast are easily portrayed as invaders. Anti-immigrant demonstrators were exploiting such fears last weekend as they blockaded the main highway into Dover Port in order “to protect Britain’s borders”. Meanwhile, the home secretary, Priti Patel, blames the French for not doing enough to stop the flow of refugees across the Channel.

Refugees attract much attention on the last highly visible stages of their journeys between France and Britain. But there is absurdly little interest in why they endure such hardships, risking detention or death.

There is an instinctive assumption in the west that it is perfectly natural for people to flee their own failed states (the failure supposedly brought on by self-inflicted violence and corruption) to seek refuge in the better-run, safer and more prosperous countries.

But what we are really seeing in those pathetic half-swamped rubber boats bobbing up and down in the Channel are the thin end of the wedge of a vast exodus of people brought about by military intervention by the US and its allies. As a result of their “global war on terror”, launched following the al-Qaeda attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, no less than 37 million people have been displaced from their homes, according to a revelatory report published this week by Brown University.

The study, part of a project called “Costs of War”, is the first time that this violence-driven mass population movement has been calculated using the latest data. Its authors conclude that “at least 37 million people have fled their homes in the eight most violent wars the US military has launched or participated in since 2001”. Of these, at least 8 million are refugees who fled abroad, and 29 million are internally displaced persons (IDPs) who have taken flight inside their own countries. The eight wars examined by the report are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, northwest Pakistan and the Philippines.

The authors of the study say that the displacement of people by these post-9/11 wars is almost without precedent. They compare the figures for the last 19 years with those for the whole of the 20th century, concluding that only the Second World War produced a bigger mass flight. Otherwise, the post-9/11 displacement exceeds that brought about by the Russian Revolution (6 million), the First World War (10 million), India-Pakistan Partition (14 million), East Bengal (10 million), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (6.3 million) and the Vietnam War (13 million).

Refugees are visible once they cross an international frontier, but IDPs are far more difficult to trace, though three-and-a-half times more numerous. They may move multiple times as the dangers they face ebb and flow. Sometimes they return to their homes, only to find them destroyed or that the means to make a living has gone. Often they must choose between bad and worse as the battlelines shift, forcing them into a nomadic existence within their own country. In Somalia, the Norwegian Refugee Council says that “virtually all Somalis have been displaced by violence at least once in their life”. In Syria, there are 5.6 million refugees but also 6.2 million IDPs with out-of-work malnourished families struggling to survive.

Some of these wars were started as a direct consequence of 9/11, notably in Afghanistan and Iraq (though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and the destruction of the World Trade Centre). Others, like the ongoing war in Yemen, were launched by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other allies in 2015. But it could not have happened in the first place, and have gone on for five devastating years, without a tacit green light from Washington. With 80 per cent of the Yemeni population in dire need, the only reason there are not more refugees is that they are trapped inside Yemen by the Saudi blockade.

This willingness to launch wars and to keep them going might be less if American, British and French leaders had to pay a political price for their actions. Unfortunately, voters have never understood that the influx of refugees, to which so many of them object, is the consequence of the vast displacement caused by these post-9/11 foreign wars.

Syria surpassed Afghanistan in 2013 as the country in the world producing the most refugees. As violence and economic collapse continue, the number of Syrians forced to flee their homes is likely to go up rather than down. One feature the eight post-9/11 wars have in common is that none of them have ended, despite years of inconclusive fighting. This is why the numbers displaced is so much higher than in extremely violent but far shorter conflicts in the 20th century. The endless nature of these present-day conflicts has come to seem to be part of the natural order of things, but this is absolutely not the case.

Foreign powers pretend that they are working ceaselessly to end these wars, but they only want peace on their own terms. In Syria, for instance, the president, Bashar al-Assad, strongly backed by Russia and Iran, won the war militarily by 2017/18. It had been a long time, in any case, since the US and the west genuinely wanted to get rid of Assad because they feared his replacement by Isis or al-Qaeda-type movements.

