A recent report in The Australian stated that Gaddafi had given the names of al-Qaeda members in Libya to the CIA and MI6[1]. Vincent Cannistraro, who framed Libya for Pan Am 103, stated the info was rubbish.
But Webster Tarpley has now investigated who the Libyan rebels actually are, and has concluded that the rebs, that we are now protecting, are in fact al-Qaeda.
[1] Gaddafi regime fed names of jihadists to the CIA and to Britain, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/gaddafi-regime-fed-names-of-jihadists-to-uk-cia/story-fn7ycml4-1226025836662
================================
From http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-cia%E2%80%99s-libya-rebels-the-same-terrorists-who-killed-us-nato-troops-in-iraq/
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
[Translate]
2007 West Point Study Shows Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk Area was a World Leader in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruitment
“Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.”
Lucan, Pharsalia
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
March 24, 2011
Washington DC, March 24, 2011 — The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.
But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-Qaddafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of Qaddafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.
The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?
Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?
West Point Study - cover
Download West Point Study (pdf)
It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study1 permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.
Darnah, northeast Libya: World Capital of Jihadis
The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.
Libya map
According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”2
This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” (See the chart from the West Point report, page 9)3
West Point Study - page 9
But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.
As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.”4 Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all. (See chart from West Point report, page 12)
What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.
West Point Study - page 12
Felter and Fishman remark that “The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (52) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on ‘infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt’ and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jama-ah al-libiyah al-muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.”5
Northeastern Libya: Highest Density of Suicide Bombers
Another remarkable feature of the Libyan contribution to the war against US forces inside Iraq is the marked propensity of the northeastern Libyans to choose the role of suicide bomber as their preferred method of struggle. As the West Point study states, “Of the 112 Libyans in the Records, 54.4% (61) listed their ‘work.’ Fully 85.2% (51) of these Libyan fighters listed “suicide bomber” as their work in Iraq.”6 This means that the northeastern Libyans were far more apt to choose the role of suicide bomber than those from any other country: “Libyan fighters were much more likely than other nationalities to be listed as suicide bombers (85% for Libyans, 56% for all others).”7
The anti-Qaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Merges with al Qaeda, 2007
The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.”8 This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda.9
Terrorist “Emir” Touts Key Role of Benghazi, Darnah in al Qaeda
The West Point study makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’”10
This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.”11
The December 2007 West Point study concludes by formulating some policy options for the United States government. One approach, the authors suggest, would be for the United States to cooperate with existing Arab governments against the terrorists. As Felter and Fishman write, “The Syrian and Libyan governments share the United States’ concerns about violent salafi-jihadi ideology and the violence perpetrated by its adherents. These governments, like others in the Middle East, fear violence inside their borders and would much rather radical elements go to Iraq rather than cause unrest at home. U.S. and Coalition efforts to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq will be enhanced if they address the entire logistical chain that supports the movement of these individuals—beginning in their home countries — rather than just their Syrian entry points. The U.S. may be able to increase cooperation from governments to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq by addressing their concerns about domestic jihadi violence.”12 Given the course of subsequent events, we are on firm ground in concluding that this option was not the one selected, neither in the closing years of the Bush administration nor during the first half of the Obama administration.
The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.
Arming the Rebels: The Experience of Afghanistan
Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.
Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta.14 This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.
A broader problem is represented by the conduct of the future Libyan government dominated by the current rebel council with its large current majority of northeastern Islamists, or of a similar government of a future Cyrenaica rump state. To the extent that such regimes will have access to oil revenues, obvious problems of international security are posed. Gamage wonders: “If the rebellion succeeds in toppling the Qaddafi regime it will have direct access to the tens of billions of dollars that Qaddafi is believed to have squirreled away in overseas accounts during his four-decade rule.”15 Given the northeast Libyan mentality, we can imagine what such revenues might be used for.
What is al Qaeda and Why the CIA Has Used It
Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a gaggle or congeries of fanatics, dupes, psychotics, misfits, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. As noted, Al Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and the current rising star Anwar Awlaki, are evidently double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. This is precisely what is happening in Libya today.
Al Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Moslem Brotherhood or Ikhwan, itself a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who scored immense victories for his country by nationalizing the Suez Canal and building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt would be simply unthinkable. The Muslim brotherhood provided an active and capable fifth column of foreign agents against Nasser, in the same way that the official website of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is trumpeting its support for the rebellion against Colonel Qaddafi.
I have discussed the nature of Al Qaeda at some length in my recent book entitled 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, and that analysis cannot be repeated here. It is enough to say that we do not need to believe in all the fantastic mythology which the United States government has spun around the name of Al Qaeda in order to recognize the basic fact that militants or patsies who spontaneously join al Qaeda are often sincerely motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration is now doing something different, intervening on the side of a rebellion in which Al Qaeda and its co-thinkers are heavily represented while attacking the secular authoritarian government of Colonel Gaddafi. Both of these policies are bankrupt and must be abandoned.
Rebel Leaders Jalil and Younis, Plus Most of Rebel Council are Members of the al Qaeda-linked Harabi Tribe
The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes. As the late Foreign Minister of Guyana Fred Wills, a real fighter against imperialism and neo-colonialism, taught me many years ago, political formations in developing countries (and not just there) are often a mask for ethnic and religious rivalries; so it is in Libya. The rebellion against Qaddafi is a toxic brew compounded of fanatical hatred of Qaddafi, Islamism, tribalism, and localism. From this point of view, Obama has foolishly chosen to take sides in a tribal war.
When Hillary Clinton went to Paris to be introduced to the Libyan rebels by French President Sarkozy, she met the US-educated Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, already known to readers of Wikileaks document dumps as a favorite of the US.16
While Jibril might be considered presentable in Paris, the real leaders of the Libyan insurrection would appear to be Jalil and Younis, both former ministers under Qaddafi. Jalil seems to be the primus inter pares, at least for the moment: “Mustafa Abdul Jalil or Abdul-Jalil (Arabic: مصطفى عبد الجليل, also transcribed Abdul-Jelil, Abd-al-Jalil, Abdel-Jalil or Abdeljalil; and frequently but erroneously as Abud Al Jeleil) (born 1952) is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi…. Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi… although this position is contested by others in the uprising due to his past connections to Gaddafi’s regime.”17
As for Younis, he has been closely associated with Qaddafi since the 1968-9 seizure of power: “Abdul Fatah Younis (Arabic: عبد الفتاح يونس) is a senior military officer in Libya. He held the rank of General and the post of Minister of Interior, but resigned on 22 February 2011….”18
What should concern us most is that both Jalil and Younis come from the Haribi tribe, the dominant one in northeast Libya, and the one that overlaps with al Qaeda. According to Stratfor, the “…Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members’ land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes…. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.”19 This is like a presidential ticket where both candidates are from the same state, except that Libya’s ferocious tribal rivalries make the problem infinitely worse.
The Rebel Council: Half the Names Are Kept Secret; Why?
This picture of a narrow, sectarian tribal and regional base does not improve when we look at the rebel council as a whole. According to one recent version, the rebel council is “chaired by the well-spoken former justice minister for Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, [and] consists of 31 members, ostensibly representatives from across Libya, of whom many cannot be named for “security reasons”…. “The key players on the council, at least those who we know about, all hail from the north-eastern Harabi confederation of tribes. These tribes have strong affiliations with Benghazi that date back to before the 1969 revolution which brought Gaddafi to power.”20 Other accounts agree about the number of representatives: “The council has 31 members; the identities of several members has not been made public to protect their own safety.”21 Given what we know about the extraordinary density of LIFG and all Qaeda fanatics in northeast Libya, we are authorized to wonder as to whether so many members of the council are being kept secret in order to protect them from Qaddafi, or whether the goal is to prevent them from being recognized in the west as al Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers. The latter seems to be a more accurate summary of the real state of affairs.
Names released so far include: Mustafa Abduljaleel; Ashour Hamed Bourashed of Darna city; Othman Suleiman El-Megyrahi of the Batnan area; Al Butnan of the Egypt border and Tobruk; Ahmed Abduraba Al-Abaar of Benghazi city; Fathi Mohamed Baja of Benghazi city; Abdelhafed Abdelkader Ghoga of Benghazi city; Mr. Omar El-Hariri for Military Affairs; and Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, Ibrahim El-Werfali and Dr. Ali Aziz Al-Eisawi for foreign affairs.22
The State Department needs to interrogate these figures, starting perhaps with Ashour Hamed Bourashed, the delegate from the terrorist and suicide bomber stronghold of Darnah.
How Many al Qaeda Members, Veterans, or Sympathizers are on the Rebel Council?
Seeing as clearly as we can in the fog of war, it looks like slightly more than a dozen of the members of the rebel council have had their names officially published — in any case, not more than half of the reported 31 members. The US and European media have not taken the lead in identifying for us the names that are now known, and they above all have not called attention to the majority of the rebel council who are still lurking in the shadows of total secrecy. We must therefore demand to know how many LIFG and/or al Qaeda members, veterans, or sympathizers currently hold seats on the rebel council.
We are thus witnessing an attempt by the Harabi tribe to seize dominance over the 140 tribes of Libya. The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica. At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes.23 All of this might be of purely academic ethnographic interest, were it not for the fact of the striking overlap between the Harabi tribe and the LIFG and al Qaeda.
The Senussi Movement of Libya — Monarchist Democracy?
The political-religious tradition of northeast Libya makes this area such fertile ground for the more extreme Muslim sects and also predisposes it to monarchism rather than to the more modern forms of government favored by Qaddafi. The relevant regional tradition is that of the Senussi or Sanussi order, an anti-western Moslem sect. In Libya the Senussi order is closely associated with monarchism, since King Idris I, the ruler installed by the British in 1951 who was overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was also the leader of the Senussi order. The Senussi directed the rebellion against Italian colonialism in the person of Marshal Rodolfo Graziani and his army in the 1930s. Today, the rebels use the monarchist flag, and may advocate the return to the throne of one of the two pretenders to the Idris line. They are far closer to monarchism than to democracy
King Idris, Revered by the Libyan Rebels of Today
Here is the Stratfor view of King Idris and the Senussi: “King Idris came from a line of rulers of the Sanussi order, a Sufi religious order founded in 1842 in Al Bayda, that practices a conservative and austere form of Islam. The Sanussiyah represented a political force in Cyrenaica that preceded the creation of the modern state of Libya, and whose reverberations continue to be felt to this day. It is no coincidence that this region is the home of Libyan jihadism, with groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The Gadhafi family has thus been calling the current uprising an elaborate Islamist plot….”24 Under the monarchy, Libya was by some estimates absolutely the poorest country in the world. Today, Libya ranks 53 on the UN Human Development Index and qualifies as the most developed country in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Qaddafi’s stewardship has objective merits which cannot be seriously denied.
Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report has correctly sought to show the racist and reactionary character of the Libyan insurrection. The tribes of southern Libya, known as the Fezzan, are dark skinned. The tribal underpinning of the Gaddafi regime has been an alliance of the tribes of the West, the center, and the southern Fezzan, against the Harabi and the Obeidat, who identify with the former monarchist ruling class. The Harabi and Obeidat are known to nurture a deep racist hatred against the Fezzan. This was expressed in frequent news reports from the pro-imperialist media at the beginning of the rebellion evidently inspired by Harabi accounts, according to which black people in Libya had to be treated as mercenaries working for Gaddafi — with the clear implication that they were to be exterminated. These racist inventions are still being repeated by quackademics like Dean Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. And in fact, large numbers of black Africans from Chad and other countries working in Libyan have been systematically lynched and massacred by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The Obama White House, for all its empty talk of not wanting to repeat the massacre in Rwanda, has conveniently ignored this shocking story of real genocide at the hands of its new racist friends in Cyrenaica.
Against the obscurantism of the Senussi, Qaddafi has advanced the Moslem equivalent of the priesthood of all believers, arguing that no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran. He has supplemented this with a pan African perspective. Gerald A. Perreira of the Black Agenda Report writes the following about the theological division between Gaddafi and the neo-Senussi of northeast Libya, as well as other obscuranitsts: “Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for [Qaddafi] to be tried in a court…. [Qaddafi] has questioned the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so…. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.”25 And what would be for example the status of women under the neo-Senussi of the Benghazi rebel council?
Al Qaeda from Demon to US ally in Libya
For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago.26
But such a reversal of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.”27 But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.
Northeast Libyan Jihadis Killing US, NATO Forces in Afghanistan Right Now
One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.
In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government. According to this account, a top Al Qaeda commander in northwest Pakistan was killed by US action as recently as October 2010: “A senior al Qaeda leader who serves as al Qaeda’s ambassador to Iran, and is wanted by the US, is reported to have been killed in a Predator air strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan two days ago…. [This was] Atiyah Abd al Rahman, a Libyan national who has been based in Iran and served as Osama bin Laden’s ambassador to the mullahs. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that Rahman was killed in an airstrike….”28 The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice page for Atiyah Abd al Rahman notes that he was al Qaeda’s “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Atiyah “recruited and facilitated talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and was “also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.”29 Rahman was ranked high enough in al Qaeda to be able to give orders to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qeada in Iraq, in 2005.
