The Xinhua coverage of Xi Jinping’s historic Africa tour this month includes some things left out of the Western coverage — namely, that in addition to being grateful for China’s $60 billion investment pledge over the next three years, African leaders emphasized that China, unlike the Western colonizers, is not piling conditions and political restraints on African nations, but is sincerely aiming at nation building.

Xi said in his keynote speech at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in South Africa last week: “China strongly believes that Africa belongs to the African people and that African affairs should be decided by the African people.”

Adji Ayassor, minister of state in the Togolese Ministry of Economy, Finance and Development Planning, told Xinhua on Friday that the Chinese president’s keynote speech told “the truth about the cooperation between China and Africa.” Contrary to what some claim in the West, China “is not colonizing Africa,” he said. “We believe that is the best way to develop Africa. … It (China) is taking a real path of Africa’s development. It is a real cooperation.”

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who also holds the rotating African Union (AU)  chair, in his speech at the opening ceremony, thanked China for its “unconditional support” for Africa, and slammed actions by the West that have derailed progress there. “China has never been our colonizer, and while some detractors allege that our cooperation with Beijing is commercially driven, the reality on the ground does not conform to such a distorted view,” Mugabe said.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta told reporters Dec. 5 that “the perception that China is the new colonizer is a complete misrepresentation of Beijing’s activities here in Africa…. Achievement of mutual benefits is the basis of Sino-Africa cooperation. I don’t think that a partner who is helping us fight poverty and other development challenges can be called a colonizer.” Kenyatta said that what China is doing in Africa is what the colonialists failed to do in the past, namely help Africa out of poverty. “China is ready to help us develop and meet our socio-economic objectives without imposing its agenda on us. This is the outstanding aspect of our cooperation with China.”

A senior U.S. military source warned Monday that the Turkish deployment of a battalion of troops into the Mosul area of north Iraq, which the Iraq government has denounced as an invasion, is likely a prelude to a much larger invasion.  The source suggested that the battalion is the vanguard of a major Turkish military move, to backup allied Kurdish Peshmerga units that are anxious to launch an assault to take back the key city of Mosul. The source indicated that he expected Turkish Air Force support for such a Peshmerga action, that could also involve larger Turkish ground combat deployments as well.

Were such an action to be taken, independent of the Iraqi Army and the central government in Baghdad, it would be a clear step in the direction of the breakup of Iraq, with the Kurdish region becoming an independent entity—under Turkish tutelage.

The Turkish move into northern Iraq came just days after U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced the deployment of several hundred more U.S. forces from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).  Washington sources confirm that the JSOC deployment is a major break from the Obama Administration’s earlier “train, equip, and advise” mission.  The JSOC teams will function as hunter-killer teams, targeting Islamic State leaders and infrastructure, and will operate autonomously, with no coordination or intelligence sharing with the Iraq Army or the government in Baghdad.  These JSOC killer squads were used by Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Iraq and then in Afghanistan, and they have been widely accused of indiscriminate killings, human rights violations and other actions that have actually further fueled recruitment by jihadists.

The Carter announcement has already triggered a backlash in Baghdad, where Shi’a members of the Iraq parliament have denounced the deployments and threatened to bring down the Abadi government if the Prime Minister does not order the U.S. to abandon the planned “ground invasion.”  Under pressure from within his own Dawa Party, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi did denounce the U.S. planned deployment late last week.  Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that he had briefed Abadi on the U.S. escalation plan, and that he was making statements aimed at satisfying domestic critics. Statements by Shi’a parliamentarians and militia spokesmen warned that the U.S. operations could trigger a civil war and would likely result in the fall of the Abadi government soon.

In short, the Turkish and American actions could blow up the entire Iraq situation, which conforms precisely to the British plan for permanent sectarian war throughout the Middle East region.

There are meanwhile, numerous articles and interviews in Germany on the Saudi role in Islamic terrorism, worth special mention are three statements from the Dec. 5-6: Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said in an interview with Bild am Sonntag that Saudi Arabia is “financing Wahhabite mosques everywhere in the world,” and that “many Islamic trouble-makers are coming from these communities in Germany.” To solve regional conflict in Middle East, Germany depends on Saudi cooperation, “but we must make clear to the Saudis at the same time, that the period of looking the other way is over…. We must use the same standards against the Salafists as against right-wing radical extremists,” Gabriel said.