But Washington and its allies also did not want Assad, Russia and Iran to win an outright victory, so they have kept the pot bubbling in a conflict in which Syrians are the miserable cannon fodder. Similarly cynical calculations about denying the other side an outright victory have kept the other wars going, regardless of the human cost.

The US is not alone in bearing responsibility for these conflicts and the mass displacement of people they caused. The Libyan war, launched by Britain and France with US backing in 2011, was advertised as saving the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi. In reality, it turned the country over to murderous war lords and gangsters, making Libya the gateway through which immigrants from north Africa try to make their way to Europe.


Even leaders as dim-witted as David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton should have foreseen the politically disastrous consequences of these wars. They generated an inevitable refugee and immigrant wave that energised the xenophobic far right across Europe and was a deciding factor in the Brexit referendum of 2016.

In Britain, the landing of refugees and immigrants below the White Cliffs is once again becoming a hot political issue. At the other end of Europe, migrants are sleeping beside the roads in Lesbos after the burning down of the camp where they had been living.

These waves of migration – and the anti-immigrant backlash that has done so much to poison European politics – will not end while there are 37 million people displaced by these eight wars.

This will only happen when the wars themselves are brought to an end, as should have happened long ago, and the victims of the post-9/11 conflicts no longer believe that any country is better to live in than their own.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. jsinton says:

    Cock finally writes something I can half-cocked believe. The question really today is whether it was intended that the refugee problem would poison the political and economic landscape of Europe. Did the US really give up on it’s war on Syria because of fear of ISIS/al Qaeda? Or are they still hoping for it? Is the NWO/Atlantic Council/Globocaps/Military-Industrial-Congressional complex so “dim witted” as to not foresee the refugee crisis from Libya/Syria/Africa after so many years of Iraq/Afghanistan? Or was it the plan all along? I think Cock doesn’t see the forest in trees, and realize the NWO planned for all the refugees to hasten the collapse of the Old World Order. Seems to me too many coincidences.

    • Agree: animalogic
  2. TG says:

    I do not deny that America’s “War On Terror” (i.e., ‘No Defense Contractor Left Behind’) is both stupid and evil and responsible for a great deal of suffering.

    But the refugee crisis is mostly due to demographic factors. Contrary to mass propaganda, Malthus was right – if people try to have more children than they can reasonably support, then unless they have an open frontier it won’t work out well.

    Not that long ago Syria- a small arid country with very little fresh water – had a population of about 5 million. The government decided to create a population explosion, by outlawing the sale and possession of contraceptives, and propagandizing that it was every woman’s patriotic duty to have seven kids even if she could only afford to support 2 or 3.

    The population doubled in 18 years – and then quadrupled in 36 years – and then – oops! The aquifers had been drained, the water ran out, and things fell apart. US intervention – nasty and ugly as it was – did no more than stir the pot of an already collapsing society.

    But this has been censored from public discussion because the rich like cheap labor. While most of us see mass poverty and desperate people trying to escape overpopulated hells as bad, the rich see only that they can lower their labor costs yet further, and boost their profits even more.

    • Agree: TheTrumanShow
    • Replies: @DocHollywood
  3. Trinity says:

    Zionists Are The Real Cause Of Europe’ s Refugee Crisis.

    There fixed that for ya.

    After all, “America’s war” has nothing to do with Americans or America really. Funny how Europe and America were much safer before America went to war to fight against “terrorism.” Go figure that one out.

    • Agree: Druid, Travis, GeneralRipper
  4. Saggy says:

    Cockburn is a mainstream Zionist stooge, so of course we get the mainstream Zionist line … which of course has never heard of the Kalergi plan ….

    and its implementation by the UN ….

  5. @TG

    But the refugee crisis is mostly due to demographic factors. . . . US intervention – nasty and ugly as it was – did no more than stir the pot of an already collapsing society.

    “Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS’s “capital,” the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble. Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International.” –

    “By our calculations, in this “war on terror,” the US and its allies have dropped a staggering 291,880 bombs and missiles on other countries — and that is just a minimum number of confirmed strikes.”