Also killed in Pakistan was another apparent northeast Libyan going by the name of Khalid al Harabi, whose choice of a nom de guerre may well link him to the jihadi farm among the Harabi tribe in Cyrenaica. According to one account, “Khalid al Harabi is an alias for Khalid Habib, al Qaeda’s former military commander who was killed in a US Predator strike in October 2008.”30
The Scenario Uncovered by the 1995 Shayler Affair is Operative Today
In 1995, David Shayler, an official of the British counterintelligence organization MI-5, became aware that his counterpart at the British foreign espionage organization MI-6 had paid the sum of £100,000 to an Al Qaeda affiliate in exchange for the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. The assassination attempt did occur, and killed several innocent bystanders, but failed to eliminate the Libyan ruler. As Shayler understood the MI-6 scenario, it included the liquidation of Gaddafi, followed by the descent of Libya into chaos and tribal warfare, with a possible option for a direct seizure of power by al Qaeda itself. This situation would then provide a pretext for Britain, probably but not necessarily acting together with the United States or other countries, to invade Libya and seize control of the oil fields, probably establishing a permanent protectorate over the oil regions, the pipelines, and the coast.31 This remains the goal today.
Timed to coincide with the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi, MI-6 and other Western secret intelligence agencies fomented a considerable insurrection in northeast Libya, almost precisely in the same areas which are in rebellion today. Its insurrection was successfully crushed by Qaddafi’s forces by the end of 1996. The events of 2011 are simply a reprise of the imperialist attack on Libya 15 years ago, with the addition of outside intervention..
The War Against the Nation State
Today’s attack on Libya comes in the context of a broad attack on the institution of the sovereign nation state itself, as it has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United States and the British are deeply concerned by the large number of nations which are seeking to escape from Anglo-American hegemony by actively pursuing large-scale cooperation with Russia on security, with China on economic questions, and with Iran for geopolitical considerations. The CIA/MI-6 response has been a wild orgy of destabilizations, people power coups, color revolutions, and palace putsches, signaled by the document dumps by the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks, which has targeted names of the CIA hit mist from Ben Ali to Qaddafi. The Obama strategy would have preferred an exclusive reliance and the illusion that the Arab Spring was really a matter of youthful visionary idealists gathering in the public square to praise democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This was never the reality: the actual decisions were being made by brutal cliques of generals and top officials bribed or blackmailed by the CIA who were moving behind the scenes to oust such figures as Ben Ali or Mubarak. Whatever else Qaddafi has done, he has undoubtedly forced the CIA and NATO to drop the pleasant mask of youthful idealism and human rights, revealing a hideous visage of Predator drones, terror bombing, widespread slaughter, and colonialist arrogance underneath. Qaddafi has also ripped the mask of “Yes We Can” off Obama, revealing a cynical warmonger intent on the continuation of Bush’s infamous “Dead or Alive” and “Bring it on” policies, although by other means.
A Distant Mirror for Imperialists in Libya: Lucan’s Pharsalia
Modern imperialists eager to rush into Libya should ponder Lucan’s Pharsalia, which treats of warfare in the Libyan desert during the contest between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great at the end of the Roman Republic. A critical passage in this Latin epic is the speech by Cato of Utica, a follower of Pompey, who urges his soldiers to undertake a suicide mission into Libya, saying: “Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Cato goes forward, and finds “a little tomb to enclose [his] hallowed name, Libya secured the death of Cato….”32
Let us not imitate this folly.
Investigative leads from the West Point Study: An Appeal to Scholars
The West Point study, as noted, was conducted on the basis of almost 700 Al Qaeda personnel files captured by coalition forces in Iraq.33 The authors of the study have promised to keep available online the documentary basis of this investigation, both in the form of the raw Arabic language al Qaeda personnel files34, and also of the same file cards in English translation.35 Assuming that this material remains available, it might be possible for researchers and reporters, and especially those with capabilities in Arabic not possessed by the present writer, to investigate the Libyan fighters who went into Iraq with a view to determining whether any of them are family members, neighbors, or even political associates of the known members of the Benghazi rebel council or of other anti-Qaddafi forces. Such a procedure could contribute to allowing the European and American public as well as others around the world to better understand the nature of the military adventure currently unfolding in Libya by gaining a more specific knowledge of who the Libyan rebels actually are, as distinct from the hollow panegyrics purveyed by the controlled Western media.
References:
1 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
2 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
3 West Point Study, pp. 8-9.
4 Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011, at http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit
5 West Point Study, p. 12.
6 West Point Study, p. 19.
7 West Point Study, p. 27.
8 West Point Study, p. 9.
9 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/04/200861502740131239.html; http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2055009989;
10 West Point Study, p. 12.
11 West Point Study, p. 27.
12 West Point Study, p. 29.
13 West Point Study, p. 28.
14 See “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels, Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html; see also Robert Fisk, “America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels,” Independent, Mach 7, 2011, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html
15 Gamage.
16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12741414
17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Abdul_Jalil
18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Abdul_Jalil
19 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
20 Venetia Rainey, “Who are the rebels we are fighting to protect,” The First Post, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76660,news-comment,news-politics,who-are-the-rebels-we-are-fighting-to-protect#ixzz1HMRIrUP9
21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
22 Statement by “Transition National Council,” Benghazi, March 5, 2011 at http://www.libyanmission-un.org/tnc.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
23 Massimo Introvigne, “L’occidente alla guerra delle tribù,” La Bussola quotidiana, March 22, 2011, at http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-rivolte-05.html
24 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
25 Gerald A. Perreira, “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Black Agenda Report, March 2, 2011, at http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective
26 Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism: Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life,’” February 2, 2008, Obama the Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Joshua Treet CA: Progressive Press, April 2008), pp. 97-115, online at http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-campaign-linked-to-chechen-terrorism/
27 Paul Cruikshank, “How Muslim extremists are turning on Osama Bin Laden,” New York Daily News, June 8, 2008, at http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fopinions%2F2008%2F06%2F08%2F2008-06-08_how_muslim_extremists_are_turning_on_osa.html&date=2009-08-05. Cruickshank is a fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security and the co-author, with Peter Bergen, of the … cover story in the New Republic, “The Jihadist Revolt against Bin Laden.”
28 http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/10/al_qaeda_leader_link.php
29 http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/10/al_qaeda_leader_link.php#ixzz1HNoUTmn5
30 http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/10/al_qaeda_leader_link.php#ixzz1HNmzsjat
31 See Machon, Annie (2005). Spies, Lies & Whistleblowers. MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair. Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Ltd. 185776952X; Hollingsworth, Mark; Nick Fielding (1999). Defending the Realm: MI5 and the Shayler Affair. Andre Deutsch Ltd. ISBN 0233996672; see also Guardian, April 10, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/10/davidshayler.richardnortontaylor
32 Lucan, Pharsalia, Book IX, trans Riley (London: Bell, 1903), p. 355.
33 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
34 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/Foreign_Fighter_Bios-Orig.pdf
35 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/FF-Bios-Trans.pdf
Thursday, March 24, 2011
HAGUE THE HYPOCRITE
William Hague spoke to the House of Commons today, defending the military action on Libya. Hague ended his statement with this following paragraph.
[source : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=571853282]
The countries he refers to are Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
But what about the United Kingdom itself?
Why are our political leaders, Hague included, meeting with the bankers who caused the current financial crisis at Bilderberg?
Willy Claes exposed the workings of Bilderberg last year. Did Hague fulfill his duty to them? If not, then why does he not come clean on what was discussed and what he was asked to do to serve Bilderberg? His silence implies that he served his role and is thus a traitor to the United Kingdom.
British politics is as corrupt as any other nation on Earth.
We foment civil wars and then bomb the populations if the desired outcome is not manifesting.
We invade nation states based on a blatant pack of lies.
We quickly bomb Libya but do nothing to stop Israel (Israel just killed four more civilians which would not have happened if there was a NFZ over Gaza, and in retaliation it is suspected Palestinian terrorists bombed a Jerusalem bus station, killing one British woman).
We allow Nazi bankers to wreck the economy, then bail them out with trillions, allow the Nazi banks to retain the power to create non-existent money out of nothing, impose severe austerity and even kill our aged relatives in a UK Nazi T4 program called the LCP, and send nobody to prison!
But we also allow a small cabal of very wealthy people to decide who our political leaders are, who tell them what to do to betray their nations into the evil clutches of that cabal, and I am now referring to Bilderberg.
So Hypocrite (and potential traitor) Hague, tell us all about Bilderberg.
Mr Speaker, the United Kingdom believes that the people of all these countries must be able to determine their own futures. That is why in all of them we argue for reform not repression, and why in Libya, supported by the full authority of the United Nations, we have acted to save many lives threatened by one of the most repressive regimes of them all. This will continue to be our approach as change continues to gather pace in the Middle East.
[source : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=571853282]
The countries he refers to are Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
But what about the United Kingdom itself?
Why are our political leaders, Hague included, meeting with the bankers who caused the current financial crisis at Bilderberg?
Willy Claes exposed the workings of Bilderberg last year. Did Hague fulfill his duty to them? If not, then why does he not come clean on what was discussed and what he was asked to do to serve Bilderberg? His silence implies that he served his role and is thus a traitor to the United Kingdom.
British politics is as corrupt as any other nation on Earth.
We foment civil wars and then bomb the populations if the desired outcome is not manifesting.
We invade nation states based on a blatant pack of lies.
We quickly bomb Libya but do nothing to stop Israel (Israel just killed four more civilians which would not have happened if there was a NFZ over Gaza, and in retaliation it is suspected Palestinian terrorists bombed a Jerusalem bus station, killing one British woman).
We allow Nazi bankers to wreck the economy, then bail them out with trillions, allow the Nazi banks to retain the power to create non-existent money out of nothing, impose severe austerity and even kill our aged relatives in a UK Nazi T4 program called the LCP, and send nobody to prison!
But we also allow a small cabal of very wealthy people to decide who our political leaders are, who tell them what to do to betray their nations into the evil clutches of that cabal, and I am now referring to Bilderberg.
So Hypocrite (and potential traitor) Hague, tell us all about Bilderberg.
LIBYAN REBELS COULD BE ARMED
Another suggestion has been made to bend the terms of UN SCR 1973. As soon as the first missiles were fired over last weekend the British rapidly pushed for regime change, and even assassination.
But it is now being proposed that a provisional council for Libya be recognised by the UN which could then be armed to kick out Gaddafi.
This really is an astonishing proposal, and proves the true aim of the military actions on Libya and UN SCR 1973, which should now be anulled and replaced by a much better worded resolution, and one that does not violate the UN charter itself.
============================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401856/Libya-arming-rebellion-would-turn-tide.html
Libya: arming rebellion 'would turn tide'
The Libyan rebel movement could legally be supplied with weapons from abroad in a move that would rapidly bring the conflict to an end, defence experts have said.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 11:51PM GMT 23 Mar 2011
The United Nations resolution that was made before that governing the no-fly zone prevented Col Muammar Gaddafi's government from obtaining arms but analysts say that it would still be possible to arm a provisional rebel government.
There are growing doubts that the rebels will be able to prevail over Col Gaddafi's forces without outside intervention, and there are worries too that a costly and dangerous stalemate will follow a lack of decisive military action.
Brig Ben Barry, of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said however that if a provisional council was recognised by the United Nations, it would be able to accept arms, and could quickly overthrow Gaddafi loyalists or persuade the Libyan ruler's inner circle to oust him.
"If this went on for months and months then equipping the rebels would make a difference. The UN arms embargo only proscribes the current Libyan government so if another state recognised a provisional council as the new government it could then agree to requests for assistance including weapons and other military supplies.
"If significant parts of the Libyan military capability were destroyed it could change the minds of those within the regime who might then view Gaddafi as more part of the problem rather than the solution."
Lt Col Richard Williams, the former SAS commander, said that the first thing the rebels needed was a political leader "who can offer to pro-Gaddafi people something that will not terrify them".
Prof Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, said: "If we get into a stalemate over the coming months then I think arms supply would make a real difference. Rebels will be better organised to provide a sustained and sufficient back bone."
However British defence chiefs admit they are struggling to understand the rebel groups. "We are trying to understand what they want and what they are doing," said a military planner in the Ministry of Defence. "There's no cohesion and there are factions from Benghazi to Misurata and those in Benghazi are not necessarily the right people to talk to. I think stalemate is distinct possibility."
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2011
But it is now being proposed that a provisional council for Libya be recognised by the UN which could then be armed to kick out Gaddafi.
This really is an astonishing proposal, and proves the true aim of the military actions on Libya and UN SCR 1973, which should now be anulled and replaced by a much better worded resolution, and one that does not violate the UN charter itself.
============================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401856/Libya-arming-rebellion-would-turn-tide.html
Libya: arming rebellion 'would turn tide'
The Libyan rebel movement could legally be supplied with weapons from abroad in a move that would rapidly bring the conflict to an end, defence experts have said.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 11:51PM GMT 23 Mar 2011
The United Nations resolution that was made before that governing the no-fly zone prevented Col Muammar Gaddafi's government from obtaining arms but analysts say that it would still be possible to arm a provisional rebel government.
There are growing doubts that the rebels will be able to prevail over Col Gaddafi's forces without outside intervention, and there are worries too that a costly and dangerous stalemate will follow a lack of decisive military action.
Brig Ben Barry, of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said however that if a provisional council was recognised by the United Nations, it would be able to accept arms, and could quickly overthrow Gaddafi loyalists or persuade the Libyan ruler's inner circle to oust him.
"If this went on for months and months then equipping the rebels would make a difference. The UN arms embargo only proscribes the current Libyan government so if another state recognised a provisional council as the new government it could then agree to requests for assistance including weapons and other military supplies.
"If significant parts of the Libyan military capability were destroyed it could change the minds of those within the regime who might then view Gaddafi as more part of the problem rather than the solution."