Thomas Oppermann, chairman of the SPD Bundestag group, called for the Verfassungsschutz, which is responsible for Germany’s domestic security, to have tight supervision over mosque activities and their financing, saying that Wahhabism is also providing “the entire ideology for the IS terrorist group” in other countries. “We don’t need it and don’t want that in Germany.”

Islam expert Guido Steinberg of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP) in Berlin also charged, in a radio interview with Deutschlandfunk (DLF), that “one of the origins of IS’ strength is that Saudi Arabia has been propagating this interpretation of Islam in the Arabic world, in the Islamic world, since the 1960s.” The core of Wahhabism and the core of the IS ideology are identical, Steinberg said, adding that “the Saudis don’t like that to be talked about.” What IS does in the areas it has under its control, is a “logical consequence of what the Saudi Arabian Wahhabites have preached for the past two-and-a-half centuries,” Steinberg said. The problem can only be solved by a roll-back against the Saudi religious influence in the Arab world and in Europe “with very drastic measures…. We should rethink our relations to Saudi Arabia somewhat. Our image of it is, in my view, so positive that it no longer fits with reality.”

So far so good: Just add the issue of the classified 28-page chapter of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and the longtime history of Empire dealings with the Saudis, which so far none of the critics of Saudi Arabia has done, despite the fact that we have supplied most of them with ample information.  But it may be hoped that the notorious “wendehals” phenomenon will compel some people sooner or later to also begin to mention the 28 pages.

Were Obama not a tool of the British Empire with their current bent on global thermonuclear confrontation, he might have gone on TV Sunday night with an anti-terror speech that would have genuinely assuaged the fear that is now building up in the souls of most Americans. That speech would start with a simple declaration: “I hereby declare that I will release the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report, pages which were redacted to protect the complicity of our Saudi allies in those atrocities.”

Writing in anticipation of Obama’s Sunday prime time performance, Consortium News editor and noted investigative reporter Robert Parry effectively said just that, in a piece titled “Obama’s Credibility Crisis.” Americans no longer trust their own government, Parry says, because they’ve been lied to so many times. From Bush’s WMD, to Obama’s TPP and NSA, and now to the Syria war, America (and the world) has built up a “white rage,” of resentment against the perpetrators. In fact, a recent State Department study of the effectiveness of U.S. government “anti-ISIS” internet propaganda showed that, in a direct comparison, even the “creepy head-choppers of ISIS” came out as more credible!

So, in what Parry calls the “Impossible Speech,” Obama would first, announce the release of the 28 pages, and “also could release other U.S. intelligence analyses on the role of the Saudis, Qataris and Turks in supporting al-Qaeda and ISIS. He could toss in what U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded about the 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria and about the 2014 shoot-down of MH-17 in Ukraine.” As history showed, such a speech was not to be.

Another demand for release of the 28 pages Monday morning, came from (Obama impeachment advocator) Dave Lindorff. Writing in Counterpunch, Lindorff begins by noting the vastly differing responses to what he calls “left wing” (Muslim) terror, versus “right wing” (Christian) terror, e.g. the Oklahoma City bombing, or the more recent slaughter at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, or at an abortion clinic in Colorado Springs. The difference, he says, seems to boil down to the fact that “Muslims” killed 3,000 people on 9/11, so, in response, “Christians” get a free pass.

“Okay,” Lindorff says in response, “that’s the story line. But if we Americans really cared about that particularly heinous act of terrorism, we’d want to know how the hell it happened. Certainly we would be demanding that the U.S. government release those sealed 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s official report [sic] which deal with the role of America’s ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, which is known to have funded many of the alleged hijackers of the four planes involved. We haven’t done that. It’s still blacked out….

“We would also be demanding to know why the FBI lied at that commission hearing claiming that the black boxes of the two planes that hit the two towers were ‘never recovered’….

If Obama continues the cover-up of the Saudi, Turkish, British and American hand in supporting the global terror apparatus blowing up the world today, he must be impeached. That would bring peace on Earth and good will toward all men.

The 28 pages were not redacted from the 9/11 Commission Report, but from the 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry—ed.