    That’s some impressive pot-stirring. No matter the demographics or whether one has a 2 or 7 child family, most would probably not want to keep it in a place under continuing bombardment year after year. That just seems like common sense.

    • Replies: @TheTrumanShow
  6. reminder says:

    Russia did not invade Afghanistan.
    They were invited into the country to help fight the American CIA Terrorist Army.

    But America DID invade Afghanistan. But AFTER invading Iraq to steal the oil and protect the dollar.
    It was Benjamin Netanyahu’s idea to invade Iraq, and that’s why Assange is in jail( because he let the cat out of the bag).

    America invaded Afghanistan, after the Afghans gave a gas pipe line contract to France.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @Lee
  7. Biff says:

    America’s War on Terror Is the True Cause of Europe’s Refugee Crisis

    In a word “Duh!”

  8. sonofman says:

    America’s war on terror? In reality, it is America’s and Europe‘s commitment to perpetuate their high energy standard of living. A murderous act to create a false pretense for war, the illegal disregard for the sovereignty of Middle East countries, the destruction of infrastructures, and, what is absolutely despicable, the malicious indifference for the lives of human beings; all done to control oil and gas reserves. Remember when President Bush was threatening to invade Iraq? Many people were thinking, Naaahh, Europe won’t let that happen. But Europe’s timid objections only proved their collusion.

    So now, they face the consequences. At least Angela Merkel showed enough compassion to help remedy a situation that Europe could have prevented. And migration became a political theme only because insufficient management and organization helped it evolve into a crisis of national interest.

    For their crimes against humanity, the West has an obligation to commit all possible resources to rebuilding the Middle East so that the migrants can live secure and in peace in their own lands.

    • Replies: @Beavertales
  9. They aren’t refugees, they’re migrants, and the real crisis here is the lack of Western will to self-preservation. Those who wash ashore at Kent stopped being refugees once they got to the first “safe” country, but given a choice between Italian dole or French dole or British dole, they naturally go for the gold. Cockburn may be right about some of the root causes, but is blinded to some of the biggest.

    • Agree: Zimriel
  10. anon[256] • Disclaimer says:

    The GOP hicks in the hinterlands were morons, but you had to have been young in the nineties to know how they felt and the backlash that the sleazy, slimy Clinton era had on the white average middle-class.

    A draft-dodging cocaine-sniffing fairly womanizing-possibly raping-fairly good lawyer was elected in 1992. Clinton stood for everything that the GOP was against. He was a draft dodger who had spent the Vietnam War in the UK and Russia protesting against his own country. He openly admitted smoking pot but his cocaine use was more or less publicly known and he may have even been involved in cocaine smuggling during the eighties. His wife was a fraud who pulled a number of real estate development scams. He was a womanizer and possibly a rapist.

    The nineties was domestically an halcyon era. Everyone had a job and there were no wars.

    But the hicks in the sticks felt culturally sneered upon. The hippies of the sixties were in full power in the nineties in their forties and fifties. GOP was a dirty word. Bob Dole was laughed at. The American values the GOP hicks had were totally spat upon. Political correctness rose.

    So Bush was elected. He was a moron and an alcoholic bum of course. There is no question about that. But he had an aw-shucks charm.

    The GOP hicks were missing the Cold War 80’s when Chuck Norris was killing Soviets by pointing his beard at them in INVASION USA. They missed morning in America. The nineties was a return to the decadent sleazy seventies with a junior Jimmy Carter (Though Clinton was far more effective) in office. They wanted Bush II.

    He sucked the GOP hicks into war. Hicks generally don’t understand population pressure in foreign countries and have no grasp of history so the fact that a war in Iraq would be similar to Vietnam creating Cambodia also meant nothing to them. They can recite the 13 amendments but have no grasp of history (The only subject in rural schools must be the old 4-H club). None of them could understand that Bin Laden had fully intended to draw them into Afghanistan for 20 years just as he had bankrupted the Russians-hicks had no grasp of the Afghan war except that they were the heroes in RAMBO III.