Lt Col Richard Williams, the former SAS commander, said that the first thing the rebels needed was a political leader "who can offer to pro-Gaddafi people something that will not terrify them".
Prof Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, said: "If we get into a stalemate over the coming months then I think arms supply would make a real difference. Rebels will be better organised to provide a sustained and sufficient back bone."
However British defence chiefs admit they are struggling to understand the rebel groups. "We are trying to understand what they want and what they are doing," said a military planner in the Ministry of Defence. "There's no cohesion and there are factions from Benghazi to Misurata and those in Benghazi are not necessarily the right people to talk to. I think stalemate is distinct possibility."
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
REARRANGING THE DECKCHAIRS ON THE TITAN-OIK
He tried, didn't he?
Significantly reducing corporation tax to attract businesses, and agreeing a package called Project Merlin (the Merlin referring to the magic of the banks creating non-existent money out of nothing) with the banks to increase lending sounds like a plan to stimulate the private sector.
I actually feel sorry him.
But I don't think he understands the global forces running the show.
He doesn't understand that economies across the globe are being deliberately trashed.
He doesn't understand that nation states are being looted and destroyed before a third world war will be detonated so that the looters can disappear in a thick fog of smoke with the loot, like in a cheezy pantomime. For this is what life is, a cheezy pantomime, but with real blood.
The pantomime villains will disappear with tens if not hundreds of trillions in a haze of fog and smoke from the bombs, but then reappear as saviours proposing that they can save the world from disaster if we gave them control of the world and every single living soul on the planet.
That is the plan.
The Pentagoonz have somehow lost trillions.
The banks will not tell us where trillions in bailouts have gone.
WHY?
Nobody else has any money.
Only a few mega corporations and banks can afford to transfer their operations here, particularly if they have been shipped over to India and/or China to serve the gods of globalisation.
Sure, I think a few corporations could decide that the tax regime will be more attractive, that employment law will be more relaxed so they can fire slaves on the spot simply for farting, and they can take on over educated employees at a fraction of the usual cost due to the new welfare rules, etc.
And the banks may make a few billions, even tens of billions "available" (whatever that means), for SMEs.
But even if this does occur, we will still be getting our money from the same Nazis and Nazi banks who deliberately caused the financial crisis in the first place. They will still rule. They will still be constructing their world government for total enslavement, they will still be poisoning you with fluoride, mercury and microwave communications that interfere with brain function.
And it is they who will laugh in your face as they inject the implantable microchip into your hand for total control.
The Oik is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titan-oik, as we sink bow first to the bottom of the ocean called tyrannical world government.
After this serious destabilisation of the financial system caused by this derivatives crisis there is only one solution for the people; destroy it!
The banks and bankers want to preserve it...because it serves them and their plans for world government, destruction and mass depopulation.
The current financial system needs to be destroyed, and replaced with one that serves the people, not the banks. One that constructs infrastructure, provides top class education and life-saving health services.
Through this current system the bankers have been able to finance WW1, WW2, the holocaust, and have engineered all other major events such as the Vietnam War, so that today they almost control the world. The apparatus is nearly there. The IMF is beginning to control not only the economies of the third world, but also some European countries, such as Greece and Ireland, all thanks to the Rothschild Inter Alpha Group. Through the magic of being able to create non-existent money out of nothing they can finance fakes like Soetoro to become President of the USA, and think tanks like PNAC, ICG and Brookings to influence foreign and domestic policy.
The Oik is multi-Bilderberg. I will be suprised if he is not there this year too. He serves the banks, not us, and is betraying us into the hands of genocidalist megalomaniacs.
He and their system must go for the British people to first survive and then thrive to build a nation to be proud of, not ashamed of.
This can only be achieved by a system in which we the British people, HM Queen Liz included, create our own money for the purposes that we want, purposes that serve society as whole, not the genocidal megalomaniac lusts of a few.
Abandon ship!
Leave Captain Oik to sink with the Titan-oik!
Significantly reducing corporation tax to attract businesses, and agreeing a package called Project Merlin (the Merlin referring to the magic of the banks creating non-existent money out of nothing) with the banks to increase lending sounds like a plan to stimulate the private sector.
I actually feel sorry him.
But I don't think he understands the global forces running the show.
He doesn't understand that economies across the globe are being deliberately trashed.
He doesn't understand that nation states are being looted and destroyed before a third world war will be detonated so that the looters can disappear in a thick fog of smoke with the loot, like in a cheezy pantomime. For this is what life is, a cheezy pantomime, but with real blood.
The pantomime villains will disappear with tens if not hundreds of trillions in a haze of fog and smoke from the bombs, but then reappear as saviours proposing that they can save the world from disaster if we gave them control of the world and every single living soul on the planet.
That is the plan.
The Pentagoonz have somehow lost trillions.
The banks will not tell us where trillions in bailouts have gone.
WHY?
Nobody else has any money.
Only a few mega corporations and banks can afford to transfer their operations here, particularly if they have been shipped over to India and/or China to serve the gods of globalisation.
Sure, I think a few corporations could decide that the tax regime will be more attractive, that employment law will be more relaxed so they can fire slaves on the spot simply for farting, and they can take on over educated employees at a fraction of the usual cost due to the new welfare rules, etc.
And the banks may make a few billions, even tens of billions "available" (whatever that means), for SMEs.
But even if this does occur, we will still be getting our money from the same Nazis and Nazi banks who deliberately caused the financial crisis in the first place. They will still rule. They will still be constructing their world government for total enslavement, they will still be poisoning you with fluoride, mercury and microwave communications that interfere with brain function.
And it is they who will laugh in your face as they inject the implantable microchip into your hand for total control.
The Oik is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titan-oik, as we sink bow first to the bottom of the ocean called tyrannical world government.
After this serious destabilisation of the financial system caused by this derivatives crisis there is only one solution for the people; destroy it!
The banks and bankers want to preserve it...because it serves them and their plans for world government, destruction and mass depopulation.
The current financial system needs to be destroyed, and replaced with one that serves the people, not the banks. One that constructs infrastructure, provides top class education and life-saving health services.
Through this current system the bankers have been able to finance WW1, WW2, the holocaust, and have engineered all other major events such as the Vietnam War, so that today they almost control the world. The apparatus is nearly there. The IMF is beginning to control not only the economies of the third world, but also some European countries, such as Greece and Ireland, all thanks to the Rothschild Inter Alpha Group. Through the magic of being able to create non-existent money out of nothing they can finance fakes like Soetoro to become President of the USA, and think tanks like PNAC, ICG and Brookings to influence foreign and domestic policy.
The Oik is multi-Bilderberg. I will be suprised if he is not there this year too. He serves the banks, not us, and is betraying us into the hands of genocidalist megalomaniacs.
He and their system must go for the British people to first survive and then thrive to build a nation to be proud of, not ashamed of.
This can only be achieved by a system in which we the British people, HM Queen Liz included, create our own money for the purposes that we want, purposes that serve society as whole, not the genocidal megalomaniac lusts of a few.
Abandon ship!
Leave Captain Oik to sink with the Titan-oik!
IT COULD KICK OFF IN AND OVER GAZA AGAIN
As a No Fly Zone is established by some nations desperate to enforce the will of The United Nations over Libya while not that desperate to enforce the will of The United Nations over Palestine, events in Gaza are again taking a nasty turn, and it could kick off again.
Nutternyahu has recently apologised for killing four Palestinian civilians.
=============================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/gaza-rockets-strike-israel
Gaza militants' rockets strike cities deep into Israel
Islamic Jihad claims attacks on Beersheba and Ashdod as Israeli vice-premier calls for new offensive in Gaza Strip
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 March 2011 09.40 GMT
Palestinian rockets have struck two cities deep in Israel, wounding one man and prompting a deputy to the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to call for a new offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The attacks, which drew retaliatory air strikes from Israel, marked the biggest escalation of hostilities since Israel launched its assault on Gaza two years ago.
Islamic Jihad, a smaller Gaza faction and occasional Hamas ally, claimed responsibility for the attacks on Beersheba and Ashdod that followed a surge of shelling between Israel and Hamas that killed four Palestinian civilians and five militants on Tuesday.
After the deaths on Tuesday in Gaza, Netanyahu voiced regret for the civilian casualties, which he said resulted from errant Israeli shelling.
The Israeli vice-premier, Silvan Shalom, said the situation recalled the runup to Israel's 2008-2009 Gaza war, in which around 1,400 Palestinians died. Hamas has mostly held its fire from the enclave since.
"We may have to consider a return to that operation," Shalom told Israel Radio. "I say this despite the fact that I know such a thing would, of course, bring the region to a far more combustible situation."
With dissident movements rocking the Arab world, the US-backed Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has broached reconciliation with Islamist Hamas, which defeated his Fatah faction in a 2006 ballot and seized control of Gaza in a civil war a year later.
Shalom said Hamas might have opened a new front with Israel "to stop any possibility of dialogue among the Palestinians or to come to the intra-Palestinian negotiation in a far stronger position".
Hamas is shunned by the west for rejecting peace with Israel. Under Hamas rule, Gaza has been kept under grinding embargoes by Israel and neighbouring Egypt. Security and economic prospects have improved under Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which has a limited mandate in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Islamic Jihad said it fired Grad rockets, assembly-line weapons more sophisticated than some shorter-range projectiles militants have used in the past, at Beersheba and Ashdod, 20 miles and 25 miles from Gaza respectively.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said a Beersheba man suffered moderate shrapnel wounds and that the second rocket landed outside Ashdod's centre, causing no damage. Authorities closed schools in Beersheba and advised residents to be ready to take shelter at the sound of sirens.
Islamic Jihad said it sought to avenge "the Zionist massacres against our fighters and people" and would continue to fight "until the full liberation of our lands", a reference to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza.
Hamas has described its attacks, which included the firing of more than two dozen mortar shells and rockets at the weekend, as retaliation for Israeli air strikes. Hamas has at times proposed a long-term truce with Israel.
Netanyahu said Israel sought no further flare-up but would continue to respond to Palestinian attacks.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
Nutternyahu has recently apologised for killing four Palestinian civilians.
=============================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/gaza-rockets-strike-israel
Gaza militants' rockets strike cities deep into Israel
Islamic Jihad claims attacks on Beersheba and Ashdod as Israeli vice-premier calls for new offensive in Gaza Strip
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 March 2011 09.40 GMT
Palestinian rockets have struck two cities deep in Israel, wounding one man and prompting a deputy to the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to call for a new offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The attacks, which drew retaliatory air strikes from Israel, marked the biggest escalation of hostilities since Israel launched its assault on Gaza two years ago.
Islamic Jihad, a smaller Gaza faction and occasional Hamas ally, claimed responsibility for the attacks on Beersheba and Ashdod that followed a surge of shelling between Israel and Hamas that killed four Palestinian civilians and five militants on Tuesday.
After the deaths on Tuesday in Gaza, Netanyahu voiced regret for the civilian casualties, which he said resulted from errant Israeli shelling.
The Israeli vice-premier, Silvan Shalom, said the situation recalled the runup to Israel's 2008-2009 Gaza war, in which around 1,400 Palestinians died. Hamas has mostly held its fire from the enclave since.
"We may have to consider a return to that operation," Shalom told Israel Radio. "I say this despite the fact that I know such a thing would, of course, bring the region to a far more combustible situation."
With dissident movements rocking the Arab world, the US-backed Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has broached reconciliation with Islamist Hamas, which defeated his Fatah faction in a 2006 ballot and seized control of Gaza in a civil war a year later.
Shalom said Hamas might have opened a new front with Israel "to stop any possibility of dialogue among the Palestinians or to come to the intra-Palestinian negotiation in a far stronger position".
Hamas is shunned by the west for rejecting peace with Israel. Under Hamas rule, Gaza has been kept under grinding embargoes by Israel and neighbouring Egypt. Security and economic prospects have improved under Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which has a limited mandate in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Islamic Jihad said it fired Grad rockets, assembly-line weapons more sophisticated than some shorter-range projectiles militants have used in the past, at Beersheba and Ashdod, 20 miles and 25 miles from Gaza respectively.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said a Beersheba man suffered moderate shrapnel wounds and that the second rocket landed outside Ashdod's centre, causing no damage. Authorities closed schools in Beersheba and advised residents to be ready to take shelter at the sound of sirens.
Islamic Jihad said it sought to avenge "the Zionist massacres against our fighters and people" and would continue to fight "until the full liberation of our lands", a reference to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza.
Hamas has described its attacks, which included the firing of more than two dozen mortar shells and rockets at the weekend, as retaliation for Israeli air strikes. Hamas has at times proposed a long-term truce with Israel.
Netanyahu said Israel sought no further flare-up but would continue to respond to Palestinian attacks.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
SIMON
A caller named Simon phoned into the BBC Radio 5 Live phone in this morning. The topic of today's discussion was, what would you do as Chancellor?
Simon was the second caller. He was passionate but controlled, and laid out how the banks create money out of nothing, that the banks do not have the money they claim to have, that only a very small percentage of the money in our system is actually cash and the rest is simply numbers on a computer, and that the banks are taking over everything. Simon's simple solution to this is take back the power to create money and restore it to the government. Simon stated that Abraham Lincoln did this to finance his campaign in the US Civil War, a war that he won because of this. But in winning that war in that way he was assassinated by agents of the City of London, whose attitude has alway been that only they and their minions can create money out of nothing so that they can take over the world.
If the banks can create money out of nothing and completely wreck the economy, they have shown themselves as untrustworthy as NATO and unworthy of such power.