    Hicks also don’t understand economics. That is how Wall Street can bamboozle them. So anyhow we have a 20 year old war.

    Ghaddafi, it should be added, told the US that he was the refugee gate keeper. This proved true.

    As for population pressure, nothing short of castration will suffice as family planning.

    Also, for some reason, the hicks dwelt on 9-11. The event itself happened 19 years ago. In the year 2001 nobody was talking about what happened in 1982 but for some reason here we are 2020 talking about something that happened in 2001.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Anonymous
  11. The massive immigration into Europe has been planned for a long time. It is the implementation of the Warburg (Rothschild) Kelergi plan begun in 1923 as the Pan Europa. The top journalist in Britain n in Britain in WW2, Douglas Reed explains the goal in his book “Controversy of Zion” written in the 50’s but not published until the 70’s. He explained that the goal of the Zionists is to destroy all the nations and replace them with a centralized global tyranny. The main obstacle to this agenda would be the White western nations. In order to eliminate this problem the European nations would be flooded with muslims and africans and thereby destroy the Christian, western culture and demoralize and destabilize the countries. The globalists also want to drastically lower the worlds population. Ultimately they visualize just having enough serfs to keep things running but culling out what they term as “useless eaters.” A quote from their operative Count Kelergi:

    “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Todays races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. As a people, Jews experience the eternal struggle of quantity against quality; inferior groups against superior individuals; inferior majorities against superior minorities.” What Kalergi meant was, that peace wasn’t possible in Europe as long as separate ethnocentric nations existed in violent competition with each other. Kalergi thought individual nations and borders should disappear and to making that happen a European superstate (EU?) should be created. He also thought that the more intelligent Jews would end up ruling Europe.

    For the future, Kalergi envisioned that individual European societies would be watered down by miscegenation and a new breed of easy-to-control “mongrels” created. Kalergi, son of an Austrian Count and a Japanese mother, maintained close relationships with Europe’s aristocrats and political class and was able to obtain the co-operation of many influential leaders. After the war, he brought them on board with his plans to create a “United States of Europe.” Both FDR and Winston Churchill thought Kalergi’s plan had merit.

    Churchill even gave a speech in Zurich, Switzerland in 1946 when he said: “We must build a kind of United States of Europe. Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much on large ones and gain their honor by their contribution to the common cause.”…Well, there we are, the EU.

    The first step in this plan was to capture the bridgehead of Palestine since it was as pointed out by the British Geographer Mackinder the most strategic position enabling the eventual control of all energy movements into Europe from Asia, Africa and the Middle East areas. This first stage was achieved with the long planned WW1 and strengthened with WW2 that set up the “Cold War” of thesis-antithesis with the Soviet Union that was an entirely created Zionist entity requiring constant agricultural, industrial, and financial aid from the Zionist controlled U.S.

    The destruction (Balkanization) of the Arab countries (the Yinnon Plan) for Greater Israel is part of the overall plan. The Zionists now have financial control over all countries of any consequence. It’s just a matter of bringing them all together to form a Neo-Feudalist system of global government. This will probably be accomplished with one more world war using the combined forces of Russia and China against the Nato forces. This will result in martial law in order to get the people to relinquish their remaining freedoms at which point they will be herded into the U.N. planned Sustainable Development Initiative, Agenda 2030-21.

    • Thanks: Pat Kittle
    • Replies: @sonofman
  12. Anon[135] • Disclaimer says:

    The author confuses “refugee” with “migrant” otherwise how do explain the predominantly young male proportions of the wave. These people are simply carrying out a hijar or conquest by immigration

  13. @Anon

    Those fact don’t fit his worldview.

  14. @reminder

    But America DID invade Afghanistan. But AFTER invading Iraq to steal the oil and protect the dollar.

    You got that wrong. America invaded Afghanistan late in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

    • Replies: @bike-anarkist
  15. sonofman says:
    @mark tapley

    Another World War? Not going to happen, because the use of weapons of mass destruction would be unavoidable, and a Russia/China versus NATO confrontation would most likely effect the end of Europe. The contemporary perpetual wars to sustain national economies are fought with negotiations, diplomacy, sanctions and trade agreements, much more favorable and humane solutions to resolve conflicts.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  16. Travis says:

    Were the Obama military interventions in Libya and Syria part of our War on terror ?
    Did they even pretend these interventions were part of the fight against terrorism ?

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    , @mark tapley
  17. @Anon

    Well it’s a mix of migrants and refugees. But the refugees are mostly not of the type one expects, most are able bodied men of military age – and this needs pointing out. So most of them were actually the terrorists defeated in those wars against terror, and many are guilty of war crimes and atrocities against civilians in the countries at war. Following the war in Vietnam, the Viet refugees were mostly the defeated allies of America from South Vietnam (and their families), and while many engaged in criminal activities upon landing and fought street wars against other criminal gangs, notably the Chinese triads, they mostly left their white hosts alone and generally did not target them for murder, rape or robbery. With the current crop of refugees it is somewhat different. Whether they can be defined as America’s defeated allies or foes is hard to say but they were definitely insurgents used to destablise those countries in the interest of America (and EU and Israel). Definitely many were funded and recruited through secret channels by US (and other Western and Israeli) intelligence agencies to both attack the various regimes and act as allies of America but also as enemies in the war on terror. This is most clear from the case of Al Qaida with its roots in the US funded mujahadeen war on the Russians in Afghanistan. But many of these foot-soldiers from various terrorist and insurgent armies are not quite clear themselves about their sponsors and their own role, believing their propaganda (as created by their own ideologues and/or with some input from the intelligence agencies) and most bear a grudge and hate America and the West although knowingly or unknowingly doing America’s bidding. So when unleashed on the West they target their white hosts in terror attacks and criminal activities. Sure they can also be used for other purposes, like the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, as already pointed out above by Mark Tapley, and as a reserve terrorist/insurgent army to be deployed again wherever their masters will send them to start up some other Caliphate or whatever destablising project requires them in their murderous mercenary capacity. This all needs pointing out but the western MSM appears to hide these facts, portraying the “refugees” as victims of some humanitarian disaster without explaining clearly what kind of disaster it is or who played what role in it and who should bear the cost of hosting these terrorist refugees and why, if at all. Cockburn is not offering anything new or anything most don’t already know: America’s wars create refugees, well yeah, all wars create refugees.

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  18. Chris Moore says: • Website

    This will only happen when the wars themselves are brought to an end, as should have happened long ago, and the victims of the post-9/11 conflicts no longer believe that any country is better to live in than their own.

    The wars — and refugees — will not end so long as elite Jewi$h agitators and Zionist psychopaths preside over your set — the Marxist left — and neocon “right.”

    The Marxi$t-Zionism that adds up to Globalism is the problem. You’re part of the problem, Cockburn.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  19. @sonofman

    The Zionists have always used war as the quickest way to implement societal change and move their agenda forward. This next war will be a controlled conflict using the Zionists favorite tactic the Hegelian Dialectic thesis-antithesis to make the goyim they are getting the best deal possible under the situation.

    The Zionists that have manufactured the previous world wars, caused massive misery, starvation and death to millions are not concerned about humane conditions anymore than Sec. of State Albright (Zionist Jew Jana Korbel) was concerned when she responded to the deaths of 800,00 Iraqi children by saying “it was worth it.” Conflicts are not to be resolved but rather to be created to accomplish their agenda or as Obama’s Chief of Staff Zionist Jew Rahm Emanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste.” 911, WMD’s and the fake virus are good examples of this tactic at work.