So take back the power to create money, restore it to the government, so the government can create money, debt and interest free, to get the economy that the banks wrecked back to work.
Oh, and clamp down very heavily on all tax avoidance, evasion and whatever else they do.
Two simple actions that can be done today by The Oik.
But don't hold your breath...
Simon was the second caller. He was passionate but controlled, and laid out how the banks create money out of nothing, that the banks do not have the money they claim to have, that only a very small percentage of the money in our system is actually cash and the rest is simply numbers on a computer, and that the banks are taking over everything. Simon's simple solution to this is take back the power to create money and restore it to the government. Simon stated that Abraham Lincoln did this to finance his campaign in the US Civil War, a war that he won because of this. But in winning that war in that way he was assassinated by agents of the City of London, whose attitude has alway been that only they and their minions can create money out of nothing so that they can take over the world.
If the banks can create money out of nothing and completely wreck the economy, they have shown themselves as untrustworthy as NATO and unworthy of such power.
So take back the power to create money, restore it to the government, so the government can create money, debt and interest free, to get the economy that the banks wrecked back to work.
Oh, and clamp down very heavily on all tax avoidance, evasion and whatever else they do.
Two simple actions that can be done today by The Oik.
But don't hold your breath...
SIX OUT OF SEVEN IS NOT BAD
Rhodes Scholar and Knight of the British Empire, General Wesley Clark, wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars that he was told by unnamed sources in the Pentagon that in November 2001, two months after 9/11, plans were already being made for war on Iraq[1]. But Clark was also told that in a five year plan six other countries would be targeted. So in all seven nations were targets of US military aggression. They were
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Lebanon
Sudan
Somalia
and finally...Libya.
Six of these have been significantly affected by either large scale military invasion or destabilisations by assasination and/or revolution, and in one case, Lebanon, both.
Iraq and Iran were named as targets in PNACs Rebuilding America's Defenses, published one year before 9/11 (so plans were already made for these two).
Even on 9/11 the PNACers were blaming Iraq as well as ObL. Iraq was invaded and no WMDs found.
Iran has been the subject of Anglo-American-Israeli plans for years, and the undead George Soros recently stated that Iran would suffer the bloodiest of revolutions, a green revoloution having been crushed in 2009.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri in February 2005 destabilised Lebanon, and in the Cedar Revolution the Syrians withdrew. In 2006 Israel attacked Lebanon. The STL is to blame Hezbollah, but some reports have implicated Iran.
Syria, along with Iraq and Iran, was named in A Clean Break as targets of Israeli aggression.
Sudan is now being partitioned.
Libya is now under a No Fly Zone with open talk of assassinating Gaddafi, despite such an option not permitted in UN SCR 1973.
There was a small invasion of Somalia by the US military in 2009.
So six out of seven is not bad.
What the name of this operation is I do not know, but whatever it is, the operation itself seems to have been successful.
But what have Russia and China done about this?
[1] The Secrets Clark Kept, http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-09-30/news/the-secrets-clark-kept/
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Lebanon
Sudan
Somalia
and finally...Libya.
Six of these have been significantly affected by either large scale military invasion or destabilisations by assasination and/or revolution, and in one case, Lebanon, both.
Iraq and Iran were named as targets in PNACs Rebuilding America's Defenses, published one year before 9/11 (so plans were already made for these two).
Even on 9/11 the PNACers were blaming Iraq as well as ObL. Iraq was invaded and no WMDs found.
Iran has been the subject of Anglo-American-Israeli plans for years, and the undead George Soros recently stated that Iran would suffer the bloodiest of revolutions, a green revoloution having been crushed in 2009.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri in February 2005 destabilised Lebanon, and in the Cedar Revolution the Syrians withdrew. In 2006 Israel attacked Lebanon. The STL is to blame Hezbollah, but some reports have implicated Iran.
Syria, along with Iraq and Iran, was named in A Clean Break as targets of Israeli aggression.
Sudan is now being partitioned.
Libya is now under a No Fly Zone with open talk of assassinating Gaddafi, despite such an option not permitted in UN SCR 1973.
There was a small invasion of Somalia by the US military in 2009.
So six out of seven is not bad.
What the name of this operation is I do not know, but whatever it is, the operation itself seems to have been successful.
But what have Russia and China done about this?
[1] The Secrets Clark Kept, http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-09-30/news/the-secrets-clark-kept/
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
ENGELBERT HUMPERDINCK
Englebert Trumperdinck has the name we are, deep down, very envious of.
Take George W Bush.
Take William J Clinton.
Take George HW Bush.
Take Ronald Rainbow Reagan.
Take 'em all, all the way back to 1791.
All powerful men, in their own ridiculous way, wanted a name like Englebert's. Some having betrayed America, while others having also betrayed humanity itself!
But amidst this cesspit of betrayal and corruption stands the proud Englebert Humperdinck.
I now propose, without any recourse to humour or irony, that our dear Englebert was a major major major opponent of the New World Order.
No, don't laugh. Listen to my argument.
Aldous Huxley, gimp of the New World Order, wrote that we, the muggins hard working taxpayers of the world, should love our servitude.
Well, Not me!
Do you?
I will not be servile to anyone, and nor shall I love that servitude if it is imposed upon me.
So I now proudly present to you, Englebert Humperdinck, as he kisses the sweet sweet lips of his new love, freedom!
Please release me, let me go
For I don't love you anymore
To waste our lives would be a sin
Release me and let me love again
I have found a new love, dear
And I will always want her near
Her lips are warm while yours are cold
Release me, my darling, let me go
(Please release me, let me go)
For I don't love you anymore
(To waste my life would be a sin)
So release me and let me love again
Please release me, can't you see
You'd be a fool to cling to me
To live a lie would bring us pain
So release me and let me love again
(Let me love, let me love)
Take George W Bush.
Take William J Clinton.
Take George HW Bush.
Take Ronald Rainbow Reagan.
Take 'em all, all the way back to 1791.
All powerful men, in their own ridiculous way, wanted a name like Englebert's. Some having betrayed America, while others having also betrayed humanity itself!
But amidst this cesspit of betrayal and corruption stands the proud Englebert Humperdinck.
I now propose, without any recourse to humour or irony, that our dear Englebert was a major major major opponent of the New World Order.
No, don't laugh. Listen to my argument.
Aldous Huxley, gimp of the New World Order, wrote that we, the muggins hard working taxpayers of the world, should love our servitude.
Well, Not me!
Do you?
I will not be servile to anyone, and nor shall I love that servitude if it is imposed upon me.
So I now proudly present to you, Englebert Humperdinck, as he kisses the sweet sweet lips of his new love, freedom!
Please release me, let me go
For I don't love you anymore
To waste our lives would be a sin
Release me and let me love again
I have found a new love, dear
And I will always want her near
Her lips are warm while yours are cold
Release me, my darling, let me go
(Please release me, let me go)
For I don't love you anymore
(To waste my life would be a sin)
So release me and let me love again
Please release me, can't you see
You'd be a fool to cling to me
To live a lie would bring us pain
So release me and let me love again
(Let me love, let me love)
TARPLEY ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW
One of few men and women talking some sense on the UN breaking its own charter by meddling in a civil war with bombs, and a civil war that was actually instigated and guided by NATO intelligence circles, including our own MI6 and SAS.
I pray that the corrupt wretches in the House of Commons listen to this.
http://tarpley.net/2011/03/21/tarpley-on-the-alex-jones-show/
The partition of Libya is definitely on the agenda. It is being proposed more frequently in the media since the bombing of Libya started. This is what Webster Tarpley is proposing is the real state of affairs. The partitioning of several rogue states, rogue to the empire that is. These states are targets for destabilisation and partitioning, to make them weak and more controllable by the empire, as they seek to relieve themselves of the yoke of empire and develop into proud nation states. Libya is the most advanced nation in Africa, having used oil money for the benefit of its people. We are now bombing it. Why? If it is subsequently partitioned on an East-West basis, the oil in the East will go to the rebs and their sponsors, the USA and UK, or to be more accurate, BP and Shell, not us, and they could sell to it whoever the like.
Whether this all results in an attack on Iran, or another revolution in Iran as proposed by the undead George Soros, I don't know. But with any major violence in or around the Middle East I always raise the spectre of the Albert Pike three-world-war plan. That modern history has generally followed that plan, with even the saintly FDR provoking and allowing the Japanese to kill nearly 3000 US military personnel at Pearl Harbour, is very concerning. Could it be that all modern history has been manipulated to keep within the scope of that Pike plan? Nearly 150 years of history cannot be completely controlled, but the major events can be, to keep modern history within a certain margin of error that would allow the Pike plan to eventually be realised, with a few minor corrections.
The price of oil jumped as a result of the illegal bombing of Libya. It was falling, mainly due to Japan. This drop in oil price was not proposed by Pastor Williams. The bombing of Libya drove it up again. Hmm.
But who has gambled on the price of oil being much higher than it is now, and is losing because of it?
But to gain more clarity and perhaps support for Tarpley's analysis, there is one thing that we as sovereign citizens can do;
ARREST HENRY KISSINGER!
He knows what is supposed to be happening, as he so publicly implied on Bloomberg 1st February 2011 in an interview about Egypt and Mubarak. Kissinger stated that events in Egypt were "only the first scene of the first act of a drama that is to be played out". He also ended the interview with his belief (or should that be command) that if Egypt went "back to the nationalist orientation of Nasser then things are going to get very tough".
I pray that the corrupt wretches in the House of Commons listen to this.
http://tarpley.net/2011/03/21/tarpley-on-the-alex-jones-show/
The partition of Libya is definitely on the agenda. It is being proposed more frequently in the media since the bombing of Libya started. This is what Webster Tarpley is proposing is the real state of affairs. The partitioning of several rogue states, rogue to the empire that is. These states are targets for destabilisation and partitioning, to make them weak and more controllable by the empire, as they seek to relieve themselves of the yoke of empire and develop into proud nation states. Libya is the most advanced nation in Africa, having used oil money for the benefit of its people. We are now bombing it. Why? If it is subsequently partitioned on an East-West basis, the oil in the East will go to the rebs and their sponsors, the USA and UK, or to be more accurate, BP and Shell, not us, and they could sell to it whoever the like.
Whether this all results in an attack on Iran, or another revolution in Iran as proposed by the undead George Soros, I don't know. But with any major violence in or around the Middle East I always raise the spectre of the Albert Pike three-world-war plan. That modern history has generally followed that plan, with even the saintly FDR provoking and allowing the Japanese to kill nearly 3000 US military personnel at Pearl Harbour, is very concerning. Could it be that all modern history has been manipulated to keep within the scope of that Pike plan? Nearly 150 years of history cannot be completely controlled, but the major events can be, to keep modern history within a certain margin of error that would allow the Pike plan to eventually be realised, with a few minor corrections.
The price of oil jumped as a result of the illegal bombing of Libya. It was falling, mainly due to Japan. This drop in oil price was not proposed by Pastor Williams. The bombing of Libya drove it up again. Hmm.
But who has gambled on the price of oil being much higher than it is now, and is losing because of it?
But to gain more clarity and perhaps support for Tarpley's analysis, there is one thing that we as sovereign citizens can do;
ARREST HENRY KISSINGER!
He knows what is supposed to be happening, as he so publicly implied on Bloomberg 1st February 2011 in an interview about Egypt and Mubarak. Kissinger stated that events in Egypt were "only the first scene of the first act of a drama that is to be played out". He also ended the interview with his belief (or should that be command) that if Egypt went "back to the nationalist orientation of Nasser then things are going to get very tough".
Monday, March 21, 2011
THE COALITION OF THE DEVIL
Gaddafi called the loose coalition that has just been bombing Libya "the coalition of the devil"[1].
The bombing has been led so far by the USA.
The USA is the result of a revolution after we colonised the New World, and we could discuss whether that revolution was engineered or not. I have my own personal doubts about this, and they are laid out in the page on the USA on my website. Washington DC is full of architecture and symbolism relating to the sun and Egypt, and Freemasonry played a significant role in establishing the American republic, holding grand ceremonies and celebrations during the laying of the foundations for Washington DC.
Following the establishment of the republic the American Indians were gradually herded into reservations of ever decreasing size and reduced to the status of a circus freak. Their lands and natural resources were grabbed. A similar process occured when the Jews tookover Palestine, when they herded the Palestinians into the largest refugee camps in the world.
But what has the USA done since they bravely bullied the American Indians into their refugee camps?
The USA created the Federal Reserve, which allowed the international bankers to create money out of nothing, giving them astronomical profits. With these profits they could engineer public opinion and create the Communists and the Nazis. The Federal Reserve financed both world wars. During the world war that the Communists and Nazis fought the USA created the atomic bomb, which they unnecessarily dropped on Japan. After WW2 the USA was the most powerful nation on earth, and has used that power to wage more wars on earth than any other nation. Its military budget is much bigger than the military budgets of all other nations on earth combined. It is a military state. It enforces the wishes of US and Anglo-Dutch corporations. A much respected officer in the US Military, Major General Smedley Butler, wrote that war is a racket.
Yet despite its massive military might, somehow on 11th September 2001, despite many detailed warnings, several passenger aircraft were allegedly hijacked and flown unimpeded around the most protected airspace on earth for a few hours, and then eventually flown into the WTC and unbelievably the most protected building on earth, The Pentagon. The blame for this was quickly placed on two bogeymen, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, with allegations that Iraq also had WMD and we knew where they were. Well, Osama bin Laden has not been captured, possibly because they do not have the evidence to indict him. We invaded Iraq, and did not find any WMD, but we did hang someone who may or may not have been Saddam Hussein. The USA now has military bases in nearly every nation in the Middle East and Caspian Basin...except in Iran.
The actions of the USA since its creation have been those of a devil. African slaves were captured and transported to American colonies, with the blessings of the church, and used to build America. Since the abolition of slavery the descendents of those slaves have generally formed the lower working classes of American society. Racism is still rife in the Southern States. Without the Federal Reserve there would have been no Communism, Nazism, WW1, WW2, UN, IMF and no 9/11 and subsequent takeover of the Middle East and Caspian Basin.
And what has been directing this global military takeover?
The inverted, incomplete and irregular pentagram, the most satanic symbol of the devil, pointing directly into the White House, that has been there since 1791.
[1] A Call from the Colonel: Gaddafi and His Bunker, http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110320/wl_time/08599206043700
The bombing has been led so far by the USA.
The USA is the result of a revolution after we colonised the New World, and we could discuss whether that revolution was engineered or not. I have my own personal doubts about this, and they are laid out in the page on the USA on my website. Washington DC is full of architecture and symbolism relating to the sun and Egypt, and Freemasonry played a significant role in establishing the American republic, holding grand ceremonies and celebrations during the laying of the foundations for Washington DC.
Following the establishment of the republic the American Indians were gradually herded into reservations of ever decreasing size and reduced to the status of a circus freak. Their lands and natural resources were grabbed. A similar process occured when the Jews tookover Palestine, when they herded the Palestinians into the largest refugee camps in the world.
But what has the USA done since they bravely bullied the American Indians into their refugee camps?
The USA created the Federal Reserve, which allowed the international bankers to create money out of nothing, giving them astronomical profits. With these profits they could engineer public opinion and create the Communists and the Nazis. The Federal Reserve financed both world wars. During the world war that the Communists and Nazis fought the USA created the atomic bomb, which they unnecessarily dropped on Japan. After WW2 the USA was the most powerful nation on earth, and has used that power to wage more wars on earth than any other nation. Its military budget is much bigger than the military budgets of all other nations on earth combined. It is a military state. It enforces the wishes of US and Anglo-Dutch corporations. A much respected officer in the US Military, Major General Smedley Butler, wrote that war is a racket.
Yet despite its massive military might, somehow on 11th September 2001, despite many detailed warnings, several passenger aircraft were allegedly hijacked and flown unimpeded around the most protected airspace on earth for a few hours, and then eventually flown into the WTC and unbelievably the most protected building on earth, The Pentagon. The blame for this was quickly placed on two bogeymen, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, with allegations that Iraq also had WMD and we knew where they were. Well, Osama bin Laden has not been captured, possibly because they do not have the evidence to indict him. We invaded Iraq, and did not find any WMD, but we did hang someone who may or may not have been Saddam Hussein. The USA now has military bases in nearly every nation in the Middle East and Caspian Basin...except in Iran.
The actions of the USA since its creation have been those of a devil. African slaves were captured and transported to American colonies, with the blessings of the church, and used to build America. Since the abolition of slavery the descendents of those slaves have generally formed the lower working classes of American society. Racism is still rife in the Southern States. Without the Federal Reserve there would have been no Communism, Nazism, WW1, WW2, UN, IMF and no 9/11 and subsequent takeover of the Middle East and Caspian Basin.
And what has been directing this global military takeover?
The inverted, incomplete and irregular pentagram, the most satanic symbol of the devil, pointing directly into the White House, that has been there since 1791.
[1] A Call from the Colonel: Gaddafi and His Bunker, http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110320/wl_time/08599206043700
IT IS NECESSARY, LEGAL AND RIGHT TO BASH THE BANKS
If it is necessary, legal and right to kill Gaddafi, who has used oil profits to build Libya into the most advanced nation in Africa, then it is definitely necessary, legal and right to bash the banks, who have just robbed us all blind, dumped millions of us onto the dole, kicked us out of our houses, and got us to pay for their private gambling debts by killing our aged sick relatives via The Liverpool Care Pathway.
But there is a fairer alternative.
Prosecute the bankers and lock them up with Josef Fritzl where they belong.
Anull all gambling debts of the banks and take them into bankruptcy.
Create our own money and get the nation back to work.
It really is that simple.
Even someone as allegedly intelligent as our great warrior leader, Cameron the Inglorious, can see this?
But there is a fairer alternative.
Prosecute the bankers and lock them up with Josef Fritzl where they belong.
Anull all gambling debts of the banks and take them into bankruptcy.
Create our own money and get the nation back to work.
It really is that simple.
Even someone as allegedly intelligent as our great warrior leader, Cameron the Inglorious, can see this?
WE URGENTLY NEED NO FLY ZONES OVER ALL OUR HOSPITALS
Our beloved aged relatives need protecting from Cameron the Inglorious and his Liverpool Care Pathway (express to heaven).
We urgently need No Fly Zones over all our hospitals to form a humanitarian shield.
We urgently need No Fly Zones over all our hospitals to form a humanitarian shield.
HOW LONG HAVE SAS BEEN IN LIBYA?
It is being proudly reported that the SAS have been in Libya for weeks, and have been preparing for the air strikes we saw reported over the weekend.[1]
It is also being proudly reported that a British bomber aborted its mission after civilians were found to be close to the target.[2]
And it is also being reported that tens of civilians have been killed in these raids.[3]
So this begs the question, just what have the SAS been doing in Libya? If they have been painting targets, then how accurate has that targetting been if civilians are close to the targets, and where did they get their information from? Was the risk of killing these civilians acceptable until it was revealed by the Arab League that civilians had been killed?
Several weeks ago the SAS were reportedly captured in a bungled landing, and sent packing with their tails between their legs. I questioned this fairytale at the time. It is inconceivable that a farmer could capture a unit of SAS and a MI6 officer and hold them hostage until a rebel leader arrived. It is now blatantly clear that several units of SAS and MI6 secretly and illegaly invaded Libya a few weeks ago with the permission of the rebels and a cover story was put out that they were all captured and returned home, or that some of them were returned home with intel and personal communications for the likes of Cameron the Inglorious while the rest remained in Libya to organise, train and assist the rebels who have probably given them the intel on which targets to paint.
So what?
If this has happened then is this legal?
Has the UK interfered in or even fomented a civil war?
Was UN SCR 1973 hastily agreed and betrayed by the UK because the SAS and MI6 were losing and in danger of being captured and their illegal meddling actions revealed?
It is one thing to be the heroes of the Iranian Embassy in 1980.
It is completely another to be organising a revolution and civil war in a foreign country resulting in us using expensive military hardware in a time of severe austerity.
I mean, is it possible that we are now bombing Libya because the SAS (and other NATO intelligence circle special forces) were sent in to create unrest and civil war with the goal of overthrowing Gaddafi but failed?
This is the question the corrupt wretches in the House of Commons should be asking Cameron the Inglorious this afternoon.
And is it "necessary, legal and right", as Cameron the Inglorious recently proposed, for our Defence Secretary Liam Fox to propose that Gaddafi be killed, even though this goes well beyond what the Arab League agreed to in UN SCR 1973?
Indeed, the war talk has become so loud and dominant that Nicky Campbell's discussion on Your Talk on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning is on the question, should we kill Gaddafi?
This goes well beyond the remit of UN SCR 1973, and shows the desperation that the UK now finds itself in. The UK has swiftly changed the aim of UN SCR 1973 from protection of civilians to assasination of Gaddafi and regime change.
All nations in the United Nations Security Council should call an immediate halt to all actions in Libya and demand that the UK, and the USA, explain themselves.
[1] SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets, The Daily Mail, 21/3/2011
[2] BBC Breakfast, 21/3/2011
[3] Arab League Slams Libya Attacks Amid Reports of Growing Civilian Toll, AntiWar, 20/3/2011
It is also being proudly reported that a British bomber aborted its mission after civilians were found to be close to the target.[2]
And it is also being reported that tens of civilians have been killed in these raids.[3]
So this begs the question, just what have the SAS been doing in Libya? If they have been painting targets, then how accurate has that targetting been if civilians are close to the targets, and where did they get their information from? Was the risk of killing these civilians acceptable until it was revealed by the Arab League that civilians had been killed?
Several weeks ago the SAS were reportedly captured in a bungled landing, and sent packing with their tails between their legs. I questioned this fairytale at the time. It is inconceivable that a farmer could capture a unit of SAS and a MI6 officer and hold them hostage until a rebel leader arrived. It is now blatantly clear that several units of SAS and MI6 secretly and illegaly invaded Libya a few weeks ago with the permission of the rebels and a cover story was put out that they were all captured and returned home, or that some of them were returned home with intel and personal communications for the likes of Cameron the Inglorious while the rest remained in Libya to organise, train and assist the rebels who have probably given them the intel on which targets to paint.
So what?
If this has happened then is this legal?
Has the UK interfered in or even fomented a civil war?
Was UN SCR 1973 hastily agreed and betrayed by the UK because the SAS and MI6 were losing and in danger of being captured and their illegal meddling actions revealed?
It is one thing to be the heroes of the Iranian Embassy in 1980.
It is completely another to be organising a revolution and civil war in a foreign country resulting in us using expensive military hardware in a time of severe austerity.
I mean, is it possible that we are now bombing Libya because the SAS (and other NATO intelligence circle special forces) were sent in to create unrest and civil war with the goal of overthrowing Gaddafi but failed?
This is the question the corrupt wretches in the House of Commons should be asking Cameron the Inglorious this afternoon.
And is it "necessary, legal and right", as Cameron the Inglorious recently proposed, for our Defence Secretary Liam Fox to propose that Gaddafi be killed, even though this goes well beyond what the Arab League agreed to in UN SCR 1973?
Indeed, the war talk has become so loud and dominant that Nicky Campbell's discussion on Your Talk on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning is on the question, should we kill Gaddafi?
This goes well beyond the remit of UN SCR 1973, and shows the desperation that the UK now finds itself in. The UK has swiftly changed the aim of UN SCR 1973 from protection of civilians to assasination of Gaddafi and regime change.
All nations in the United Nations Security Council should call an immediate halt to all actions in Libya and demand that the UK, and the USA, explain themselves.
[1] SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets, The Daily Mail, 21/3/2011
[2] BBC Breakfast, 21/3/2011
[3] Arab League Slams Libya Attacks Amid Reports of Growing Civilian Toll, AntiWar, 20/3/2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
RUSSIA, THE ARAB LEAGUE AND A GLASS OF WARM STALE LIMEADE
So NATO has just served Russia and The Arab League a glass of warm stale limeade, just as I stated they would do.
Russia and The Arab League have now expressed their concerns that the Never A Trustworthy Organisation has far exceeded the terms of UN SCR 1973, and are calling for a ceasefire. The Arab League is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the situation.
I warned that NATO would break any agreement reached in order to pass UN SCR 1973.
This killing of nearly 50 civilians by NATO is less subtle than I imagined. I was expecting special forces to secretly invade, being captured and shown on Libyan TV.
But a Never A Trustworthy Organisation never changes itsinaccurate guided missiles spots.
And let's not kid ourselves. This is NATO. It's the USA, UK and France. Germany abstained.
The only way that Cameron the Inglorious can gain any kind of redemption from this action is to instigate an inquiry into how and why NATO intelligence circles were involved in the uprisings of The Arab Spring, and what Henry Kissinger knew about it all in January.
He should also promise that if Israel so much as farts in the direction of Gaza that we move immediately to implement a no fly zone over Gaza, and this time not kill any civilians.
Russia and The Arab League have now expressed their concerns that the Never A Trustworthy Organisation has far exceeded the terms of UN SCR 1973, and are calling for a ceasefire. The Arab League is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the situation.
I warned that NATO would break any agreement reached in order to pass UN SCR 1973.
This killing of nearly 50 civilians by NATO is less subtle than I imagined. I was expecting special forces to secretly invade, being captured and shown on Libyan TV.
But a Never A Trustworthy Organisation never changes its
And let's not kid ourselves. This is NATO. It's the USA, UK and France. Germany abstained.
The only way that Cameron the Inglorious can gain any kind of redemption from this action is to instigate an inquiry into how and why NATO intelligence circles were involved in the uprisings of The Arab Spring, and what Henry Kissinger knew about it all in January.
He should also promise that if Israel so much as farts in the direction of Gaza that we move immediately to implement a no fly zone over Gaza, and this time not kill any civilians.
TARPLEY ON REGIME CHANGE IN LIBYA
It has become clear that the military action on Libya has nothing to do with humanitarian intervention and everything to do with imperialism.
On BBC Radio 5 Live this morning the No Fly Zone had been magically transformed into a Non Combat Zone, and WilliamFake Hague tried to answer the question of why are we going into Libya and not elsewhere with the weak answer that we cannot do everything!
Cameron the Inglorious has also privately twisted the goal of UN SCR 1973 from humanitarian intervention into ousting Gaddafi to protect British national security.
So I repost this analysis by Webster Tarpley. Of particular interest is a paragraph towards the end in which is quoted the UN Human Development Index of some relevant nations;
Libya 53
Russia 63
Brazil 73
Russia and Brazil did not veto UN SCR 1973.
But what I don't fully understand is why Russia and China would stab Libya in the back. Nobody is going to trust Russia and China now. Why would they? They have basically given a green light to NATO to invade North Africa, haven't they?
======================
From http://tarpley.net/2011/03/19/obamas-bay-of-pigs-in-libya/
Obama’s Bay of Pigs in Libya: Imperialist Aggression Shreds UN Charter
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
March 19, 2011
Washington DC, March 19 – Late today US and British cruise missiles joined with French and other NATO combat aircraft in Operation Odyssey Dawn/Operation Ellamy, a neo-imperialist bombing attack under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Acting under UN Security Council resolution 1973, US naval forces in the Mediterranean on Saturday night local time fired 112 cruise missiles at targets which the Pentagon claimed were related to Libya’s air defense system. But Mohammed al-Zawi, the Secretary General of the Libyan Parliament, told a Tripoli press conference that the “barbaric armed attack” and “savage aggression” had hit residential areas and office buildings as well as military targets, filling the hospitals of Tripoli and Misurata with civilian victims. Zawi accused the foreign powers of acting to protect a rebel leadership which contains notorious terrorist elements. The Libyan government repeated its request for the UN to send international observers to report objectively on events in Libya.
The attacking forces are expected to deploy more cruise missiles, Predator drones, and bombers, seeking to destroy the Libyan air defense system as a prelude to the systematic decimation of Libyan ground units. International observers have noted that US intelligence about Libya may be substandard, and that many cruise missiles may indeed have struck non-military targets.
Libya had responded to the UN vote by declaring a cease-fire, but Obama and Cameron brushed that aside. On Saturday, France 24 and al-Jazeera of Qatar, international propaganda networks hyping the attacks, broadcast hysterical reports of Qaddafi’s forces allegedly attacking the rebel stronghold of Bengazi. They showed a picture of a jet fighter being shot down and claimed this proved Qaddafi was defying the UN by keeping up his air strikes. It later turned out that the destroyed plane had belonged to the rebel air force. Such coverage provided justification for the bombing attacks starting a few hours later. The parallels to the Kuwait incubator babies hoax of 1990 were evident. Qaddafi loyalists said Saturday’s fighting was caused by rebel assaults on government lines in the hopes of provoking an air attack, plus local residents defending themselves against the rebels.
At the UN vote, the Indian delegate correctly pointed out that the decision to start the war had been made on the basis of no reliable information whatsoever, since UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s envoy to Libya had never reported to the Security Council. The bombing started shortly after a glittering Paris summit “in support of the Libyan people,” where Sarkozy, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper of Canada and other imperialist politicians had strutted and postured.
Token contingents from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were supposed to take part in the attack, but were nowhere to be seen, while some Arab states were expected to provide financial support. The minimum estimated cost of maintaining a no-fly zone over Libya for one year is estimated in the neighborhood of $15 billion – enough to fund WIC high-protein meals for impoverished US mothers and infants for two years.
From no-fly zone to regime change
The alleged purpose of the bombing was to establish a no-fly zone and to protect a force of CIA-sponsored Libyan rebels composed of the Moslem Brotherhood, elements of the Libyan government and army subverted by the CIA (including such sinister figures as former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and former Interior Minister Fattah Younis), and monarchist Senussi tribesmen holding the cities of Benghazi and Tobruk. But twin Friday ultimatums by President Obama and British premier Cameron, plus a speech by Harper, made clear that the goal was the ouster of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi and regime change in the North African oil-producing nation, whose proven reserves of crude are the largest on that continent.
Prospects for military success are uncertain, despite the apparent NATO preponderance. No clear military objective has been articulated, and disagreements about the scope of the war are likely. If Qaddafi’s tanks and infantry are engaged in house to house battles with the rebels in cities like Bengazi and Tobruk, it will be hard for NATO to bring its air superiority to bear without massacring large numbers of civilians.
From hope and change to shock and awe
While Obama’s action is being widely compared to the Bush-Cheney 2003 attack on Iraq, parallels to the April 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco are also strong. In that instance, a force of anti-Castro Cubans organized by the CIA was militarily defeated in an attempt to take over Cuba, resulting in calls from Allen Dulles to President Kennedy for air strikes and a ground invasion. Kennedy rejected those calls and fired the Dulles CIA leadership. Obama, faced by the military collapse of a CIA force in Libya, has ordered such bombing, opening a second phase of the present US debacle.
The rebel region of Cerenaica has long been the scene of Moslem brotherhood agitation against Qaddafi, much of it fomented from across the Egyptian border with US assistance. After the failed 1995 assassination attempt against the Libyan leader reported by MI-5 defector David Shayler (for which MI-6 paid £100,000 to an al Qaeda subsidiary), eastern Libya was the scene of a protracted Islamist insurrection. In the wake of events in Tunisia and Egypt, it has become clear that the CIA has stipulated a worldwide alliance against existing Arab governments with the reactionary and oligarchical Muslim brotherhood, which was created by British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), another CIA front, is trumpeting full support for the rebels on its website.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was first to recognize the Benghazi rebels, calling for a no-fly zone and air strikes a week earlier, seconded by British Prime Minister Cameron. Until about 18 hours before the UN vote, top US officials like Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates were stressing the difficulties of a no-fly zone. French Foreign Minister Juppé lamented that it was already too late for a no-fly zone. Then, the US abruptly demanded a no-fly zone plus a blank check for aerial bombing. Diplomatic observers are puzzled by Obama’s turnaround. Was he being blackmailed by the British and the French, the same imperialist coalition that invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal back in 1956? Because of Obama’s decision, the US is now at war with a fourth Moslem nation after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. In Pakistan, the simmering conflict is threatening to escalate into the open at any time in the wake of the scandal around CIA contractor Ray Davis, accused by the Pakistanis as a terrorist controller.
The Arab League, surprising many analysts, had voted unanimously for a no-fly zone over Libya. The African Union, by contrast, has resolutely opposed foreign intervention. Western diplomats have discounted the AU position, giving rise to suspicions of racism. These are reinforced by reports that the anti-Qaddafi rebels have lynched a number of black Africans, claiming that they were mercenaries hired by Qaddafi.
Interference in Libyan internal affairs violates UN Charter
Diplomatic observers were shocked by the sweeping resolution passed by the Security Council, which allows “all necessary measures” to be used against Libya. The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India abstained. The resolution contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt.
Among US officials demanding aggression, UN ambassador Susan Rice, Samantha Power of the National Security Council, and Secretary of State Clinton have shown that they are as bellicose as any neocon of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz school.
The Libyan Air Force has 13 airbases and some 374 combat capable aircraft, many of them obsolete. Military observers will be watching the performance of Qaddafi’s air defenses, thought to be based largely on older Russian SAMs. But Qaddafi also has mobile and hand-held surface to air missiles. During a 1986 bombing raid on Tripoli aimed at killing Qaddafi, the US lost one F-111 to Libyan fire. The Libyan Defense Ministry has warned that Libya would retaliate against incursions by striking at air and maritime traffic over the central Mediterranean. In 1986, Libya fired two Scud missiles at the US Coast Guard station on the Italian island of Lampedusa, but both missed. Whether Qaddafi has used his immense oil revenues to procure more capable modern anti-ship missiles of Russian design is another question that may be answered soon. A further problem for the aggressors is the March 19 supermoon, which will illuminate the night sky for several days; the preferred time for air attacks is the dark of the new moon.
The propaganda choreography of the current aggression, designed to mask Obama’s warmonger role, requires the right-wing leaders of Britain and France, the Suez 1956 partners, to take the lead. Obama has assumed a low profile, not attending then Paris conference, not making a formal Oval Office address to the American people, and letting the French attack first. Obama is visiting Brazil. This charade is supposed to placate the anti-US hatred of the Arab street. The result is that the inferior Anglo-French military equipment and command structures may contribute to unpleasant reverses for the aggressors, particularly if Sarkozy’s Napoleonic delusions lead him to meddle in military decisions.
The Panavia Tornados to be deployed by London are obsolete; seven (6 UK, 1 Italian) were shot down by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War twenty years ago. Eurofighter Typhoons are ultra-modern planes, but they have never been tested in real combat. The troubled French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle flies the Dassault Raffale, also largely untested in combat, plus the accident-plagued 30-year old Super-Étendard. Mirage F1s of various vintages, none recent, are expected. This equipment is vulnerable to attrition by Qaddafi’s countermeasures.
Anglo-American propaganda portrays Qaddafi as a kleptocrat. In reality, Libya is one of the most advanced developing countries, ranking 53 on the UN Human Development Index, making it the most developed society in Africa. Libya ranks ahead of Russia (65), Ukraine (69), Brazil (73), Venezuela (75) and Tunisia (81). The rate of incarceration is 61st in the world, below that of the Czech Republic, and far below that of the United States (1). Longevity has increased by 20 years under Qaddafi’s rule. Qaddafi, while suppressing political challenges, had shared the nation’s oil income better than the rest of OPEC.
US bureaucratic resistance to the imperial overstretch involved in a war with Libya on top of the three existing conflicts may also have been overcome thanks to the activation of pro-British networks in the US government. If so, this would repeat a long-established pattern. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher claimed to have performed an emergency “backbone implant” on George H.W. Bush, convincing him to retake Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. In 1999, Tony Blair pressed for the bombing of Serbia and then for a ground invasion; Clinton wisely declined at least the latter. In September 2001, Blair helped convince Bush the younger to use the 9/11 attack as a pretext for an attack on Afghanistan.
The purpose of this attack, in the context of the CIA’s spring 2011 campaign of putsches, palace coups, color revolutions, and people power insurrections, is to cripple the ability of US client states to seek alternative arrangements through alliances with Russia, China, Iran, and other states. The CIA onslaught takes the form of an attack on the nation state itself. In 2008, Serbia was partitioned. This year, Sudan is being carved in two, while Yemen is increasingly likely to face the same fate. The UN resolution of Libya mentions Bengazi specifically, indicating the clear intent of partitioning and balkanizing this nation along an east-west division. Other countries can expect similar treatment. It is time to end the destructive cycle of color revolutions before one of them turns into a civil war in a country like Belarus, where an internal clash could easily turn into a large-scale confrontation between Russia and NATO.
Copyright © 2011 TARPLEY.net - All Rights Reserved
On BBC Radio 5 Live this morning the No Fly Zone had been magically transformed into a Non Combat Zone, and William
Cameron the Inglorious has also privately twisted the goal of UN SCR 1973 from humanitarian intervention into ousting Gaddafi to protect British national security.
So I repost this analysis by Webster Tarpley. Of particular interest is a paragraph towards the end in which is quoted the UN Human Development Index of some relevant nations;
Libya 53
Russia 63
Brazil 73
Russia and Brazil did not veto UN SCR 1973.
But what I don't fully understand is why Russia and China would stab Libya in the back. Nobody is going to trust Russia and China now. Why would they? They have basically given a green light to NATO to invade North Africa, haven't they?
======================
From http://tarpley.net/2011/03/19/obamas-bay-of-pigs-in-libya/
Obama’s Bay of Pigs in Libya: Imperialist Aggression Shreds UN Charter
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
March 19, 2011
Washington DC, March 19 – Late today US and British cruise missiles joined with French and other NATO combat aircraft in Operation Odyssey Dawn/Operation Ellamy, a neo-imperialist bombing attack under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Acting under UN Security Council resolution 1973, US naval forces in the Mediterranean on Saturday night local time fired 112 cruise missiles at targets which the Pentagon claimed were related to Libya’s air defense system. But Mohammed al-Zawi, the Secretary General of the Libyan Parliament, told a Tripoli press conference that the “barbaric armed attack” and “savage aggression” had hit residential areas and office buildings as well as military targets, filling the hospitals of Tripoli and Misurata with civilian victims. Zawi accused the foreign powers of acting to protect a rebel leadership which contains notorious terrorist elements. The Libyan government repeated its request for the UN to send international observers to report objectively on events in Libya.
The attacking forces are expected to deploy more cruise missiles, Predator drones, and bombers, seeking to destroy the Libyan air defense system as a prelude to the systematic decimation of Libyan ground units. International observers have noted that US intelligence about Libya may be substandard, and that many cruise missiles may indeed have struck non-military targets.
Libya had responded to the UN vote by declaring a cease-fire, but Obama and Cameron brushed that aside. On Saturday, France 24 and al-Jazeera of Qatar, international propaganda networks hyping the attacks, broadcast hysterical reports of Qaddafi’s forces allegedly attacking the rebel stronghold of Bengazi. They showed a picture of a jet fighter being shot down and claimed this proved Qaddafi was defying the UN by keeping up his air strikes. It later turned out that the destroyed plane had belonged to the rebel air force. Such coverage provided justification for the bombing attacks starting a few hours later. The parallels to the Kuwait incubator babies hoax of 1990 were evident. Qaddafi loyalists said Saturday’s fighting was caused by rebel assaults on government lines in the hopes of provoking an air attack, plus local residents defending themselves against the rebels.
At the UN vote, the Indian delegate correctly pointed out that the decision to start the war had been made on the basis of no reliable information whatsoever, since UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s envoy to Libya had never reported to the Security Council. The bombing started shortly after a glittering Paris summit “in support of the Libyan people,” where Sarkozy, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper of Canada and other imperialist politicians had strutted and postured.
Token contingents from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were supposed to take part in the attack, but were nowhere to be seen, while some Arab states were expected to provide financial support. The minimum estimated cost of maintaining a no-fly zone over Libya for one year is estimated in the neighborhood of $15 billion – enough to fund WIC high-protein meals for impoverished US mothers and infants for two years.
From no-fly zone to regime change
The alleged purpose of the bombing was to establish a no-fly zone and to protect a force of CIA-sponsored Libyan rebels composed of the Moslem Brotherhood, elements of the Libyan government and army subverted by the CIA (including such sinister figures as former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and former Interior Minister Fattah Younis), and monarchist Senussi tribesmen holding the cities of Benghazi and Tobruk. But twin Friday ultimatums by President Obama and British premier Cameron, plus a speech by Harper, made clear that the goal was the ouster of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi and regime change in the North African oil-producing nation, whose proven reserves of crude are the largest on that continent.
Prospects for military success are uncertain, despite the apparent NATO preponderance. No clear military objective has been articulated, and disagreements about the scope of the war are likely. If Qaddafi’s tanks and infantry are engaged in house to house battles with the rebels in cities like Bengazi and Tobruk, it will be hard for NATO to bring its air superiority to bear without massacring large numbers of civilians.
From hope and change to shock and awe
While Obama’s action is being widely compared to the Bush-Cheney 2003 attack on Iraq, parallels to the April 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco are also strong. In that instance, a force of anti-Castro Cubans organized by the CIA was militarily defeated in an attempt to take over Cuba, resulting in calls from Allen Dulles to President Kennedy for air strikes and a ground invasion. Kennedy rejected those calls and fired the Dulles CIA leadership. Obama, faced by the military collapse of a CIA force in Libya, has ordered such bombing, opening a second phase of the present US debacle.
The rebel region of Cerenaica has long been the scene of Moslem brotherhood agitation against Qaddafi, much of it fomented from across the Egyptian border with US assistance. After the failed 1995 assassination attempt against the Libyan leader reported by MI-5 defector David Shayler (for which MI-6 paid £100,000 to an al Qaeda subsidiary), eastern Libya was the scene of a protracted Islamist insurrection. In the wake of events in Tunisia and Egypt, it has become clear that the CIA has stipulated a worldwide alliance against existing Arab governments with the reactionary and oligarchical Muslim brotherhood, which was created by British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), another CIA front, is trumpeting full support for the rebels on its website.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was first to recognize the Benghazi rebels, calling for a no-fly zone and air strikes a week earlier, seconded by British Prime Minister Cameron. Until about 18 hours before the UN vote, top US officials like Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates were stressing the difficulties of a no-fly zone. French Foreign Minister Juppé lamented that it was already too late for a no-fly zone. Then, the US abruptly demanded a no-fly zone plus a blank check for aerial bombing. Diplomatic observers are puzzled by Obama’s turnaround. Was he being blackmailed by the British and the French, the same imperialist coalition that invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal back in 1956? Because of Obama’s decision, the US is now at war with a fourth Moslem nation after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. In Pakistan, the simmering conflict is threatening to escalate into the open at any time in the wake of the scandal around CIA contractor Ray Davis, accused by the Pakistanis as a terrorist controller.
The Arab League, surprising many analysts, had voted unanimously for a no-fly zone over Libya. The African Union, by contrast, has resolutely opposed foreign intervention. Western diplomats have discounted the AU position, giving rise to suspicions of racism. These are reinforced by reports that the anti-Qaddafi rebels have lynched a number of black Africans, claiming that they were mercenaries hired by Qaddafi.
Interference in Libyan internal affairs violates UN Charter
Diplomatic observers were shocked by the sweeping resolution passed by the Security Council, which allows “all necessary measures” to be used against Libya. The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India abstained. The resolution contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt.
Among US officials demanding aggression, UN ambassador Susan Rice, Samantha Power of the National Security Council, and Secretary of State Clinton have shown that they are as bellicose as any neocon of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz school.
The Libyan Air Force has 13 airbases and some 374 combat capable aircraft, many of them obsolete. Military observers will be watching the performance of Qaddafi’s air defenses, thought to be based largely on older Russian SAMs. But Qaddafi also has mobile and hand-held surface to air missiles. During a 1986 bombing raid on Tripoli aimed at killing Qaddafi, the US lost one F-111 to Libyan fire. The Libyan Defense Ministry has warned that Libya would retaliate against incursions by striking at air and maritime traffic over the central Mediterranean. In 1986, Libya fired two Scud missiles at the US Coast Guard station on the Italian island of Lampedusa, but both missed. Whether Qaddafi has used his immense oil revenues to procure more capable modern anti-ship missiles of Russian design is another question that may be answered soon. A further problem for the aggressors is the March 19 supermoon, which will illuminate the night sky for several days; the preferred time for air attacks is the dark of the new moon.
The propaganda choreography of the current aggression, designed to mask Obama’s warmonger role, requires the right-wing leaders of Britain and France, the Suez 1956 partners, to take the lead. Obama has assumed a low profile, not attending then Paris conference, not making a formal Oval Office address to the American people, and letting the French attack first. Obama is visiting Brazil. This charade is supposed to placate the anti-US hatred of the Arab street. The result is that the inferior Anglo-French military equipment and command structures may contribute to unpleasant reverses for the aggressors, particularly if Sarkozy’s Napoleonic delusions lead him to meddle in military decisions.
The Panavia Tornados to be deployed by London are obsolete; seven (6 UK, 1 Italian) were shot down by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War twenty years ago. Eurofighter Typhoons are ultra-modern planes, but they have never been tested in real combat. The troubled French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle flies the Dassault Raffale, also largely untested in combat, plus the accident-plagued 30-year old Super-Étendard. Mirage F1s of various vintages, none recent, are expected. This equipment is vulnerable to attrition by Qaddafi’s countermeasures.
Anglo-American propaganda portrays Qaddafi as a kleptocrat. In reality, Libya is one of the most advanced developing countries, ranking 53 on the UN Human Development Index, making it the most developed society in Africa. Libya ranks ahead of Russia (65), Ukraine (69), Brazil (73), Venezuela (75) and Tunisia (81). The rate of incarceration is 61st in the world, below that of the Czech Republic, and far below that of the United States (1). Longevity has increased by 20 years under Qaddafi’s rule. Qaddafi, while suppressing political challenges, had shared the nation’s oil income better than the rest of OPEC.
US bureaucratic resistance to the imperial overstretch involved in a war with Libya on top of the three existing conflicts may also have been overcome thanks to the activation of pro-British networks in the US government. If so, this would repeat a long-established pattern. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher claimed to have performed an emergency “backbone implant” on George H.W. Bush, convincing him to retake Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. In 1999, Tony Blair pressed for the bombing of Serbia and then for a ground invasion; Clinton wisely declined at least the latter. In September 2001, Blair helped convince Bush the younger to use the 9/11 attack as a pretext for an attack on Afghanistan.
The purpose of this attack, in the context of the CIA’s spring 2011 campaign of putsches, palace coups, color revolutions, and people power insurrections, is to cripple the ability of US client states to seek alternative arrangements through alliances with Russia, China, Iran, and other states. The CIA onslaught takes the form of an attack on the nation state itself. In 2008, Serbia was partitioned. This year, Sudan is being carved in two, while Yemen is increasingly likely to face the same fate. The UN resolution of Libya mentions Bengazi specifically, indicating the clear intent of partitioning and balkanizing this nation along an east-west division. Other countries can expect similar treatment. It is time to end the destructive cycle of color revolutions before one of them turns into a civil war in a country like Belarus, where an internal clash could easily turn into a large-scale confrontation between Russia and NATO.
Copyright © 2011 TARPLEY.net - All Rights Reserved
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAMERON AND GADDAFI?
Cameron the Inglorious recently accused Gaddafi of being a dictator killing his own people. But what is the difference between Cameron and Gaddafi?
Gaddafi was killing some of his own people, but they had been encouraged, armed and financed by NATO intelligence circles to rebel against him (for what purpose is not fully clear but it is at least oil but may also have something to do with an eventual attack or destabilisation of Iran).
But Cameron is also killing some of his own people, sick old people who have paid their pension and NI contributions, via the Liverpool Care Pathway in order to unnecessarily pay the private gambling debts of Nazi banks who financed his political campaign. Dead sick old people don't need pensions, and dead sick old people don't need expensive treatment.
Gaddafi was killing some of his own people, but they had been encouraged, armed and financed by NATO intelligence circles to rebel against him (for what purpose is not fully clear but it is at least oil but may also have something to do with an eventual attack or destabilisation of Iran).
But Cameron is also killing some of his own people, sick old people who have paid their pension and NI contributions, via the Liverpool Care Pathway in order to unnecessarily pay the private gambling debts of Nazi banks who financed his political campaign. Dead sick old people don't need pensions, and dead sick old people don't need expensive treatment.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
CAMERON THE INGLORIOUS WITTINGLY PROVOKES TERRORISM
Cameron The Inglorious is admitting that by attacking Libya he is risking bringing terrorism to the UK. Therefore, regime change is the only option on the table. This quickly and illegally changes the aim of UN SCR 1973.
So, in his twisted Nazi Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon mind, we should attack Libya and take out Gaddafi because if we attack Libya but Gaddafi stays in power then he might attack us with terror.
SAY WHAT?!
This is the same twisted logic that allows the Nazi gambling banks (who finance the Tory Party) to create non-existent money out of nothing and lend it to us at exorbitant rates of interest.
This is the same twisted logic that has not sent one banker to prison for what they have done to this nation and its people that they, the Tories, are so allegedly proud of.
This is the same twisted logic that permits our superbly trained doctors, trained to sustain life, to transfer sick old people onto the Liverpool Care Pathway, a road to death. I shall repeat again; dead sick old people don't need expensive treatment (even though they will have paid NI all their hard-working life for that exact reason) and dead sick old people don't need pensions (even though they will have paid NI all their hard-working life for that exact reason). So by killing sick old people the regime of Cameron the Inglorious can unnecessarily pay off the private gambling debts of the financiers of the Tory party in the City of London, home of the Rothschilds and therefore the home of violently racist Zionism.
But this is also the same twisted logic that allows Israel to slaughter the Palestinians!
Where were the UN and NATO during Operation Cast Lead?
Take Osama bin Laden. Remember him? That guy in white robes with a beard? Who allegedly did 9/11, a crime the FBI refuse to attribute to him because of lack of evidence? Whatever happened to him?
Anyway, that al-Qaeda thing he allegedly ran cited Israel's treatment of Palestine as their number one grievance. He allegedly attacked the USA on 9/11 and flew some planes into the most protected building on the planet, even after at least an hour's warning, because of it. As a result the UK and USA invaded Iraq (even though Iraq had f*** all to do with 9/11) and now control the fossil fuel-rich Middle East and Caspian Basin...
Except for Iran!
And we all know what the undead George Soros warned, about the time of the Egyptian Revolution, that Iran will suffer the bloodiest of revolutions. Iran almost fell in 2009 in the Green Revolution, another of Soros' colour revolutions.
If the application of 'humanitarian assistance' can be applied to Libyan rebels then why cannot it be applied to Gaza, and Hamas or even Hezbollah? Doing so would eliminate the major source of anger that drives Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.
I'll tell you why.
Because the singular reason for the creation and existence of Israel is to provoke terror, mass terror, terror that is global. Global terror requires global solutions, doesn't it? That's the mantra, to be repeated ten times a night every night before you climb into your bed.
Without Israel there would be no al-Qaeda.
Without Israel there would have been no 9/11.
Without Israel there would be no global police state.
That's why.
I am not saying that Jews run the world, only that the state of Israel is being used by those who do run the world to provoke tragic reactions, reactions that can then be used for war and the implementation of the global police state.
AND THEY HAVE.
What is the difference between the Palestinians who were terrorisd by Irgun etc and forced into the largest refugee camps in the world and who formed organisations like the PLO and Hamas to fight their corner and the oppressive dictatorial regime in Tel Aviv, and the Libyan rebels?
Answer : the Libyan rebels can get rid of Gaddafi and open up Libyan oil and other resources and markets to their sponsors, like NATO, MI6.
So when Cameron the Inglorious says we must invade Libya and take out Gaddafi or else we will suffer terrorism, what is he in reality saying?
He is
(1) taking the limeade out of Russia
(2) changing the goals of UN SCR 1973 to regime change
(3) risking going to war and not taking Gaddafi out with the unnecessary deaths of ordinary British men, women and children, the same people who are suffering severe austerity, in terror attacks, real or false flag, as a reprisal. In fact, I would say there is a 90% probability that any terror attack in the UK in the near future will be another 7/7; MI5 will know about it, MI5 could have stopped it, but MI5 will allow it, to continue any war on Libya and the removal if not death of Gaddafi, until the plan of Henry Kissinger has been fully implemented (which may well end in Iran).
And if you're wondering who did Pan Am 103? It was not Gaddafi. Look to some greedy corrupt faction within CIA/MI6 dealing in drugs.
ARREST HENRY KISSINGER!
ARREST ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN!
ARREST CAMERON THE INGLORIOUS!
[This blog was brought to you in full compliance with all treaties regarding the fundamental human right to freedom of expression, a right my grandfathers fought in WW2 for, and a right that is being quickly and quietly removed.]
===============================
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391109/Libya-British-could-face-terrrorist-reprisals.html
The Prime Minister told MPs that Britain’s own national security "interests" will be at risk if the Gaddafi regime survives in Tripoli.
British officials said that the Government’s leading role in international efforts to topple Gaddafi could increase the threat of reprisals from the Libyan leader and his followers.
So, in his twisted Nazi Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon mind, we should attack Libya and take out Gaddafi because if we attack Libya but Gaddafi stays in power then he might attack us with terror.
SAY WHAT?!
This is the same twisted logic that allows the Nazi gambling banks (who finance the Tory Party) to create non-existent money out of nothing and lend it to us at exorbitant rates of interest.
This is the same twisted logic that has not sent one banker to prison for what they have done to this nation and its people that they, the Tories, are so allegedly proud of.
This is the same twisted logic that permits our superbly trained doctors, trained to sustain life, to transfer sick old people onto the Liverpool Care Pathway, a road to death. I shall repeat again; dead sick old people don't need expensive treatment (even though they will have paid NI all their hard-working life for that exact reason) and dead sick old people don't need pensions (even though they will have paid NI all their hard-working life for that exact reason). So by killing sick old people the regime of Cameron the Inglorious can unnecessarily pay off the private gambling debts of the financiers of the Tory party in the City of London, home of the Rothschilds and therefore the home of violently racist Zionism.
But this is also the same twisted logic that allows Israel to slaughter the Palestinians!
Where were the UN and NATO during Operation Cast Lead?
Take Osama bin Laden. Remember him? That guy in white robes with a beard? Who allegedly did 9/11, a crime the FBI refuse to attribute to him because of lack of evidence? Whatever happened to him?
Anyway, that al-Qaeda thing he allegedly ran cited Israel's treatment of Palestine as their number one grievance. He allegedly attacked the USA on 9/11 and flew some planes into the most protected building on the planet, even after at least an hour's warning, because of it. As a result the UK and USA invaded Iraq (even though Iraq had f*** all to do with 9/11) and now control the fossil fuel-rich Middle East and Caspian Basin...
Except for Iran!
And we all know what the undead George Soros warned, about the time of the Egyptian Revolution, that Iran will suffer the bloodiest of revolutions. Iran almost fell in 2009 in the Green Revolution, another of Soros' colour revolutions.
If the application of 'humanitarian assistance' can be applied to Libyan rebels then why cannot it be applied to Gaza, and Hamas or even Hezbollah? Doing so would eliminate the major source of anger that drives Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.
I'll tell you why.
Because the singular reason for the creation and existence of Israel is to provoke terror, mass terror, terror that is global. Global terror requires global solutions, doesn't it? That's the mantra, to be repeated ten times a night every night before you climb into your bed.
Without Israel there would be no al-Qaeda.
Without Israel there would have been no 9/11.
Without Israel there would be no global police state.
That's why.
I am not saying that Jews run the world, only that the state of Israel is being used by those who do run the world to provoke tragic reactions, reactions that can then be used for war and the implementation of the global police state.
AND THEY HAVE.
What is the difference between the Palestinians who were terrorisd by Irgun etc and forced into the largest refugee camps in the world and who formed organisations like the PLO and Hamas to fight their corner and the oppressive dictatorial regime in Tel Aviv, and the Libyan rebels?
Answer : the Libyan rebels can get rid of Gaddafi and open up Libyan oil and other resources and markets to their sponsors, like NATO, MI6.
So when Cameron the Inglorious says we must invade Libya and take out Gaddafi or else we will suffer terrorism, what is he in reality saying?
He is
(1) taking the limeade out of Russia
(2) changing the goals of UN SCR 1973 to regime change
(3) risking going to war and not taking Gaddafi out with the unnecessary deaths of ordinary British men, women and children, the same people who are suffering severe austerity, in terror attacks, real or false flag, as a reprisal. In fact, I would say there is a 90% probability that any terror attack in the UK in the near future will be another 7/7; MI5 will know about it, MI5 could have stopped it, but MI5 will allow it, to continue any war on Libya and the removal if not death of Gaddafi, until the plan of Henry Kissinger has been fully implemented (which may well end in Iran).
And if you're wondering who did Pan Am 103? It was not Gaddafi. Look to some greedy corrupt faction within CIA/MI6 dealing in drugs.
ARREST HENRY KISSINGER!
ARREST ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN!
ARREST CAMERON THE INGLORIOUS!
[This blog was brought to you in full compliance with all treaties regarding the fundamental human right to freedom of expression, a right my grandfathers fought in WW2 for, and a right that is being quickly and quietly removed.]
===============================
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391109/Libya-British-could-face-terrrorist-reprisals.html
The Prime Minister told MPs that Britain’s own national security "interests" will be at risk if the Gaddafi regime survives in Tripoli.
British officials said that the Government’s leading role in international efforts to topple Gaddafi could increase the threat of reprisals from the Libyan leader and his followers.
I KNEW IT!
As soon as I saw those images of a fighter plane being shot down over Benghazi this morning I knew there was something seriously wrong.
And there was!
The rebs'shot down their own plane!
Yet the inglorious BBC was reporting that the rebs' had shot down a Gaddafi fighter!
But that doesn't matter, does it? The Nazi MI-controlled BBC only pushes Nazi propaganda like killing disabled people. It would never lie to drag us into war again, like it did over Iraq with its serious lack of journalistic integrity and sucking the cocks of the globalists, would it?
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/19/libya-live-blog-ceasefire-nofly#block-54 and read all the way down to 5.40pm.
And there was!
The rebs'shot down their own plane!
Yet the inglorious BBC was reporting that the rebs' had shot down a Gaddafi fighter!
But that doesn't matter, does it? The Nazi MI-controlled BBC only pushes Nazi propaganda like killing disabled people. It would never lie to drag us into war again, like it did over Iraq with its serious lack of journalistic integrity and sucking the cocks of the globalists, would it?
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/19/libya-live-blog-ceasefire-nofly#block-54 and read all the way down to 5.40pm.
5.40pm: French media is reporting that Benghazi rebels admit they shot down their own plane today
IF IT LOOKS LIKE REGIME CHANGE AND SOUNDS LIKE REGIME CHANGE AND SMELLS LIKE REGIME CHANGE AND TASTES LIKE REGIME CHANGE
The hastily agreed UN SCR 1973 is wide open to interpretation. The statement that no occupation shall take place looks iron clad, but still allows the possibility for short term operations by foreign special forces, such as assassination, training and logistical support.
And even now, just 24 hours after the resolution was passed, the aim of any action is rapidly morphing from humanitarian intervention into regime change. Cameron demanded that Gaddafi go.
(and yes that is the same Cameron who is killing sick old people via the Liverpool Care Pathway in order to pay for the bailouts of his Nazi friends and financiers in The City)
Craig Murray has written his analysis of UN SCR 1973[2]. Apparently a paragraph which was proposed by the UK which would have excluded the rebels from the arms embargo was dropped. But this exposes the motives of the UK. And you can bet your last SDR that they are at this very minute at least advising the rebels, if not training and arming them, in direct contravention of the resolution.
And now Russia is trying to wriggle out of allowing NATO and its allies to takeover North Africa, warning against a large scale invasion and stating that they were given assurances that no large scale military operation would take place[3], yet no agreement was reached as to how exactly the no fly zone would be implemented. If NATO is Not A Trustworthy Organisation and we see an invasion of Libya, then again Russia will have egg on its face, so much egg that one could start to wonder just who really does run Russia..
[1] Gaddafi told 'Your time is up',http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367764/Gaddafi-told-Your-time-British-jets-prepare-lead-UN-force-Libyan-dictator.html
[2] Military Action Against Libya Is Not Illegal, Not About Democracy and Very Limited, http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/
[3] Russia warns of "full-scale military action" following Security Council vote on Libya, http://rt.com/politics/libya-russia-security-council-un/
And even now, just 24 hours after the resolution was passed, the aim of any action is rapidly morphing from humanitarian intervention into regime change. Cameron demanded that Gaddafi go.
It is almost impossible to envisage a future for Libya that includes him. Gaddafi must go, he has no legitimacy.[1]
(and yes that is the same Cameron who is killing sick old people via the Liverpool Care Pathway in order to pay for the bailouts of his Nazi friends and financiers in The City)
Craig Murray has written his analysis of UN SCR 1973[2]. Apparently a paragraph which was proposed by the UK which would have excluded the rebels from the arms embargo was dropped. But this exposes the motives of the UK. And you can bet your last SDR that they are at this very minute at least advising the rebels, if not training and arming them, in direct contravention of the resolution.
And now Russia is trying to wriggle out of allowing NATO and its allies to takeover North Africa, warning against a large scale invasion and stating that they were given assurances that no large scale military operation would take place[3], yet no agreement was reached as to how exactly the no fly zone would be implemented. If NATO is Not A Trustworthy Organisation and we see an invasion of Libya, then again Russia will have egg on its face, so much egg that one could start to wonder just who really does run Russia..
[1] Gaddafi told 'Your time is up',http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367764/Gaddafi-told-Your-time-British-jets-prepare-lead-UN-force-Libyan-dictator.html
[2] Military Action Against Libya Is Not Illegal, Not About Democracy and Very Limited, http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/
[3] Russia warns of "full-scale military action" following Security Council vote on Libya, http://rt.com/politics/libya-russia-security-council-un/
Friday, March 18, 2011
TRILLIONS HAVE GONE MISSING
Trillions have gone missing.
On the day before 9/11 Rumsfeld stated a few trillion could not be accounted for. On 9/11, nobody cared. they wanted only revenge.
Trillions have been given to the banks. When asked where it has gone, we were told to f*** off.
How can such fraud go unprosecuted?
With continuous war and terror threats.
On the day before 9/11 Rumsfeld stated a few trillion could not be accounted for. On 9/11, nobody cared. they wanted only revenge.
Trillions have been given to the banks. When asked where it has gone, we were told to f*** off.
How can such fraud go unprosecuted?
With continuous war and terror threats.
THERE IS SOMETHING NOT QUITE RIGHT ABOUT THE CURRENT ACTIONS IN LIBYA
Gadaffi was portrayed as satan, blamed for almost everything.
But then JP Morgan Chase consultant and Bilderberg Boy Blair brought Gaddafi/satan in from the cold. He signed oil exploration deals with Bilderberg Inc., and the alleged Pan Am 103 bomber was released on grounds of compassion as he was allegedly suffering from terminal cancer.
But now he is being driven out of power, in a power play that Kissinger predicted, along with a few other agents, and nothing is being done about them.
However, what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East is driving up the price of oil.
There is something not right about this, but I don't know what at the moment.
But then JP Morgan Chase consultant and Bilderberg Boy Blair brought Gaddafi/satan in from the cold. He signed oil exploration deals with Bilderberg Inc., and the alleged Pan Am 103 bomber was released on grounds of compassion as he was allegedly suffering from terminal cancer.
But now he is being driven out of power, in a power play that Kissinger predicted, along with a few other agents, and nothing is being done about them.
However, what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East is driving up the price of oil.
There is something not right about this, but I don't know what at the moment.
BILDERBERG NATO CHIEF GETS INTO THE SPIRIT OF COMIC RELIEF
Today is Red Nose Day. We joke. We laugh. We donate. The aim is to wipe out poverty and misery and drudgery and slavery and sadness around the world with a few tens of millions of pounds.
Meanwhile, we can somehow immediately bailout the gambling Nazi banks with trillions?!
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the SecGen of NATO, has issued a blog greeting the UN SC Res 1973 to legalise military action on Libya, which is in this spirit of comedy.
This man is literally and legally responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women and children, not just in Afghanistan but also in Gaza.
He should be arrested immediately, along with Henry Kissinger, and tried for crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, we can somehow immediately bailout the gambling Nazi banks with trillions?!
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the SecGen of NATO, has issued a blog greeting the UN SC Res 1973 to legalise military action on Libya, which is in this spirit of comedy.
This man is literally and legally responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women and children, not just in Afghanistan but also in Gaza.
He should be arrested immediately, along with Henry Kissinger, and tried for crimes against humanity.
NATO WILL BETRAY ANY AGREEMENT REACHED AT UNITED NATIONS HQ
Perhaps Russia knows it too.
NATO (Never A Trustworthy Organisation, North Africa Takeover Organisation, NArco Terrorist Organisation) will betray any agreement reached at the United Nations last night so that Russia would not veto the No Fly Zone over Libya.
Russia should know how NATO betrays. NATO uses flight corridors over Russia to support operations in Afghanistan. In return Russia expected NATO to destroy the Afghan opium racket. Guess what?
The betrayal will not be immediate.
The betrayal will not be blatant.
No.
The betrayal will be delayed, subtle, perhaps even gentle, delivered with the casuality of a professional assassin making love to his victim.
Gaddafi recently stated to Russia Today that he would be developing business relations with Russia, China and Germany[1]. Yet all three abstained last night. WHY?
WHAT AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED IN SECRET?
What agreements will NATO betray?
Has this war been agreed to distract from Fukushima and the poisoning of the world?
[1] Libya’s Gaddafi hunting for enemies and friends alike, http://rt.com/politics/gaddafi-libya-west-un/
NATO (Never A Trustworthy Organisation, North Africa Takeover Organisation, NArco Terrorist Organisation) will betray any agreement reached at the United Nations last night so that Russia would not veto the No Fly Zone over Libya.
Russia should know how NATO betrays. NATO uses flight corridors over Russia to support operations in Afghanistan. In return Russia expected NATO to destroy the Afghan opium racket. Guess what?
The betrayal will not be immediate.
The betrayal will not be blatant.
No.
The betrayal will be delayed, subtle, perhaps even gentle, delivered with the casuality of a professional assassin making love to his victim.
Gaddafi recently stated to Russia Today that he would be developing business relations with Russia, China and Germany[1]. Yet all three abstained last night. WHY?
WHAT AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED IN SECRET?
What agreements will NATO betray?
Has this war been agreed to distract from Fukushima and the poisoning of the world?
[1] Libya’s Gaddafi hunting for enemies and friends alike, http://rt.com/politics/gaddafi-libya-west-un/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)