    Spector’s of fear are always rolled out to to cower and condition the barnyard animals. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often used to implant fear of a nuclear Armageddon. Most of the destruction was done by fires burning through the flimsy construction. I saw an interview of a Catholic priest who was in one of the cities where they had a mission. He said they went out immediately after the attack to render aid and experienced no ill effects from fallout or radiation. People should not let fear propaganda convince them to surrender before a shadow and be herded into the long planned global totalitarian state. This is what is at work now with the fake virus, fake test and fake numbers.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  20. @mark tapley


    I don’t know for sure what was dropped on those two cities but one Jap survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and lived to a ripe old age of 93. His wife only survived the Nagasaki bombing and also died at 93 years of age.

    • Thanks: mark tapley
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  21. @Commentator Mike

    We know that lots of the photos of the nuclear tests like on Bikini atop were fake and that the gov. also used large amounts of conventional explosives made to simulate what was supposed to be an atomic bomb. 66 major cities were destroyed with over half a million civilians killed. It was becoming hard to find good targets left to fire bomb. It is likely that no nuclear weapons were deployed but are really just a propaganda tool like the fake moon landings (all of the supposed moon filming was erased!) the fake shuttle crash (pictures of all the crew on the net many yrs. later ex. 1) and of course now another fake virus.

  22. Biff says:

    Clinton stood for everything that the GOP was against.

    Clinton deregulated the banks, broke up the labor unions, passed draconian drug laws, deregulated environmental controls, passed NAFTA, expands law enforcement/death penalty, reduced welfare benefits, permanent trade relations with China, and on, and on, as Clinton was the GOP’s best friend.

  23. Lee says:

    Remind said:

    America invaded Afghanistan, after the Afghans gave a gas pipe line contract to France.

    Actually, you really got that wrong as France never got the contract for any part of TAPI.,with%20Turkmengaz%20leading%20the%20consortium.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  24. America’s War on Terror

    War WITH Terror.

    It’s interesting that despite the fact that 9/11 indicated the greatest involvement from Saudis and Israel, the US made a big fuss about Afghanistan. In retro, it seems the US used the attack as excuse to play the Great Game and take Afghanistan. It was an imperialist chess move, not a war on terror.
    And then, US made a big fuss about Iraq and WMD, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
    But Saudis and Israelis? They were onboard with US policy.

  25. @Commentator Mike

    You just provided more insight into the real world than flunkies like Cockburn do in their entire careers as (((controlled opposition))). Rhetorical question — how such people live with themselves?

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
  26. Wielgus says:

    I don’t recall it – certainly not in their propaganda. Gaddafi actually maintained in 2011 that at least some of the insurgents against him were Al Qaeda and a US spokesman remarkably admitted that this element was certainly present, but seemed to treat it as irrelevant to the operation. The US actually complained about Assad bombing Al Qaeda-related elements in 2016 or thereabouts in northwest Syria, a remarkable shift for those who remember the atmosphere of 2001.

  27. @Lee

    Thanks for the link, but the original pipeline did not include India. The Taliban Government gave the contract to Bridas Corp of Argentina. Tha American invasion resulted in Unocal Corp getting the contract. Bridas sued Unocal over the awarding of the contract.

  28. @sonofman

    It was not the decision of mom and pop Americans to meddle in the Middle East, and have their best blood and treasure spilled there.

    However, if immigrants are willing to go home, American and European folk would be glad to assist their repatriation to their homelands. Otherwise, the migrants are squatting on our lands and we owe them nothing.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  29. @Travis

    The so called War On Terror is just the latest phase of the Zionist agenda for world hegemony. They had to manufacture a new scam in order to accomplish the Yinnon Plan for Greater Israel. The Zionists have controlled the MSM since J.P. Morgan (Rothschild agent) bought editorial control of the top 20 papers in Jewmewrica before WW1.

    The plunder of Russia with the murder and starvation of 30 million starting in WW1 by the Zionists of Wall St. and the international Jew bankers began the first phase where the Soviets were only kept afloat with massive aid from the U.S. and they were portrayed as our great allies. After the defeat of the anti communist, anti Zionist forces of Germany (which actually included many other nationalities) and Japan the Zionists needed a new enemy.

    To make progress there must always be an external enemy to rally the goyim and induce them to support more and more military spending and restrictions on liberties. At this point the Soviets became our new enemy for the Cold War even as we continued to keep them propped up with massive agricultural, financial and industrial aid. In 1989 the Russians produced less grain than during the reign of the Tzar. In 1950 there were less automobiles in all of Russia than in Spain, which at that time was noted for its backwardness.

    As people began to finally figure out what was going on and the Eastern satellites (all run by Zionist Jews) were becoming harder for the Soviets to keep under control, this facade was allowed to collapse and the new permanent War on Terror instigated by 911 and the phony WMD’s has taken it’s place.

  30. Anonymous[454] • Disclaimer says:

    Really, you should spend some time acquainting yourself with the so-called “hicks”. I used to think as you do and I used to vote Democrat, but no more. You completely misjudge and misunderstand the American people. What I have learned is that conservative voters are far more intelligent and well-informed than are Democrats. Why is it Democrats are not thrilled that President Trump is bringing our troops home and putting an end to these misguided eternal wars and creating peace in the Middle East? Republicans voted to end these wars, not Democrats. Conservative sons have fought in these wars and suffered and died in them. Hillary Clinton would have started yet another war. And now, again, if Biden wins, Democrats will restart them. They will revert to funding ISIS and will destroy the developing peace. The truth is that Democrats are not really anti-war at all, but have fully aligned themselves with the neocons and globalists. All the average Democrat needs is a daily fix of fake news to confirm his/her/its misguided convictions. There is no real anti-war movement on the left anymore.

    You are right about Ghaddafi. O’Biden/Clinton destroyed Libya, at least in part, to unleash hell in Europe. The leftist fake news media has done nothing but lie about the consequences. Therefore, we can assume they support the destruction of Europe. We know they are working to dismantle Western civ right here in the US.

  31. @Beavertales

    [However, if immigrants are willing to go home, American and European folk would be glad to assist their repatriation to their homelands. Otherwise, the migrants are squatting on our lands and we owe them nothing.]
    Why don’t the whites repatriate themselves back to Europe??? After all, they “are squatting on the lands that belong to others, who owe them nothing”!!! The Middle-eastern refugees have no homes to go back to because many of their homes have been destroyed by Western bombs, where as the Middle-easterners never destroy the homes of the Westerners in the West– Apart from the WTC.

  32. The problem is the policy of admitting refugees and incompatible immigrants.

  33. Reaper says:

    The article claims all the so-called refugee crises based on the war on terror/ wars.
    Even miss the western created color revolutions and civil wars.

    This is misguiding.
    Such crisis did not happen when the USA-NATO intentinally destroyed Yugoslavia-Serbia till the ground, because the re-building of infrastructure was and still is at least that good business as “You need some democracy, because Uncle Sam needs your oil.”

    Also in the past in my country we had a revolution, and continous street fighting for years, in the same manner what happens right now at Belarus.
    BUT we was, and still in the EU. So the reaction/ legalization was: “Nobody can have refugee status in another EU country if already an EU citizen.”

    Same true for the Yellow vests movement in France, no matter how they beaten, tear gased, detained, blacklisted, surveyed by agencies, etc… France eager to colonize Lebanon “export their democracy there” – while supress home. Hypocrite.

    Yes the war on terror is a contributing factor: makes the fertile soil for displace the population from there into Europe, and replace natives with migrants.
    After comes the various traitors in EU leadership/ in certain countries, the liberal-leftist-green who very willing, and eager to cooperate/ do their jobs for George Soros, and similar figures/ for their NGO-s, while the goal is to destroy national states, diversify (destroy) societies, generate racial and religious tensions, generate uneployment/ poverty for the native population (includes white genocide attempts), while pump up the new arrivals, and do “migrant life matter”.
    In short make Europe into the Riot and Looting States of America, but because here are still “not enough” blacks, they prefer to use the muslim card instead.

    They are very successful in this destruction in Western Europe and Scandinavia.

    The weakling permitted “right wing” (???) organizations, like Pegida also do their part: which protest against Islam, and repeatedly provocate arabic people/ muslims/ etc… The same done by some western type “white protection” (weakling) groups, who cry online/ for police whenever something happens, and wait for some “grail knights”/ or even police to catch the “evil” arabs.
    A shame on white supremacy, and proof that not exist. :/
    This so called “right wing” organizations/ groups do this provocations in united power with ultraliberals who either make Muhhamad caricatures, hard porn in Hijab/ try to ban Hijab, try to LGBTQ them with genderist propaganda, and paralize authorities and the legal system to make it incapable to deal with problems, same time use the liberal-leftist woke media to cry for poor “refugees”, and agaibnst evil counteractions, etc…

    West vs. East EU:
    There were an event, where a person cry through half the cyberspace: she just eaten a sandwich in the street, when the evil arabic teens knock it out from her hand, and said it is Ramadan, and forbidden to eat. Reaction: cry + do it online, make turmoil here and there, online “Couch Warrirors” at facebook call for action: from petition/ signatures till lawyers till police to protests.
    Off course West Europe, France.

    While my simple reaction was, in similar case I should do: grab the guy, explain him that rule is for muslims, and I am not one, so he will buy me a new one with an apology. If barking/ argue probably just broke his arm, and there will remain one to buy a new sandwich. Or drag him till HIS mosque, tell the Imam what happened, and put the discipline job to his shoulder (most likely that will happen as soon they hear the story what the hooligans did).
    The imaginary problem solved – but worth to note: actually I never had any trouble with muslims in any country (includes west: Germany, France, Belgium, UK) based on religion – while I follow polytheism, have a goddess, eat pork daily, etc… all sins in the Islam, but there are the clear rules: your customs/ religion is yours, mine is mine, and in most cases simple this enought.
    (This is some basic respect – accept different ways exist. What the west does is tolerance: incapability to say yes or no, resist or not, or usually bend for minorities.)
    If not: make clear any attempt to force theirs to me will lead to a reaction which is for sure not pleasurable for them, and will discourage their desire in the future the repeat the same mistake again – or make them incapable to do so.

    So in the west there are an Islam, Arabic, etc… card for the background powers to use against the majority/ local population.
    While in the East EU that is mostly limited, problems reach far less extent.
    So in agreement with the local muslims/ other people who live here legaly, and in most cases for more than 10 years: in the begining of the Soros/ similars founded “refugee crises” – eg. migrant wawes made so clear: troublemakers are not welcome.
    And the long term resident Syrians also come with baseball bats to deal with the “refugee” hooligans/ troublemakers/ terrorists/ deserters/ the ones who think in Europe they get everything on a golden plate (well in West Europe they get – but not here).
    Then the government realized better if they act officially/ with police and army in the borders than when banned ns paramilitary/ militias ALLIED with the normal muslims/ long term migrant residents/ other non-officials deal with the “refugee problem”.

    Or when the Turkish guy did join and we go together to make efforts against the gay propaganda (they call: pride), and was welcome; in another year, but the same event get some free gyros as a contribution with an apology – sadly they cannot join, must work right now, but good luck, and have a nice meal before that – thanks.

    So the divide et impera not everywhere works.

  34. @DocHollywood

    “No matter the demographics or whether one has a 2 or 7 child family, most would probably not want to keep it in a place under continuing bombardment year after year. That just seems like common sense.”

    How many Germans & Japanese migrated elsewhere during/following the Allied bombing of their country?

    Immigration has to actively be made possible.

    Recent immigrants have been enticed, recruited, facilitated and funded to immigrate and

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  35. @TheTrumanShow

    Excellent comment.
    In the last 10 years the Facilitator-in-Chief has been Mutti Merkel.

  36. @Commentator Mike

    You got that wrong.

    You got that wrong!

    U$A invaded Iraq in 1991, of course with the State of Israel’s permission.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr