George Orwell’s guide to the news ……….

http://dprogram.net

November 29th, 2011

(RussiaToday) – The Western mainstream media falsifies the news resorting to euphemisms, half-truths and lies in the best (worst) style of George Orwell’s novel 1984. We all live in the unreal world of “Newspeak” used by the Global Power Elite to control our minds.

Man gets confused when things that happen around him and to him, or which are done in his name, cannot be properly grasped, understood or made sense of. Normally, such confusion leads to inaction. If you’re lost at night in the middle of a forest but you can still see the stars, then a bit of astronomical knowledge will at least quickly tell you which way is north. But if it’s cloudy or you’re ignorant of the constellations in starry heaven, then you might as well light up a fire and do nothing until dawn…. You’re Lost!

Today, mainstream media coverage uses programmed distortion, confusion, even outright lying when its Money Power masters order it to support the “official story” on any major political, economic or financial process. When looked at closely, however, the “official story” of things can be seen to be inaccurate, misleading, often hardly believable if not downright stupid.

Examples of this: Iraq’s inexistent WMD’s leading to the invasion and destruction of that country; global mega-banker bail-outs with taxpayer money; irrational US diplomatic, military, financial and ideological alignment to Israeli objectives; “we-killed-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-dumped-his-body-into-the-sea”; and the wide array of “whodunits” surrounding 9/11 in New York and Washington, 7/7 in London, the AMIA/Israeli Embassy attacks in Buenos Aires in 1992/1994, and – of course – that all time favorite: who shot JFK…?

These are but a few of the paradigmatic cases that have at least served to trigger millions of people to wake up and think with their own minds instead of the mainstream media’s! But unfortunately the vast majority of such cases are not so clear-cut. The vast majority of Newspeak lies are like knots, difficult to untie as they carry built-in complexity resembling Gordian Knots. And, as with all Gordian Knots, you need to cut right through them, and this requires swift and precise action plus a good measure of intellectual courage.

To give an example of what we say, let’s take a quick look at how a “Newspeak” operation works. It requires sequential planning, it requires time, it requires proper logistics, it requires “credible” spokespeople in public and private sectors, it requires choosing the right words and images at the right time and in the right circumstances.

So, let’s say the Global Power Elite – working through the governments of the US, UK, EU into which they are deeply embedded, and joint-venturing with a wide array of media outlets, defense companies, oil companies, security and construction companies, and powerful lobbies – decide that they wish to overrun and destroy a specific country… Libya, for example…

How do they ensure that “the international community” will just quietly look on (except for the still relatively small minority of voices that are increasingly raising hell against them)?

The Seven Step Mainstream Media Country Destruction Guide

1. First, they start by targeting a country ripe for “Regime Change”, and brand it a “rogue state”; then…

2. They arm, train, finance local terrorist groups through CIA, MI6, Mossad, Al-Qaeda (a CIA operation), drug cartels (often CIA operations) and call them “freedom fighters”; then…

3. As mock UN Security Council Resolutions are staged that rain death and destruction upon millions of civilians, they call it “UN sanctions to protect civilians”; then…

4. They spread flagrant lies through their “newsrooms” and paid journalists, and call it “the international community’s concerns expressed by prestigious spokespeople and analysts…” then…

5. They bomb, invade and begin to control the target country and call it “liberation”; then…

6. As the target country falls fully under their control, they impose “the kind of democracy that we want to see” (as Hillary Clinton before visiting Egypt and Tunisia on March 10, 2011), until finally…

7. They steal appetizing oil, mineral and agricultural reserves handing them over to Global Power Elite corporations, and impose unnecessary private banking debt and call it “foreign investment and reconstruction.”

Their keynotes are: Force and Hypocrisy, which they have used time and again to destroy entire countries, always in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”. Utmost force and violence is used to achieve their ends and goals.

Their Elders recommended this many decades ago in a blueprint for World Domination written on a hoary manuscript of old…

“What did you say…? That you don’t want to be ‘liberated’ and ‘democratized’?!?”

“Then, take this Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Berlin, Dresden, Baghdad, and Basra!! Take that Tokyo, Gaza, Lebanon, Kabul, Pakistan, Tripoli, Belgrade, Egypt, El Salvador and Grenada!! And take that, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Somalia, Africa!!”

Always bombing people to smithereens… Always, of course, in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”

Adrian Salbuchi for RT

Source: Russia Today

NATO ‘protection of civilians’ – propaganda and pretence to escape war crimes trials ………

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org

posted on October 4, 2011 by HRI Mark

As is now well documented, the rebellion in Libya began with violent attacks on police stations, such as this one in Al-Bayda where people locked inside were reportedly burnt to death:

An intensive propaganda campaign systematically distorted the facts on the ground, including in particular allegations that the Libyan airforce was bombing peaceful protestors and that Libyan soldiers were being massacred for not shooting on unarmed protestors (since proven to have been a false flag operation). This propaganada allowed a mobilisation of the international community and the passing of UN Resolution 1973 which imposed the No-Fly Zone.

It is UN Resolution 1973 which NATO argues provides the legal basis for the coalition operation in Libya as NATO makes clear in their Factsheet on Operation Unified Protector:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 mandates “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack. In line with this authorisation, NATO conducts reconnaissance, surveillance and information-gathering operations to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians and civilian-populated areas.

Notwithstanding this NATO supported the rebels as they escalated the level of violence directed against those who opposed them, civilians and guest workers with attacks using Grad rockets, artillery, tanks and mortars - in fact any weapons that could be looted from arms dumps or supplied by NATO, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Here is an early example from Misrata of rebel forces nonchantly firing mortars, in between drinking cups of tea:

With the brutal assault on Sirte, which is facing a bombardment from the air, surpassing Guernica, the indiscriminate assaults on civilian areas are now being taken to a higher level:

As we have seen, NATO’s official justification for their operations includes a requirement “to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians or civilian-populated areas.”

Commander of Allied Air Command Izmir, Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II (U.S. Air Force)

Furthermore the justification includes this:
Targeting depends on the decisions of operational commanders. Targets struck to date have included tanks, armoured personnel carriers, air-defence systems and artillery around and approaching key civilian areas including Misrata, Ajdabiyah and Zintan. [My emphasis]

Yet clearly NATO is supporting the rebel use of tanks and artillery around and approaching the key civilian area of Sirte; indeed NATO and its allies are almost certainly supplying the ammunition for these big guns.

Many journalists are having trouble processing this information, let alone communicating it to their readership, as it does not fit in with the overriding paradigm of an operation “intended to protect civilians.”

@Skytwitius
Tim Marshall

#Libya NTC fighters are shelling built up area of Sirte where there are civilians. Perhaps NATO will reread UN Res 1973 ‘protect civilians’.

September 28, 2011 14:50 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

It remains to be seen, which journalists have the intelligence to realise that the old paradigm is dead and the courage to communicate this fact to their readers. A new paradigm is required, a new framework to understand the NATO war on Libya, one which recognises that the mantra of “responsibity to protect civilians” which NATO repeats at every press conference and in every press release is nothing more than:

1) A propaganda device, aimed at the fooling the public into supporting a war of aggression.

2) A legal device whereby the NATO command seeks to escape responsibility for war crimes.

.

Major General Chief Of Military Intelligence Says 911 Is An Inside Job ……..

Western Troops in Libya !! …….

Watch carefully the two Guys in the back ,as soon as one sees the TV camera he ducks and try to hide!

Qaddafi doesn’t have a government, therefore that government can’t fall …..

Voltaire Network | 20 September 2011

Summary of leader Muammar Gaddafi’s statement made in an audio message broadcast on Syria’s Arrai television on Tuesday, 20 September:

“All should be aware that the government of Libya is the Jamahiriya government, that the power belongs to the men and women of the Popular Conferences and the People’s Committees in Libya. This Government by the People will never fail nor fall. It embodies the millions of Libyans and for that reason it can’t fall. Anyone who says Qaddafi’s government has fallen is nothing but ridiculous and a joke. Qaddafi doesn’t have a government, therefore that government can’t fall.

Qaddafi is out of power since 1977 when I have passed the power to the People’s Committees of the Jamahiriya. When 2,000 tribes meet and declare that only the Libyan people represent Libya, doesn’t that say enough?

This is the answer to NATO which has said the National Transitional Council from Benghazi represents the Libyan people. The Libyan people are here and they are with me, nobody can represent us. So no legitimacy to anything else or anyone else, the power belongs to the people. All Libyans are members of the People’s Committees. Anything else is false.

What is happening now in Libya is a charade which can only take place because of the NATO air raids, which will not last forever. When they have left the traitors will be gone too. We are ready to die for the Power of the People. This is what we stand for and this is what our martyrs have been standing for.”

The remarks came ahead of the first talks between US President Barack Obama and Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the head of the National Transitional Council (NTC).

.

9/11 TRUTH: Jewish Ex-Marine SPEAKS OUT on Israeli Involvement (MUST WATCH) …….

September 14th, 2011

(PressTV)

Video Israel DOES NOT want you to see and the U.S. Mainstream Media WON’T SHOW YOU.

 

2011 Interview of Alan Sabrosky regarding 9/11 truth. – September 4th, 2011

Former Malaysian PM: ‘Bush lied about 9/11 terror attacks’ ………

Voltaire Network | 10 September 2011

Mahathir Mohamad says it is not unthinkable for former US President George W. Bush to lie about who was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on the American soil. [Editor’s note: Then-Prime Minister Mohamad is shown in the photo (L) with William Rodriguez, 9/11 hero and the "last man out" of the Towers at a private 9/11 presentation.]

In a post published in his personal blog chedet on Friday, former Malaysian prime minister said that the attacks on the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan, New York City, and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, could not have been carried out by Muslims. The acts of violence could have rather been the work of other groups.

The Malaysian politician pointed out that “for some Americans, the deaths of nearly 3,000 people was not the scariest thing about 9/11. It was realizing who carried out the attack: yes, the American Government.”

Mohamad said although Arab Muslims are angry enough to sacrifice their lives and become bombers, they are not capable of planning and strategizing attacks similar to the 9/11 ones.

“The planning [for the 9/11 attacks] must have taken a considerable length of time. The candidates had to learn to fly in tiny aircrafts…. Planning to hijack four aircraft simultaneously would require great precision in timing and logistics. One aircraft maybe. But four simultaneously!! I don’t think extremists from Saudi Arabia can carry out this highly sophisticated operation with such success,” former Malaysian prime minister commented.

Turning to the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers, he said, “They came down nicely upon themselves without toppling against the other buildings close by. It looks more like planned demolition of buildings than collapse consequent upon being hit by aircraft.”

Mohamad stated, “A third building also collapsed in the same fashion; although it was not hit by any aircraft. What is the explanation for this untouched building, which collapsed upon itself and did not damage other buildings nearby?”

He also questioned the total disappearance of the aircraft, which hit the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia. “There was no debris of any kind, no broken parts of the aircraft, no black box, and no human bodies flung into the surroundings. Is it possible for an aircraft to vaporize totally after a crash?” former Malaysian prime minister said.

Mohamad further raised questions over the loss of the fourth aircraft, which was supposed to have crashed in an open field. “Again no sign of any debris. No big crater. Did it vaporize into nothingness? Did the innocent passengers also vaporize?” he stated.

The Malaysian politician noted that the American press was strangely silent about 9/11 attacks.

He also emphasized that Bush is the one that lied about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. “The legacy of the former US president is that two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) have been devastated, and fratricidal wars have become endemic. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans and a few thousand of young American soldiers have died. Thousands more are wounded, maimed for life, and suffering from mental breakdowns,” Mohamad pointed out.

Former Malaysian prime minister also said that human lives do not seem to mean much to the former US president.

.

Secret Gaddafi Files Show U.S. Helping Both Sides in Libya …….

Pentagon vs Cameron :Somebody lies here ! …….

first watch this :

David Cameron’s Libya statement in full

Monday, 5 September 2011 17:16 UK

and then read this :

R2P: “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “Fired on his Own People”

Read the Pentagon transcript
Global Research, June 3, 2011
Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi  “fired on his own people from the air”The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians. Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon. On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “admitted their utter ignorance as to what’s happening on the ground in Libya” (for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors’ Justice and the “Responsibility to Protect”: Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011) Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance. Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. PENTAGON BRIEFING WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MODERATOR: COLONEL DAVID LAPAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MEDIA OPERATIONS LOCATION: PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA TIME: 2:44 P.M. EST DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 Federal News Service March 1, 2011 Tuesday Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What — is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces? SEC. GATES: … I would — I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully. Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we’re thinking about, the options that we’re providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that. Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent? SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying? SEC. GATES: Well, the — I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are. Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes — (inaudible) — have you heard of any of that? SEC. GATES: No. …. Q: Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, based on what you’ve seen to date, do you have any reason to think that Gadhafi would be prepared to leave voluntarily, or do you think that some form of force, whether it is rebels, whether ultimately it’s U.N. sanctions, Western intervention, whether some form of force would be needed to push him out of power? SEC. GATES: Well, all I can say is that sometimes you actually have to listen to what people say. And he’s saying he’s not leaving. (Scattered laughter.) .

Thierry Meyssan on the Invasion of Tripoli – Critical Eyewitness account (English) (Sept 2, 2011) ……..

.

Amnesty and racist rebel atrocities in Libya

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org

Posted on August 31, 2011 by HRI Mark

 

On the 12th July, Human Rights Investigations wrote:

“Given the atrocities committed in Misrata and Benghazi the option of allowing the rebels to conquer pro-Gaddafi population centres is inconceivable – there is now only one option – and that option is peace.”

Well, Mr Anders Fogh Rasmussen and NATO did not agree and the atrocities we feared are unfolding.

Amnesty today report on the killing of black and dark-skinned people in Libya after Amnesty workers personally see them targetted in Tripoli. The article clearly recognises this is part of a bigger pattern:

An Amnesty delegation visiting the Central Tripoli Hospital on Monday witnessed three thuwwar revolutionaries (as the opposition fighters are commonly known) dragging a black patient from the western town of Tawargha from his bed and detaining him. The men were in civilian clothing.

(Tawargha is the town south of Misrata about which HRI has MAJOR concerns as the inhabitants – whose fate is unknown – were dark-skinned.)

The thuwwar said the man would be taken to Misratah for questioning, arguing that interrogators in Tripoli “let killers free”. Two other black Libyans receiving treatment in the hospital for gunshot wounds were warned by the anti-Gaddafi forces that “their turn was coming”.

The delegation also witnessed a group of thuwwar beating a man outside the hospital. The man, in distress, was shouting “I am not a fifth columnist”, a reference to al-Gaddafi loyalists.

Amnesty International’s Diana Eltahawy on CNN (after the Alex Thomson report we covered before)

From the start of the Libyan rebellion black people in Libya have been attacked and lynched by rebel mobs. This has been known by human rights groups and the United Nations as well as by the intelligence agencies, military forces, media and political leaders in the NATO countries – but they have generally kept a lid on it because it does not suit the narrative.

It does not suit the narrative of an oppressed people standing up against tyranny and for human rights to find rebel lynch mobs targetting black people, lynching them and ethnically cleansing them. Human Rights Investigations has documented that these lynchings even happened at rebel HQ in Benghazi.

Below is graphic footage of another lynching – and as with other incidents we see large numbers of rebel supporters involved. HRI has far more graphic footage including Al Qaeda-style beheadings which we are keeping back as evidence. (Note for those submitting material: please provide information regarding provenance, time, place, perpetrators, victims and witnesses and soundtracks where possible)

WARNING:GRAPHIC VIDEO

Where reports of racial atrocities have reached the media, the story has been that the victims are “African mercenaries” despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Amnesty workers on the ground have reported that the widespread allegations of African mercenaries have little or no basis in fact – but this information has been suppressed and the fears of African mercenaries, extremely useful to the rebel side, have been whipped up by the media and NATO politicians such as UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox.

The rebel commander in Misrata threatened to ethnically cleanse Tawergha, the town to the south of Misrata occupied mainly by dark-skinned people – months later that object seems to have been achieved with direct air support from NATO – yet the crime has been ignored.

The entry of the rebel brigade from Misrata – which the Wall Street Journal reports calls itself the “brigade to purge black skin, slaves” into Tripoli, enabled by NATO, led to inevitable round-ups of black people, massacres and abuses of human rights including the slaughter of patients in the Abu Salim hospital.

Well, today are Amnesty reporting some of the facts in Tripoli although whether this will reach the mainstream media is another question.

Today, Amnesty also report some earlier incidents they witnessed recently:

On 29 August, Amnesty examined the body of an unidentified black man at the Tripoli Medical Centre morgue. He was brought into the morgue earlier that morning by unknown men. His feet and his torso were tied. He bore no visible injuries, but had blood smudged around his mouth. The state of his body pointed to a recent death. No autopsy report was available, and no identification documents were found on him.

On 28 August, Amnesty visited a group of Eritreans hiding in their home in a poor Tripoli neighbourhood. They told the organisation that they were staying indoors for fear of violent attacks. Their situation was particularly dire given the absence of electricity and running water.

It has now become clear that the Al Qaeda /Ku Klux Klan types who have taken over in Tripoli, and the rebels generally, are not as welcoming to human rights workers, UN observers and the whole panoply of western intervention as it appeared they might be when they were primarily concerned with spreading pro-rebel propaganda.

The dam holding back reporting of these incidents has been breaking in recent days as many journalists are in Tripoli and commendable individuals within the media corps have been prepared to report honestly about the situation. It is to be hoped that information about rebel crimes does not continue to be suppressed, reports delayed, excuses found and the black people of Libya betrayed.

The full coverage of rebel racist crimes is essential to protect the population in Tripoli and the prisoners and also because many black people in Libya live in the south of the country. It is the south (including Sabha in Fezzan) that will be attacked by NATO and the rebels in the coming weeks. Racist atrocities will follow and public pressure on the decision-makers has to be mobilised to try and prevent it happening.

9/11: Gordon Duff Discusses New Video of Cruise Missile Attack on Press TV ……

http://www.veteranstoday.com

1Share

‘Pentagon attacked by a cruise missile not a passenger plane’

Leaked videos of the 9/11 attack against the Pentagon confirm eyewitness accounts that the attack was not carried out by a passenger plane as officially stated but was rather the work of a cruise missile hitting the building from a different angle.
YouTube – Veterans Today -

“There were 85 videos; a second video was released yesterday (August 29). Now it hasn’t been carefully vetted but it appears to be quite genuine that clearly shows a cruise missile from another angle hitting the Pentagon,” Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today, told Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Tuesday.

The people at the scene of the attack including CNN reporters say that they saw no plane wreckage following the attack, Duff added.

He said there are “reliable reports” from airline pilots stating that it would be “impossible” for the plane and any pilot including the top air force and navy pilots and the Top Gun instructors to have flown a plane to have accomplished what was accomplished.

“We have engineers at Boeing the company that manufactured the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon that say it couldn’t fly that fast, it can’t fly that low, it can’t make those turns and it couldn’t have been there,” the investigative journalist added.

He further said that other physical evidence gathered at the scene of the attack against the Pentagon all indicate that it could not have been carried out by a passenger plane. Duff concluded that “it is our belief that members of the U.S. government and one other foreign government were complicit in the planning and execution of the attacks on 9/11.”

.

comment from admin. “as for me ; it was allways a cruise missile that hit the pentagon” !

.

NATO’s War on Libya is a Progaganda Fest

http://dailycensored.com

Written by admin World News

Aug 28, 2011

By Peter Phillips

Cynthia Mckinney is on a Truth Tour describing the corporate media lies regarding NATO’s intervention in Libya. The British are bragging about their special forces leading the rebels. Several thousands NATO airstrikes have taken place. And the western oil companies are lining up for their share of the spoils. Imperialism continues under the guise of a “humanitarian” propaganda lie whereby “we have to destroy the village (country, continent) in order to save it.”

Cynthia writes, “this Truth Tour has been unique because the true peace people in this country (U.S.) have revealed themselves by their willingness to step forward and be counted against this war in the very midst of the worst deceit and demonization ever. NATO war crimes are being excused, discounted, or covered up by those who posed as supporters of justice and peace. It is never OK to bomb people. And it is never OK to ask the peace-loving people of this country to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare and education and housing–and I could go on and on–so that war profiteers can fatten their ill-gotten coffers.

I agree with Stephen Lendman and others who have written that the war propaganda against Libya reached heights higher than that for the war against the Iraqi people. The deceit continues to this day from the most respected “news” outlets. Now, we know them as what they really are, too.”

Never Forgive, Never Forget
by Stephen Lendman

After covering Libya’s rape since last winter in dozens of articles, no forgiving or forgetting is possible for one of history’s great crimes.

Nor is ignoring those responsible, condemning them forthrightly, and explaining why all wars are waged.

NATO outdid Orwell on this one, killing truth by calling war the responsibility to protect – by terrorizing, attacking, and slaughtering civilians like psychopathic assassins.

As a result, honest historians will redefine barbarism to explain NATO’s savagery. It includes ongoing crimes of war and against humanity for the most malevolent reasons.

When is war not war? It’s when committing cold-blooded murder is called the right thing. When major media scoundrels cheerlead it, and when most people believe it because they’re too indifferent, uncaring or lazy to learn the truth.

NATO’s rape of Libya is too ugly for proper words to describe. Only honest images can do it, and lots of them.

Instead, the Big Lie substitutes for honest journalism, especially on television where real (not fake) visuals can show mangled bodies, mass destruction, and other evidence of NATO crimes.

Where civilian deaths can be shown graphically in living color. Where responsibility can be placed where it belongs. Where right and wrong can best be explained. Where repetition can arouse public outrage. Where proper analysis in advance perhaps can prevent all wars.

None are liberating, lawful, or virtuous. All are shamelessly exploitive. Libya’s one of the worst – unscrupulously benefitting powerful interests criminally, ruthlessly, and diabolically.

It doesn’t get any worse than that. Ask Lybians. They’ll explain.

Leading America’s Pack Journalistic Lying

The New York Times is America’s lead propaganda instrument, its reports getting enough global coverage to make a difference.

From the start, it cheer led war with Libya. It played the same role in Afghanistan, Iraq, and all previous US wars, deceiving its readers by dishonest journalism, commentaries, and editorials.

August 26 was no different. Two articles among others stand out. David Kirkpatrick wrote one headlined, “As Qaddafi Forces Retreat, a Newly Freed Imam Encourages Forgiveness,” saying:

Pro-NATO Sheik Abdul Ghani Aboughreis helped incite last winter’s uprising “with a fiery Friday sermon at the Mourad Agha mosque. His words sent thousands of demonstrators pouring into the streets. (His) mosque and neighborhood became a center of revolt and resistance….”

After six months of shamelessly supporting death and destruction against his own people, he now encourages “forgive (ing) each other, to make sure to leave it to the law and not take revenge on each other.”

As in all his Libya war articles, Kirkpatrick left unexplained months of crimes of war and against humanity, committed by NATO and paramilitary killers.
Instead, he highlighted alleged evidence of ongoing Gaddafi loyalist crimes.

In times of war, both sides commit them, but whatever government forces did pale compared to NATO’s savagery and its hired assassins. Kirkpatrick and other Times writers failed to notice.

Anthony Shadid and Kareem Hahim were no better headlining, “Grim Evidence of Fighting’s Toll Becomes Clearer in Libya,” saying:

“As the fighting died down in Tripoli on Friday, the scope and savagery of the violence during the nearly week long battle for control of the capital began to come into sharper focus.”

Evidence he cites is a shameful Amnesty International report (based on freed Al Qaeda and other paramilitary prisoners), saying:

AI “uncovered evidence that forces loyal to (Gaddafi) have killed numerous detainees held at two military camps in Tripoli on 23 and 24 August.”

Perhaps so if other insurgents freed them, attacked Gaddafi forces in the process, and they fought back.

Instead, AI said:

“Loyalist forces in Libya must immediately stop such killings of captives, and both sides must commit to ensuring no harm comes to prisoners in their custody.”

Like UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, AI tries to have it both ways, ruining everything it gets right by reports like this – equating horrendous NATO crimes with lesser ones committed by Gaddafi forces, perhaps many less than imagined. The fog of war makes it hard to know precisely.

Instead, Shadid and Hahim’s article was shamelessly one sided. While citing clear evidence of rebel-committed atrocities, their article claimed:

– Tripoli violence is now subsiding when, in fact, it rages;

– rebels say Gaddafi loyalists killed their own, an absurdity on its face;

– it’s hard “to ascertain the fate of….dead men” in hospitals, as well as chaos committed inside; AP and Reuters reported it resulted from rebel-committed terror;

– Gaddafi’s “cloak of secrecy (and) mercurial rule” are being revealed, leaving unexplained why Washington and its NATO partners wage all wars;

– slogans are being displayed, saying “Libya is free” and “Misurata is steadfast,” though still Gaddafi controlled, it’s believed, what Shadid and Hahim ignored, as well as not debunking claims of Libya’s freedom; and

– documents in Gaddafi’s compound “seemed to show that (his) adopted daughter Hana, who was supposedly killed at age 4 in (1986), was alive (and) working as a doctor;” the key words “seemed to show” both Times writers implied were proof, adding that Tripoli Central Hospital workers claimed “a spacious and well-appointed office” there was hers.

Throughout the conflict, Times articles, op-eds and editorials backed it. Their unstated message is war is good, the more the better when America wages them.

Sadly, that’s the state of managed Western news and opinion. It’s a shocking indictment of its support for wealth and power, no matter how lawless and harmful to billions exploited ruthlessly, shameless, and repeatedly.

Final Comments

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reports continued fighting in Tripoli, inflicting many casualties.

Moreover, many injured can’t be treated because of ongoing violence, inadequate staff, and enough supplies and capacity at local hospitals.

In addition, “numerous arrests” were made, “including foreign nationals.” Their welfare is very much at risk, especially those singled out for revenge.

Fierce fighting also continues around Misrata and elsewhere. The end of conflict is nowhere in sight. Brega “look(s) like a ghost town.”

In different areas, people are endangered by unexploded ordinance, as well as shortages of food, clean water, drugs, other medical supplies, and spotty or no electricity.

Washington-led NATO turned Libya into a hellish inferno – step one before occupying and exploiting its resources and people. Months ago its wealth was stolen. Ahead will be its future if Libyans don’t struggle and win their freedom.

On August 26 on Russia Today (RT.com), journalist Pepe Escobar said Abdelhakim Belhadj, a former Al-Qaeda insurgent/now CIA asset commands rebel forces in Tripoli.

He explained that he was trained in Afghanistan by a “very hardcore Islamist Libyan group.” Earlier he was captured in Malaysia, detained and tortured in Bangkok, then transferred back to Libya and imprisoned.

In 2009, he made a deal for freedom, in return for serving Western interests, Escobar saying:

“I can say almost for sure with 95% certainty that this is the guy” heading insurgents in Tripoli.

It shows how Washington both demonizes and uses Al Qaeda advantageously, including bin Laden. He was a longtime CIA asset until his death in December 2001 – not from Obama’s staged raid.

Notably, Al Qaeda was a 1980s CIA creation during the Soviet-Afghan war. Moreover, Washington both supports international terrorism covertly and battles it by imperial wars and persecuting Muslims for their faith.

It’s part of the fog to scare people enough to believe waging wars remove threats that, in fact, don’t exist. So they have to be invented to enlist public support, unaware of the harm caused abroad and at home.

Only war profiteers benefit, not taxpayers they steal from or victims they attack. At the same time, corrosive militarism, financial wars, and other destructive policies destroyed America’s soul. Its future as a free country is next.

So focused on bread and circus distractions, most people don’t notice. How else can Washington get away with murder!
Further updates will follow.

In conclusion, Law Professor Francis Boyle’s morning email said the following:

“After Six Months of fighting by the most powerful military alliance in the history of the world, Ghadafy has now become the Greatest African Warrior since Hannibal against the Romans – predecessors to the Americans.”

“Generations from now, people will sing songs, write poems, and compose odes to Ghadafy all over Africa, the Arab World, the Muslim World, and the Third World long after Obama is dead and disparaged and discredited.”

Sic transit Gloria mundi (Thus passes the glory of the world)!”

Keep Libya’s freedom flame alive no matter how imperial monsters try to destroy it!

We’re all Libyans now! Their struggle is ours!

It’s high time we matched their courageous spirit against the world’s most pernicious/destructive force.

Bowed perhaps, they’re not broken! Isn’t that enough to raise our consciousness to support them!

.

The Greatest Plot Against the Ron Paul Camp To Date ……

Posted on August 30, 2011 by dandelionsalad

by Sibel Edmonds
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Originally published by Boiling Frogs Post
August 30, 2011

Image by * OaklandMofo.com * via Flickr

Who ‘Really’ Is this Bruce Fein?

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

Last week, right after publishing my article on Congresswoman Schmidt and Bruce Fein’s brilliant foreign lobby money rechanneling-laundering scheme, and to my shock, I found out about this:

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.

“Bruce Fein’s participation adds to our campaign’s already intellectual heft, enabling us to more broadly engage the conversation about constitutionality, civil liberties and the dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

While some at Rep. Paul’s Camp were busy celebrating and cheering the announcement as a brilliant strategic move, I was frantically gathering cases and research notes, corresponding with current and former colleagues from the intelligence community who had come to support Rep. Paul, and communicating with a few friends with Rep. Paul’s Campaign who were equally troubled by this development.

I understand the ‘cheering’ side of Paul’s camp as they have been excited and impressed by the in- writing-and-words-only side of Bruce Fein. Not so different than those who were fired up and sold on the in-words-only rhetoric and promises staged by President Obama. The Constitutional Scholar Fein and the Constitutional Expert Obama. A Great Penman Fein and the Great Orator Obama…and of course the contradicting realities and the contradicting facts.

However, in this case, there are already too many established facts and too much history on Mr. Fein, and way too many rational and realistic people among Paul supporters to ring the alarm bells and counter this great threat before it’s too late. I will go as far as calling the penetration of the Ron Paul camp by Bruce Fein ‘the greatest threat to Paul’s camp to date,’ and will make a solid case for this characterization based on glaring and alarming facts; facts and concerns shared by several loyal Paul advisors today.

Who is the real Bruce Fein? Why there are so many different versions of Fein – one contradicting the other? How do his real actions and intimate associations stand in stark contrast to Ron Paul? What is the most likely plot in planting Mr. Fein within Paul’s campaign?

Foreign Lobby & Influence Peddling

Ron Paul has been consistent and exemplary in his strongly held principles on the Foreign lobby and influence peddling; a rarity in the US Congress. He has displayed intense disdain for foreign lobbying and foreign influence. He even considers congressional ‘junkets’ as another means to be compromised: stressing that he would not travel abroad on agenda-driven foreigners’ dime: “I just think it’s unnecessary for congressmen to travel overseas, and the people in our district were on my side,” he said in an interview. “You don’t need to go to Bosnia to understand we have no business there.”

With Bruce Fein you have exactly the opposite stand. He has been a crusty foreign lobbyist making millions of dollars peddling his foreign bosses’ interests and influence in Congress and government agencies. For Fein it has never mattered who the foreign client or what their agenda. He does not care whether his foreign clients are criminals or terrorists or dictators. As long as they pay him handsomely he’ll sell their agenda and interest no matter what they may be. The words ‘principle’ or ‘taking a stand’ have never entered this foreign lobbyist’s dictionary or comprehension:

One minute, on behalf of one set of his foreign designated ‘terrorist’ bosses, Bruce Fein is busy selling the need for a genocide declaration by the US Congress against one nation:

“For the past year I have written about Bruce Fein in many articles that have been widely published and circulated. He is reportedly paid $100,000 per month to tell lies in Washington about the Government of Sri Lanka… Who are the American individuals backing this group? Where are they getting their money to pay Bruce Fein? Does former US Ambassador Blake have something to do with them…”

The next minute, on behalf of another well-known foreign mob boss, Bruce Fein is busy peddling influence and selling Congress his foreign bosses’ anti-genocide agenda:

“In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund)…”

“materials put out by the Turkish Coalition of America and authored by a lawyer, Bruce Fein, who now represents Schmidt in the complaint, say that Congresswoman Schmidt has on numerous occasions voiced her opposition to such resolutions and maintains that the historical question is not appropriate for Congress to legislate. The congresswoman, based on her independent research, does not believe the tragic events constitute genocide…”

Bruce Fein sees no problem with representing foreign groups like this:

Fein hit the jackpot in 1991 when he signed on to represent Mozambique’s notorious guerrilla army, RENAMO, which was seeking to overthrow its country’s leftist government. When Fein came on board, RENAMO’s reputation has hit bottom…

…

Even the Reagan and Bush administrations kept their distance from RENAMO, despite their anti-Communist rhetoric…

…

Fein, however, eagerly signed up to flack for Dhlakama’s terror army. Like most foreign lobbyists, he bilked his client for huge sums of money while performing virtually no work.

Mr. Fine, who now fakes and preaches non-interventionism and anti-influence peddling only to echo Ron Paul, in real life has been practicing the exact opposite:

“Now, Fein has returned to lobbying and is working for a client that has the dubious distinction of making RENAMO look good: The Sudan. That country’s government is barred from receiving U.S. foreign aid because of its support for terrorism and because of its revolting human rights record. Amnesty International reports that the Sudanese government not only assassinates and tortures its “enemies,” but that paramilitary forces have kidnapped scores of children, who are believed to be held in domestic slavery by their abductors or taken to camps in remote rural areas, where they are trained for military service”

Here is another on-the-spot description of Real Bruce Fein as a crusty “Beltway Prostitute”:

“Well, well, well. Wasn’t Bruce Fein just recently condemning the Government of Sri Lanka for trying to put an end to the LTTE? But this time he’s defending a sovereign government for protecting itself – rather than slandering it using falsehoods. Now you see what I mean when I earlier referred to Mr. Fein as a “Beltway prostitute.” He will accept money from anyone who can pay the price – regardless of where that money came from, or who his legal and public relations services might unjustly hurt. What an embarrassment to the US legal profession.”

You see, for Mr. Fein pimping the Congress on behalf of foreign clients is about dollars. Nothing more; nothing less. Whether it is advocating additional foreign aid for one country while our nation is being bankrupted, or dragging our Congress to get involved with domestic meddling and the affairs of another foreign country, Bruce Fein has never been about the United States’ interests; just the opposite. Give Fein the dollars and he’ll sign up to lobby for any one: terrorists, corrupt foreign governments, mobsters, assassins …

Long pocketed as a ‘lobbyist’ by Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey, Tamil, and others, Bruce Fein is the exact antithesis to Ron Paul’s principled position on issues related to foreign lobby, corruption and influence peddling in government.

Overt Neocon Ties & Covert Israel Pedigree

Ron Paul has been in staunch opposition and a counter to Neocon agendas and field players. Whether on the Israel lobby and agenda driving the hawkish currents in our nation today, or the corporate war machine interests guiding our foreign policy practices, Paul has consistently stood firm and unrelenting.

Mr. Fein’s public pedigree makes it fairly easy to spot his overt ties and links. For example: he has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). By now I think the majority of Americans know about AEI’s claim to fame:

“AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.[10] Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, is a senior fellow at AEI, and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI.”

A well-known couple of facts about AEI:

1- In order to be accepted by AEI, to become one of their scholars, proven neoconservative inklings and ties are the never-waivered prerequisites.

2- AEI seeks candidates who put Loyalty and Allegiance to Israel above all.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial bestseller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute.

Acceptance to the tightly knitted and guarded AEI Neocon community also extends to family members and religious affiliations. Bruce Fein has passed both litmus tests in becoming a highly-regarded member of AEI. His wife, Mattie Fein, has been a vocal hawk, neocon propaganda distributor, and a very familiar face within the Beltway neocon community:

In 2007, Fein penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times calling on the United States to pledge military support to Iranian dissidents in the event of an uprising. Fein, whose father is of Iranian descent, was identified in the piece as the founder and president of the Institute for Persian Studies.

While Fein’s AEI and neocon connections and strong ties are overtly stated, his loyalties and allegiance to Israel and the Israel lobby are not; that is, until you start digging. A former AEI member who now works as a congressional aid stated, ‘Bruce Fein was liked and trusted there as ‘one of them,’ a real Jewish man loyal to Israel and its interests.’

Fein has been successful in playing both sides of this field, and keeping his Israel related activities and ties mainly covert. However, in 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests less covertly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

And here is Bruce Fein’s buddy from AEI, the scandalous John Bolton, who’s been backing the Fein couple including Mattie Fein’s fundraising and campaign:

I was privy to some of the logistics involved in setting up the fundraiser that Bolton held for Mattie’s campaign. It amazed me how quickly some establishment Republicans tried to steal the thunder of Bolton’s appearance through various subterfuges and poaching, and it is a credit to the man’s character and timber that he refused to be a part of it. He was there to endorse Mattie Fein against Jane Harman, and he wouldn’t let third parties screw that up.

Mattie Fein’s established Neocon pedigree, her hawkish propaganda and activities nicely echoes Bolton’s own.  Some liken the relationship to mentor-protégé dynamics that began with the marriage to Fein and entry into the AEI circle.

The Question of Ethics …or Lack of

Even Ron Paul’s foes would admit that he has been a man of principle throughout his life; both inside and outside his congressional career. Those who may disagree with his political platform and stand would acknowledge his adherence to ethical practices, whether in his personal-family life or career.

Bruce Fein’s career on the other hand, in contrast to his writings and well-played public role, has been driven by lucrative foreign lobbying deals, influence peddling in the halls of Congress, the State Department and the CIA, and all that mostly for foreign agendas directly in conflict with those of Americans. Not only that, his regard for ethics as an attorney appears to be nonexistent. In his most recent scandal involving indirect funneling of foreign lobby dollars to Rep. Jean Schmidt, he was determined to have been intentionally misguiding his client on the sources of $500,000 dollars in legal fees:

In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman

You can read the full report by the House Ethics Committee here. It remains to be seen whether anyone will go after Bruce Fein and his license for this highly scandalous case and ethics violations. His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein. On the other hand, Mr. Fein appears to have had practice in riding ethics related scandals and waves. At least in the scandalous ethic violations case  involving Bruce Fein and his partner Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq.

I started with that famous quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero because it applies to this report and the plots delivered from within. When it comes to Ron Paul’s Campaign no one would ever have to worry about known snakes and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. The enemy sent to you will be one who talks just like you; speaks your words and shouts your slogans. And does so very convincingly.

I have tried to be brief with carefully and well-sourced facts and cases to provide a factual profile for the real Bruce Fein. Considering the facts and who Mr. Fein is, and has been, why would he methodically go about attaching himself to Ron Paul and his campaign? After consulting with several well-respected and trust-worthy sources, the troubling answer was summed up in two possibilities:

1- This is a commonly used ploy by the establishment to penetrate Ron Paul and his camp which has been gaining momentum. This is where the plant carries inside information and strategic plans to the establishment, and simultaneously tries to exert negative influence over decision making and strategy-setting processes.

2- The plant willingly and knowingly becomes the fall-guy bringing down the target candidate. Highly damaging and scandalous information about the plant would be strategically released to the media-public, and the candidate suffers the ultimate consequences.

Personally I am leaning more towards the second possibility and here is why:

I was privy to the extensive rap sheet maintained on Mr. Fein, his foreign mob bosses and their operations at J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Mr. Fein is well aware of this rap sheet and the FBI’s long-maintained operations. I know with certainty that if released by the FBI, whether partially or completely, it would be used as ongoing front-page headlines by the media, to bring down the entire Paul campaign before the primaries.

Ron Paul already has a highly-respected constitutional scholar who is articulate, eloquent, passionate, and most importantly, trust-worthy, clean, and from outside the poisonous capital beltway. That person is Tom Woods. Paul does not need this man Fein. He does not need this glitzy-oily foreign lobbyist who stands in total contrast to Paul’s platform.

I like Ron Paul. I support his stand on foreign policy related matters and his objectives on what need to be changed. I applaud Paul’s stand on our liberties, and I back his quest for a much smaller government. I have done so for years. Please don’t let the establishment succeed in their plot. Bruce Fein is the greatest threat to Paul’s movement to date. He would be a stain – a taint; not one easily removed after the fact. Please begin the countdown, and have Ron Paul remove this man from the campaign as a trusted advisor and insider. Let the countdown begin today; at this hour -at this very minute. Before it is too late.

see

Rep. Jean Schmidt Found Guilty of Accepting $500,000 in ‘Indirect’ Turkish Lobby Payment by Sibel Edmonds

Turkish Lobby on Dandelion Salad

.

Libya / Breaking News: 21/08/2011 – rebel advances on Tripoli a fake! Disinformation campaign, RT ……

.

Why the American media hate and fear Ron Paul …….

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk

By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: August 17th, 2011

Ron Paul is a principled and serious candidate, but his brand of libertarianism confuses and frightens the media

Ron Paul seems to be media poison. He came within nine tenths of a percentage of winning Saturday’s Iowa straw poll, yet featured in hardly any of the political coverage. The result was strong enough to elevate the lady who placed first (Michele Bachmann) and eliminate the gentleman who came third (Tim Pawlenty). Yet, as comedian Jon Stewart has lamented, the media has actively ignored the poor fellow who ran second. In a particularly shoddy bit of reporting, CNN refused to cover Ron Paul’s speech in preference for footage of Sarah Palin. The show’s host told his roving reporter, “If you get video of Sarah Palin or a sound-bite from her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff.”

Ron Paul is a serious candidate with a real constituency, a twelve-term congressman who ran for the Presidency twice (as a Libertarian and a Republican). He is a doctor, a veteran and a fine public speaker. I saw him orate at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference and was bowled over. For ten minutes I was spellbound by his rapid-fire straight-talking, which detoured into scholarly pot-shots at the American-Philippine War of 1899 and John Maynard Keynes. He polled first in the Conference straw poll, a feat he repeated in 2011. Yet even when he romps home, the media pretends he doesn’t exist. If Ron Paul were to win every single primary on next year’s Super Tuesday, the New York Times would run with the headline “Mitt Romney Comfortable Second – Nomination Assured”.

Ron Paul confuses the American media because his ideology is an awkward fit for the two-party system. As a libertarian, he is anti-war: a position better represented among the Democrats. But he is also against welfare, which makes him more attractive to Republicans. From this anti-government philosophy he could construct a “leave me alone” majority that appeals to independents. That’s the big plan.

But Ron Paul complicates things by being a conservative libertarian, or paleo-libertarian. Usually libertarians don’t care how other people live. But paleo-libertarians believe that leaving people alone is actively good for them. Given a spell of hardy self-reliance, they’ll all revert to being law-abiding Christian Capitalists. According to the Ron Paul history of the United States, the innate goodness of the American people was corrupted by war with foreign powers. War excused the growth of the state: taxes were created to pay for arms, welfare to buy the consent of the public, prison for the dissenters. What began as a temporary measure to expand the American empire evolved into a monolithic central state. Patterns of traditional living – small, simple, charitable – were absorbed or destroyed by the new “progressive” bureaucracy. Ergo the state, fuelled by war, became the motor of social decay.

As this mythos suggests, Ron Paul is fundamentally a cultural conservative. That is how he can simultaneously be libertarian and prolife. To Paul, the two are not just reconcilable but mutually affirming. He believes that rights come from God, not the man-made warfare-welfare state. Liberty is rooted in the right to life, and that right is divinely inspired. Ergo, in order to protect an individual’s liberty we must first safeguard his right to life and outlaw abortion. By such contortions of logic is a paleo-libertarian born.

All of this makes sense to Ron Paul, but not to millions of people who presume that libertarianism is socially liberal. Democrats can’t understand his loyalty to the Republican label and, when they know about it, loathe his views on sex and sexuality. Republicans either hate his position on war or find his association with Democratic libertarians off-putting. His constituency of support is split across the political spectrum and brimming with internal contradictions.

Paulites are aware of that and insist that it’s no problem. In a crowded field, all they need to do is mobilise a regular, committed vote of about 25 percent and they can win a couple of primaries and launch themselves into contention. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that what gets Ron Paul that 25 percent is precisely what turns the other 75 percent off from voting for him. Twenty-five percent isn’t a winning strategy, it’s a ceiling.

And there’s another, unspoken reason why the media like to keep their distance from the Paulites: some of them are mad. If I ever write about the Republican primaries and fail to call Ron Paul the New Messiah, my inbox fills with unpleasant emails. Some of them are of the “I have a gun and I know how to use it” variety. I wouldn’t care, but I find it odd given that a) I always cautiously praise him and b) I have said far, far worse things about Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin and no one seems to care. Are Evangelicals just nicer people than libertarians? God only knows, but anchormen and journalists have had many similar bruising encounters with Ron Paul’s people. Of course, the vast majority of his supporters are brilliant patriots. But radicalism attracts crazy, too.

Sometimes the media ignores Ron Paul out of ignorance or spite. Sometimes it’s because they’ve done the math and convinced themselves that he can’t win. Other times, I suspect that they take a look at the people chanting his name in the bleachers and they don’t like what they see. The Paulites are good folk worried about the direction of their country, but their exclusion from the mainstream makes them come off like the vanguard of a Hicksville revolution. Television is a cool medium. Ron Paul and his angry army are too hot for it.

Tim Stanley

Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Royal Holloway College. He is working on a biography of Pat Buchanan. His personal website is www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley.

.

U.S Government Smuggled Missles, Grenades And Other Military Grade Weapons To Mexico Drug Cartels …….

 Alexander Higgins – July 23, 2011 at 2:36 am – Permalink – Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

The U.S government weapons smuggling scandal grown from a simple gun smuggling scandal into a full blown military grade weapons smuggling scandal following the arrest of a Zetas cartel leader.  Law enforcement officials report the U.S government has supplied the Zetas cartel with, among other things, “an array of military grade weapons, grenade and grenade launchers, high-powered rifles, body armor, anti-aircraft missiles, and night vision goggles.”

The nation was shocked when  the U.S government was caught red handed smuggling guns to drug cartels in Mexico after government supplied guns were linked to the murders of law enforcement officials working along the U.S. Mexico border.

The scandal deepened when the hacker group ‘Anonymous’ leaked reported government documents on the Internet which appear to show that the leader of the La Familia cartel in Mexico was actually the feds point man for the gun smuggling operation.  Although the revelations revealed in data release was not confirmed by the Obama administration the information became part of a congressional investigation into the scandal.

Soon after the news of La Familia cartel scandal broke, the leader of the Zetas cartel leader Jesús Enrique Rejón Aguilar, aka El Mamito was arrested in Mexico. During an interrogation by the police, El Mamito stated  the Zetas cartel was exclusively supplied guns by the U.S. government.

Critics charged that while the Obama administration was smuggling guns to criminals they were using the violence perpetrated by those same criminals as a justification to take guns away from U.S. citizens.

As the congressional investigation into the scandal continued  new discovered evidence revealed the government gun smuggling operations were not limited to Mexico. In fact, congressional leaders uncovered  a sister operation ran out of Florida being used to smuggle guns into Puerto Rico and Honduras.

As the Obama officials moved to distance themselves from the growing  scandal Kenneth Melson, the ATF’s acting director, came forward and accused the Justice Department covering up evidence to shield officials from the scandal.

Today comes reports that  a wide array of U.S. government military grade equipment is being stashed in safe houses inside of the U.S., that that controlled and owned by the Zetas drug cartel, from where they are smuggled into Mexico.

According to conservative examiner Anthony Martin, “The weapons stashes discovered b law enforcement, Border Patrol, and other agencies contain ample evidence of dozens of ‘smoking guns’–literally and symbolically–that prove the cartel is in the weapons smuggling business. However, the cartel has more than just smoking guns.”

Martin’s  labeling of the weapons as ‘more than just smoking guns’ just may be the understatement of the year

“The El Paso Times reported that officials have discovered an array of military grade weapons, grenade and grenade launchers, high-powered rifles, body armor, anti-aircraft missiles, and night vision goggles,” writes Martin, “The nature of the weapons that have been discovered would seem to confirm suspicions that the cartel obtains these weapons from the U.S. Government.”

Martin quotes the El Paso Times:

“Jesús Rejón Aguilar, the number three man in the Zeta’s hierarchy, disclosed last week that the Zetas bought weapons in the United States and transported them across the Rio Grande. Mexican federal authorities captured Rejón on July 3 in the state of Mexico, and presented him to the news media the next day. His recorded video statement was uploaded on YouTube.

[Former CIA Agent Phil] Jordan agreed with Plumlee’s allegations that the Zetas are operating in the Columbus-Palomas border.

Plumlee, who has testified before U.S. congressional committees about arms and drug trafficking, said the roads in Southern New Mexico provide smugglers easy access to Mexico’s highway networks.

This is very strong evidence and brings the gun smuggling operations to an entirely new level as the military grade weapons are being used by the cartels to commit acts of terrorism in Mexico and inside the United States.

.

Video : THAT’s GREECE

 

This video is taken from Alexander Higgins Blog Post :

Must Watch Video: Debunking The Bullshit Corporate Media Lies We Are Told About Greece

.

Gundersen On Nuclear Fallout Cover Up: Time To Stop Minimizing Information And Start Minimizing Radiation Exposure ………….

http://dprogram.net

July 21st, 2011

(HigginsBlog) – Arnie Gunderson says it is time for to stop minimizing information and start minimizing radiation exposure in the wake of Japan’s radioactive beef scandal which is being blamed on “Black Rain”.

As I previously reported Japan has finally issued a ban on radioactive beef after allowing it to be shipped all over the country and to be sold on store shelves.

Japan Issues Belated Ban On Radioactive Fukushima Beef After Allowing To Be Sold In Stores

After Highly Radioactive Beef Was Detected Over A Week Ago, The Shipped All Over The Country And Sold In Supermarkets All Over The Country, Japan Finally Issues A Ban On Radioactive Fukushima Beef.

As I previously reported, beef in Japan has been detected with high levels of radioactivity.

But that didn’t stop Japanese officials from lying to the public about the threats of the radiation risks and continuing their mind control campaigns to control the masses, such as forcing school children to clean radioactive dirt from swimming pools and telling the public if they keep smiling radiation will not affect them.

Even after it made international news headlines that companies had detected high levels of radiation in their beef the government pretended like nothing was happening and allow radioactive beef to be shipped all over the nation and sold to unsuspecting consumers on store shelves.

Apparently, the government didn’t think the public would find out.

Finally after radiation was in beef on store shelves hundreds of miles away and consumers have eaten it all week, Japan has issued a belated order to ban the sale of all Fukushima beef.

Read the rest…

EX-SKF gives us the latest updates on the Japan beef scandal pointing out radioactive beef was sold on Japanese bullet trains after consuming radioactive rice. The highest level of radioactive cesium in the rice hay was found in Motomiya City in Fukushima Prefecture, and it was 690,000 becquerels/kg. Motomiya City is located about 57 kilometers west of Fukushima I Nuke Plant.

In another post it is pointed out 1,458 meat cows possibly contaminated from radioactive rice have already been sold and hundreds of children from multiple schools were fed radioactive beef.

Now nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen is chiming in the scandal and discusses the officials explanation for the spread of radioactive beef across the country.

He says it is time for government officials to stop minimizing the information being released to the public about the disaster and to start minimizing the radiation exposure.

Ex Japanese Nuclear Regulator Blames Radioactive Animal Feed on “Black Rain” from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

Ex Japanese Nuclear Regulator Blames Radioactive Animal Feed on “Black Rain” from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

While many radioactive cattle have been discovered large distances from Fukushima, what is more important is where their feed is coming from. “It’s not only about the radioactive cattle in Fukushima Prefecture; its also about the radioactive straw the cattle eat that was grown elsewhere”. Straw found 45 miles from Fukushima is highly contaminated with radioactive cesium, which is an indication that radiation has contaminated large portions of Northern Japan. More than half a million disintegrations per second in a kilogram of straw are comparable to Chernobyl levels. This proves that the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission was correct when it told Americans to evacuate beyond 50 miles and that the Japanese should have done the same. An Ex-Secretariat of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission blames this contamination on “Black Rain”. Rather than minimize the information the Japanese people receive, Gundersen suggests minimizing their radiation exposure.

Source: Higgins Blog

.

The Dark Truth About 9/11 Emerges From The Fog of Infowar ……

http://www.infowars.com

THE EXCAVATOR
July 18, 2011

“I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand–”
- Edgar Allan Poe, A Dream Within A Dream.

Once the summer ends, we will hear more talk about another world war as Israel’s delusional leaders begin to direct their brainwashed army towards Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Nuclear war is on the demented minds of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. Peace was never an option for these two restless men whose minds are clouded by extreme hatred, and evil desires. They will do anything to stop a Palestinian state from coming into being, including starting world war three by bombing Iran.

A world war will destroy modern civilization as we know it. Many people know the world is already in a state of global emergency. Truth is outlawed in America and the West. Believers of freedom, justice and honour are laughed out of the room as “conspiracy theorists,” and “nutjobs.” But there are millions of us who know better and will not be deterred by these psychological attacks. We know the infowar is not for the weak minded. We are not stupid and we are not cowards.

We know who was really behind the 9/11 attacks. We know who is behind all this global chaos that has been visited upon a shell-shocked world since September 11, 2001. We know mankind is at the edge of the abyss. Our so-called democratic governments, media institutions, and political leaders have not only failed us; they have betrayed us.
The real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks will pay for what they have done in the name of America, freedom and democracy. Believe it. Justice will be done. Real change is not a failed hope just because that two-faced traitor Barack Obama has not brought the criminals behind the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror to justice.

Evil is not the only force that is active in this world. Good people everywhere are standing up and raising their voices to call the world’s attention to the dark truth about 9/11. We will not be stopped. The truth about the 9/11 attacks is not a matter of debate. The facts show that Israel and American traitors inside America’s shadow national security state attacked America on September 11, 2001. They used the tragedy to unleash their mad dream: a quiet war on freedom and truth in the West, and a total war on regimes in the Middle East which have embraced the path of independence and self-reliance in defiance of U.S.-Israeli-British imperialism.

Alan Sabrosky, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, is courageously raising public awareness about the truth of the 9/11 attacks. In an interview with Press TV on July 13, 2011, Mr. Sabrosky addressed the prejudiced notion that any alternative interpretation of the 9/11 attacks is simply a “conspiracy theory,” saying:

Back in the early 80s, when I was in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of our visitors for a lunch and talk was a young gentlemen then named Francois Heisbourg. Heisbourg was the specialist assistant to French President Francois Mitterrand. I don’t know how the subject came up, but he said, “you know, Americans never see conspiracies anywhere.” “We French,” he said, “we see conspiracies everywhere. And both of us are wrong.”

Sabrosky continued:

This is not a conspiracy (referring to the view that Israel and high-ranking U.S. officials did 9/11) in the sense that the word is usually used, which is to denigrate an opposing argument. When someone in the United States says that “that’s a conspiracy,” or, “that’s a conspiracy theory,” by definition they mean it is irrational, illegitimate, and without proof. All I would suggest to people is that you look at the films of WTC 7, that third tower going down on September 11; you look and listen to the reports on September 11 with the secondary explosions. These are not fantasies. They happened. You look at the reports on September 12 of the apprehension of Israelis with vans of explosives and cameras filming the events on September 11. These are not fantasies. And you look at the people riddling the American government, all of the Middle East people in State, Defense, and the National Security Council; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who used to be a friend of mine, by the way, from Philadelphia. These people were all part of the neoconservative movement. Many of these people are dual U.S.-Israeli nationals. All of their primary allegiance is to Israel.

Alan Sabrosky is a real American patriot. Like many others, he is educating the American people in order to save America from the evil traitors who want to turn America into a full-fledged dictatorship.

The traitors who stabbed America in the back on 9/11 were in the Bush administration, and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Lawrence Franklin, Abram Shulsky, Michael Ledeen, Michael Chertoff, and many others).

The individuals who are part of the neocon cult worship the philosophers Leo Strauss and Machiavelli, and hate America’s founding fathers. They are the scum of the Earth and the greatest enemies of freedom in our time. If their evil plan for America and the Middle East is not exposed and defeated then there won’t be an America, or an Israel, or a Canada, or an England, or an Iran, or a Lebanon to speak of. Iraq and Afghanistan have already suffered at the hands of the neocon death cult. All nations that the neocons wish total war upon, including America, will experience hell on Earth if we don’t come together and send these psychopathic killers back to the hell they came from.

Video Links:
Alan Sabrosky’s Interview on Press TV on July 13, 2011
9/11: WTC Building 7 “Collapse” video compilation
Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko saying that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition

.

Kerry and McCain Unite Behind the Mysteriously Urgent Libya Mission

http://whowhatwhy.com

By Russ Baker on Jun 22, 2011

What do Kerry and McCain know about Libya that we don’t?

At WhoWhatWhy.com, we’ve been saying for some time that things just don’t add up when it comes to Libya. (For some of our past reporting, see for example this and this and this.) First the White House claimed that NATO needed to engage in a few days of bombing in order to protect Libyan civilians from Muammar Qaddafi’s troops. Those few days have turned into three months, and protecting civilians has morphed into a massive and unrelenting bombing campaign.

Now, Democrat John Kerry and Republican John McCain are proposing a bill to authorize US troops’ involvement in Libya for an entire year. And for what reason?  “To advance national security interests in Libya.”

But what national security interests? Those have never been spelled out. Kerry and McCain, according to McClatchy Newspapers, aren’t saying.

Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, does, however, warn that the US needs to support the Libyan rebels because failing to do so would “be ignorant, irresponsible and shortsighted and dangerous for our country.”

Shortsighted and dangerous for our country? How so? Kerry says just enough that it’s clear he knows something we don’t. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the principally humanitarian objectives originally cited for the bombing campaign.

The Kerry-McCain resolution does provide the sponsors with some political cover, by stipulating limitations on how US troops can be involved in Libya:

“Congress does not support deploying, establishing or maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of United States Government officials…or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger.”

But that’s not what matters. What matters is that Kerry and McCain, 2004 and 2008 presidential nominees of opposing political parties, know something that makes them back Barack Obama in committing heavy resources to the job of removing Qaddafi. This is, among other things, ample grounds for concern about the range of permissible views within the elite policy circles of both parties.

Readers of this website and of my book, Family of Secrets, understand that the US government rarely levels with the American public on the real reasons for strategic policy decisions. In this case, the phrasing used by Kerry and McCain make clear that Libya has “national security” implications for the United States—implications that they so far will not lay out.

We’ve talked about what those implications are likely to be.

It is clear that, in light of the still-unfolding Arab Spring and the destabilization of cooperative regimes, strategically located and oil-rich Libya simply must be brought into the US camp. It is the ideal new anchor for long-term future US military operations in the region designed to secure continued access to oil supplies.

That sounds a lot like “national security.”

The administration cannot simply explain to Americans (and, hence, to the world) that it feels justified in military action to protect the vital flow of oil. So it has to be oblique.

Meanwhile, those apparently excluded from the inner sanctum take a position that, on the surface, seems more logical and responsible, given that the White House estimates the Libyan campaign will have cost a staggering $1.1 billion by Sept. 30.

Here’s Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va:

“Our members are frustrated over the president’s action, his lack of positing a clear vision and mission,” he said. Discussions were under way on possible House action, including denying funds for the operation as part of a defense-spending bill that’s expected to be considered beginning Thursday.

There’s plenty of evidence that a great deal is at stake. Besides blanketing Libya with bombs, the Administration is trying economic sanctions, and working to convince more of Qaddafi’s top brass to switch sides:

In another development Tuesday, the Treasury Department took new steps to isolate the Libyan regime and provide incentives for its members to pitch down.

… “Our sanctions are intended to prevent harm and change behavior,” Adam Szubin, the director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement announcing the actions. “To the extent that sanctioned individuals distance themselves from the Gadhafi regime, these measures can be lifted.”

Meanwhile, the White House is claiming it doesn’t need Congressional approval under the War Powers act to continue the bombardment of Libya, as long as American lives are not at risk. That’s a sly one, and Kerry is going along with it:

“The fact is that just because hostilities are taking place and we are supporting people engaged in those hostilities does not mean that we are ourselves, in fact, introducing troops into hostilities.”

So Kerry and McCain understand what is at stake and what is expected of them. Meanwhile, we continue to be amazed by how the news media is missing the whole story.

 

GRAPHIC:  http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-inline-wide/news_article/mccain-kerry-thinking-2011.jpg

.

R2P: “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “Fired on his Own People”

Read the Pentagon transcript
Global Research, June 3, 2011
Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi  “fired on his own people from the air”The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians. Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon. On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “admitted their utter ignorance as to what’s happening on the ground in Libya” (for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors’ Justice and the “Responsibility to Protect”: Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011) Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance. Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. PENTAGON BRIEFING WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MODERATOR: COLONEL DAVID LAPAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MEDIA OPERATIONS LOCATION: PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA TIME: 2:44 P.M. EST DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 Federal News Service March 1, 2011 Tuesday Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What — is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces? SEC. GATES: … I would — I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully. Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we’re thinking about, the options that we’re providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that. Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent? SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying? SEC. GATES: Well, the — I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are. Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes — (inaudible) — have you heard of any of that? SEC. GATES: No. …. Q: Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, based on what you’ve seen to date, do you have any reason to think that Gadhafi would be prepared to leave voluntarily, or do you think that some form of force, whether it is rebels, whether ultimately it’s U.N. sanctions, Western intervention, whether some form of force would be needed to push him out of power? SEC. GATES: Well, all I can say is that sometimes you actually have to listen to what people say. And he’s saying he’s not leaving. (Scattered laughter.) .

The World Today: Exposing the Lies of Mainstream Media

The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins
Global Research, May 25, 2011
- 2011-05-21
“Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude.  In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.”   –Goethe Dear Readers, Thank you for visiting Global Research! We are reassured to know that you have come to this site because you are looking to find the truth, the REAL truth behind the “news”, to understand the political, social and economic forces shaping the world you live in. Though Goethe made his insightful observation two hundred years ago, his words hold more meaning today than ever in history. Error can indeed be found throughout stories in the mainstream press, in ”official reports” and coming from the very mouths of world leaders, many “democratically” elected. But what even Goethe could not have predicted is the broad extent to which these errors are knowingly, deceptively and insidiously woven into our daily news, effectively subverting the masses and keeping them blind and apathetic to the empirically-driven motives of the world’s elite. If you are visiting this site, it is because you have realized that things aren’t “adding up”, that what world leaders and influential figures are telling us, as conveyed by mainstream media, does not accurately reflect the picture of the world today. You have seen that the only way to find the “truth” is to go to independent sources that aren’t funded and manipulated by corporate and political interests. The aims of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research are to battle the tidal waves of misinformation and propaganda washing our minds on a daily basis. We have separated ourselves from the corporate-controlled mainstream news, whose only objective is to serve their corporate masters. We take no assistance from the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and MacArthur, who act as patrons (and thus pacifiers) of the alternative and critical voices challenging the forces of globalization. We do this in order to remain an independent voice, challenging all that needs to be challenged and exposing all that remains in the dark. Bringing light to a dimly lit world is no easy task, and though the aim and method is “independence,” we are, in fact, entirely dependent upon YOU, our readers. Without your support, we cannot continue our operations nor expand our horizons and opportunities. Global Research is indebted to our readers, and we are here for you and because of you. If you would like Global Research to continue and to grow, we need your support now more than ever. The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins. Not only that, but it has been historically and presently infiltrated by covert government agencies, seeking to deceive and propagandize their agendas. The CIA has long had associations with major mainstream news publications. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.” At Global Research, we seek to not only expose and criticize the larger picture, but to point the finger at the media, itself, and examine who is lying, why they lie, and how they get away with it. To continue in our endeavours, we need our readers to continue in their support. One important and helpful thing that all of our readers can do is to help spread our name and information by “liking” our Facebook page here. We post articles daily that will appear in your news feed so that you don’t have to come to us, we can bring our information straight to you. “Like” our page and recommend us to your friends. Every bit helps! You can also support us by continuing to send us your much needed donations which allow us to continue our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content. Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation. Thank you. The Global Research Team For online donations, please go to the org. Globalresearch page . donate pic courtesy : www.venezuealanalysis.com

The War on Libya: The media misinformation campaign behind the war (Part 2)

http://www.voltairenet.org by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya* The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor has announced that he is seeking the arrest of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi for crimes against humanity, purporting to have evidence of his “widespread and systematic attacks on unarmed Libyan civilians”. In the second chapter of his study on the War on Libya, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya dismantles the double standards and media fabrications that helped to sell the war, the same ones which are now likely to constitute the “evidence” for the ICC charges being brought against Gaddafi.

16 May 2011From Ottawa (Canada) Tools Print Send Themes AfriCom: Control of Africa Communication Countries Libya

Part 1: The war on Libya and the coming imperial re-division of Africa, 27 April 2011 The Violence in Benghazi The starting epicentre of the violence in Libya was Benghazi, which is located within the boundaries of the coastal region of Cyrenaica or Barqa. [1] According to the U.S. government’s own sources: On the evening of February 15, [2011] the […] demonstrations began when several hundred people gathered in front of the Benghazi police headquarters to protest the arrest of attorney and human rights activist Fethi Tarbel. As the February 17 [2011] “day of rage” neared, protests escalated in Benghazi and other cities despite reported police attempts at dispersion with water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons. There were multiple reports of protestors setting police and other government buildings on fire. [2] The maelstrom irrupted in Benghazi after a group of protesters rushed a local barrack to take the weapons in the armoury. When this happened, the Libyan forces in the local garrison reacted by firing upon the protesters. From there the situation in Benghazi and Libya escalated and things spiralled out of control. A pause is in order and has to be taken here. This is where critical analysis is needed. There are two ways to perceive the events in Benghazi. One perspective is from the standpoint of a revolutionary and the other is from the perspective of the state and the soldiers. If all biases are put aside both perspectives will have their adherents. It must be stated that the Libyan authorities for years have oppressed political opposition and that all humans have a natural right to resist tyranny. [3] On the other hand it has to be understood that in any country, including the United States and Britain, soldiers and security forces will fire on any of their own citizens that attack a military or police compound with the intention of taking its arms. [4] In this sense the events in Libya and Egypt, as well as the reaction of the U.S. and the E.U., can also be contrasted against one another. The legitimacy of these actions can be argued over and questioned from both sides. The point here is not the legitimacy of what happened. The point here is that it must be emphasized clearly that all the governments that criticized Tripoli are hypocritical. These governments are hypocritical, because they would respond very similarly, if not identically, had this occurred in one of their states. These same governments would also support any country that would have reacted like this had that country been a proxy or ally. This is why the violence in Bahrain, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia are ignored and Israel is given a green light for its crimes against humanity. There is no monopoly on violence at the level of the state. The Kent State University Massacre of May 4, 1970, when peaceful anti-war student protesters in Ohio were killed by the U.S. National Guard, is proof of this. One only needs to look at the reactions of the White House, London, and the E.U. towards the atrocities in Bahrain against an unarmed civilian population fighting for elementary human rights to see how phony their crocodile tears and postures are. It is also the U.S. that arranged for the Al-Sauds to intervene militarily into Bahrain and to militarily suppress the Bahraini people. Double-Standards about Libya and Bahrain and other Arab Dictatorships In Egypt, the U.S. and the E.U. called for restraint from both the protesters and the Mubarak regime and asked for both sides to negotiate with one another. The calls for restraint were pure hypocrisy. The U.S. and the E.U. made the calls for restraint to both sides even though the Egyptian protesters were unarmed and peaceful and the Mubarak regime was the side that was using violence and was the solely armed party for most the conflict. Calls of restraint should have been made only to the Egyptian regime and not to the predominately peaceful unarmed protesters. The cases in Bahrain and Tunisia are not much different either. A totally different attitude has been applied by the U.S. and the E.U. to Libya than the attitude that has been applied to Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the corrupt Palestinian Authority. No sanctions were applied against the authorities in Bahrain by the U.S. and the E.U. when the Bahraini military without warning blatantly attacked peaceful protesters in Manama’s Pearl Square. The Bahraini protesters were completely peaceful, but this did not stop the ruling Al-Khalifas from ordering indiscriminate live firings on the crowds of Bahraini protesters. In Bahrain a reign of terror and murder has been unleashed on the Bahraini people by the Al-Khalifas and the Al-Sauds, which has merely been ignored by the E.U. and Washington. A whole population is being systematically terrorized by an unwanted, hated, and foreign-imposed ruling family. Hospitals and children have been brutally attacked. Doctors and union leaders have been killed. Mosques have been bulldozed to the ground and an entire population has been put into detention. Bahrain is a second Palestine. Ironically, the Al-Khalifas have been thanked by Washington, NATO, and the leaders of the E.U. for joining the coalition against the Libyans. The Al-Khalifa regime has also been presented by the U.S. and the E.U. as a model Arab government. In a blatant act of hypocrisy, the regimes of the Arab petro-sheikhdoms, which pushed forward an Arab League demand for a no-fly zone over Libya, have been presented as stewards and representatives of the Arab masses by Hillary Clinton and E.U. leaders. [5] How are they representatives of the Arab peoples, Arab choices, or even Arab popular opinion? The Arab Gulf (Khaliji) emirs are the anti-thesis of popular representation. In reality these Arab sheikhdoms are a few individuals who act as they like and are not representative of any of the views of their own citizens in any way. So it is extremely phony and two-faced when Hillary Clinton, Monsieur Sarkozy, and David Cameron present these Arab sheikdoms as representing the Arab people and of Arab positions. These Arab despots are not the representatives of the sentiments of Arabdom, they only represent themselves and repress real Arab sentiments. In contrast to the verbal condemnations and sanctions against Libya, no actions were taken against the Al-Khalifas in Bahrain. While the jet attack claims against Libyans were fabricated, the evidence of indiscriminate firing on protesters – including by tanks – were verified by video footage from within Bahrain and by human rights groups. The reactions to Bahrain and Libya and the media reports about both Arab countries have been diametrically opposed. Double-Standards about Mercenaries Most of the forces used by the Al-Khalifahs in Bahrain are foreigners and mercenaries. This includes foreign military personnel from both Jordan and Saudi Arabia. As mentioned earlier, the Al-Sauds even sent military reinforcements to Bahrain to crush the civilian protests. Yet, there has been a systematic and exaggerated emphasis placed on Qaddafi’s foreign mercenaries. Has the use of foreign mercenaries in Bahrain been highlighted? The answer is no. Moreover, the U.S., Britain, France, and their allies are no in any position based on moral grounds to criticize Tripoli for using mercenaries. All these powers actively and openly use and employ mercenaries – far more than Libya – under the terminologies of private contractors or security firms. Britain even has a whole brigade of mercenaries, the Brigade of Gurkhas, which even trains with U.S. forces. The French Foreign Legion is also a group of foreign soldiers employed by Paris. Washington itself is the largest employer of mercenaries and bounty hunters on the planet. This is also the reason that the sixth section of the U.N. sanctions resolution 1970 (Peace and Security in Africa) passed against Tripoli by the U.N. Security Council specifically prevents mercenaries from countries that are not signatories to the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) from being prosecuted. [6] Additionally, this is tied to British and U.S. plans to send an army of mercenaries into Libya as part of their future ground operations. Resolution 1970’s Article 6 states: Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State[.] [7] The Daily Telegraph in Britain has also pointed this out too in an informative news commentary that exposes the double-standards being applied under the name of international justice and humanitarianism. It is as follows: The key paragraph said that anyone from a non-ICC country alleged to have committed crimes in Libya would “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country. It was inserted despite Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, saying that all those “who slaughter civilians” would “be held personally accountable”. Speaking to reporters outside the council chamber, Gerard Araud, the French UN ambassador, described the paragraph as “a red line for the United States”, meaning American diplomats had been ordered by their bosses in Washington to secure it. “It was a deal-breaker, and that’s the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the council,” said [Gerard] Araud. [8] Resolution 1970 also puts an arms embargo on Tripoli and makes a whole set of demands from Libya that none of the other Arab states that are oppressing their populations have been asked to comply with. Even when reports of killings by government forces were being made, nothing of the sort was applied to Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, or Bahrain. In another case of double-standards and a mockery, the Arab League has also suspended Libya from the pan-Arab organization due to the use of violence. The majority of the members of the Arab League, from the Palestinian Authority to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have brutally used violence against peaceful protesters even while they were criticizing Libya. When other Arab leaders are also using force to suppress their own citizens they are being given a platform by the U.S. and the E.U. to spurn Libya. Using a phrase used by Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis to describe the behaviour of the Arab sheikhdoms and presidential dictatorships against there countries, it can be said that another “Arab conspiracy” is taking place. Libya is being betrayed, just as the corrupt heads of the members of the Arab League betrayed Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. Fuelling the Flames: Arming Both Sides In Libya, the U.S. and its E.U. partners are fanning the flames of sedition. A prolonged civil war is in their interest. It allows them to weaken Libya as a state and it has allowed them to manipulate global public opinion in a managed discourse favouring interventionism. Both deception and the tactics of divide and conquer are at play. Simply stated, the U.S. and the E.U. are playing both sides. They have provided material support to both sides. They first supported Qaddafi through military hardware and training that lasted up until the start of 2011, while they now support the forces opposed to Qaddafi. If they refer to Libya as a “killing field” then it should be pointed it out that it is a “killing field” that they created and made possible. Washington has had a hand in all of the violence in Libya. Neither the Bush Jr. Administration nor the Obama Administration have shied away from training the Libyan military:  For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $350,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding for Libya to “support education and training of Libyan security forces, creating vital linkages with Libyan officers after a 35-year break in contact.” Participation in the IMET program also makes the Libyan government eligible to purchase additional U.S. military training at a reduced cost. The Bush Administration’s FY2009 request for IMET funding indicated that “the Government of Libya would pay for additional training and education with national funds.” However, no IMET funding was provided in FY2009, according to State Department budget documents.  The Obama Administration also requested Foreign Military Financing assistance for Libya for the first time in FY2010, with the goal of providing assistance to the Libyan Air Force in developing its air transport capabilities and to the Libyan Coast Guard in improving its coastal patrol and search and rescue operations. FY2011 FMF assistance is being requested to support Libyan participation in a program that assists countries seeking to maintain and upgrade their U.S.-made C-130 air transport fleets. [9] London’s arms sales to Qaddafi’s government have also been significant: “According to the Department for Business Innovation [and] Skills (BIS), £181.7 million (Dh1.09 billion)-worth of arms export licences were granted from [Britain] to Libya in the third quarter of 2010 — up from £22 million in second quarter.” [10] On the basis of the agreements between Tony Blair and Colonel Qaddafi, Britain was even training members of the Libyan police force, including a major and a brigadier, at Huddersfield University in West Yorkshire during the start of the conflict in Libya. [11] The double-standards being applied by these powers are visible in every nuance and fabric of their actions. The Associated Press (AP) unwittingly points this out in a report summing up the London Conference on Libya: Muammar Gaddafi and Franco Frattini in friendlier times. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said negotiations on securing Gadhafi’s exit were being conducted with “absolute discretion” and that there were options on the table that hadn’t yet been formalized. “What is indispensable is that there be countries that are willing to welcome Gadhafi and his family, obviously to end this situation which otherwise could go on for some time,” he said. Frattini had said earlier that he hoped some nation would offer a proposal. But the Italian diplomat insisted there was no option of immunity for Gadhafi. “We cannot promise him a ‘safe-conduct’ pass,” he stressed. [12] While condemning Qaddafi, saying that he will have no “immunity,” they also are talking about a “safe-haven” where he will be immune. Furthermore, while the British have said that they know very little about the Transitional Council in Benghazi, Admiral James Stavridis has told the U.S. Armed Service Committee that he is, either as the head of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) or NATO, very well aware of the composure of the opposition. [13] This is contradictory; in this case London says one thing, but the head of military operations for NATO says something else. At the same time the U.S., Britain, and their allies have left open an option to even betray the Transitional Council. This is typical foreign policy behaviour for London, Washington, and their allies. William Hague has hinted about this: “‘We [meaning Britain, the U.S., and their allies] must never be complacent about the way events like this could turn out,’ Hague said. ‘If things go wrong in the region on a sustained basis, there could be new opportunities for terrorism or extremism.’” [14] Thus, the spectre of Al-Qaeda and its ties to the Transitional Council is starting to emerge in the picture and discourse. The Propaganda War: Media Distortion about Libya Perception management has been used to start the war against Libya and to garnish support for the aggression against Libya. This is part of a tradition that the Pentagon and NATO have followed. All the major wars the U.S. has fought in have involved major media lies. In Vietnam there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in Yugoslavia the claims of ethnic genocide, in Afghanistan the tragic events of 9/11 (September 11, 2011), and in Iraq the lies about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and cooperation between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. The mainstream media has been the first line of attack in these wars of aggression. In regards to Iraq, the U.S. government brought a false witness to the U.S. Congress who while pretending to be a Kuwaiti nurse testified that Iraqi soldiers threw 312 Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to die. [15] This was used to galvanize public opinion in the U.S. in order to go to war with Iraq in 1991. The infamous Nurse Nayirah testimony was given by Nijrah (Nayirah) Al-Sabah the daughter of the Kuwaiti envoy to Washington. She was even given acting lessons by a public relations (P.R.) firm before her false testimony, which George H. Bush Sr. referred to when justifying going to war with Iraq. [16]  The Fabricated Jet Attacks on Civilians At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was demonized after he put down rebellions that were instigated by the U.S. and its allies. Now Qaddafi is presented like Saddam Hussein as a monster killing his own people. The justification for establishing the no-fly zones over Libya, which in effect was a smokescreen for launching an undeclared war, were the media claims that Libyan military jets were attacking civilian protesters. The Financial Times is worth quoting to illustrate how the media claims were used to argue for military intervention by NATO leaders: “We must not tolerate this regime using military force [referring to the the jet attacks] against its own people,” David Cameron, [the British] prime minister, said. “In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.” [17] U.S. and E.U. officials made hard verbal condemnations against Colonel Qaddafi when these reports about jets firing on protesters were made. There is nothing that corroborates this. The reports turned out to be false like the claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These types of criminal fabrications should not be allowed to go unpunished either. The Russian military was monitoring Libya from space and saw no signs of jet attacks on civilians. [18] No satellite evidence even showed damage caused by jets. Nor was one piece of video evidence produced about this, while all sorts of footage had been coming out of Libya. The Pentagon, the E.U., and NATO all had access to the same satellite technology and intelligence to verify if such attacks were made, which means that they knew the reports were false. Libyan military planes only got involved later on during the conflict during missions to bomb ammunition depots to prevent the rebels from getting arms. This was fairly later in the conflict and after the media claims were made that jets were firing on protesters. Libyan air power was also virtually non-existent before and after the foreign intervention. Admiral Locklear, who is the U.S. Navy commander that led the attacks at the onset of the war, even told reporters that “[Libya’s] air force before coalition operations was ‘not in good repair,’ and that [Libya’s] tactical capability consisted of several dozen helicopters.” Despite this reality, Libyan air power was systematically portrayed as a major threat to Libyan civilians.  Who is behind the Massacres and Acts of Brutality in Libya? Stories were also presented that Libyan forces were killing individuals from within their own ranks that refused to fight. Video evidence from within Libya actually proved that video footage presented alongside these reports about Libya was spun. It was not the Libyan forces that killed these men, but elements within the Libyan opposition. Videos showing torture and brutal treatment of civilians, including a small boy, by elements from within the rebel fighters are also appearing. The Salvador option is being used in Libya. Speculatively, these elements were probably working as foreign agents. Footage has surfaced of a small boy in a Libyan hospital being helped by doctors after he was tortured. The doctors are looking at the little boy who has a thin pole shoved through his body, going through from near his penis all the way through to his left shoulder. The video demonstrates something very important. What happened to the little boy was not the work of any laymen. These were individuals who had to be trained in torture, because of the way the pole was sent through the body of the little boy who was not killed by the incision. This points to actors outside of Libya. These cases of torture resemble the brutal cases and murders that were being carried out in El Salvador and later in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. British “undercover soldiers” caught driving booby trapped car – Basra (Iraq), 19 September 2005. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index…. It has to also be emphasized that Britain sent commandos into Iraq that were disguised as local Arabs to bomb local mosques and areas with civilians in order to create sectarian fighting amongst the Iraqis. [19] It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this is also being replicated amongst the Libyans and other Arab peoples in order to divide them and to fuel civil strife. Nor should the doctored pictures made by Britain and the U.S. about Iraqis greeting Anglo-American forces as liberators be forgotten either.  The Racist Victimization of Black Libyans by the Mainstream Media Although Qaddafi has used mercenaries from Europe and Africa, racist and exaggerated reports about mercenaries were inseminated globally about the so-called “African mercenaries.” Many members of the Libyan military and the Libyan general population were presented as foreigners from other African countries. In reality, many Libyans are black-skinned. Being an Arab does not ascribe one to any particular phenotype or physical look, because it is the use of the Arabic language that defines the Arab identity. Arabs can be black-skinned or of a Mediterranean complexion or of a fair-skinned complexion with blond hair. The same is true about being a Berber. This is also very true of all Libyans and other North Africans. Black Libyan soldier murdered by the rebels. In Libya many Libyans are black-skinned. They are not foreigners or mercenaries. Amongst the Negroid Libyans are the Haratins (Harratins) and the Tuareg people (Kel Tamajaq or Kel Tamashq) in the south. These Libyans are as Libyan as the other inhabitants of the country. Although there are foreign mercenaries in Libya, what the outside media managed to do was present footage of some of these black-skinned Libyans serving in the Libyan military and police forces under the label of foreign mercenaries. This was done to demonize Qaddafi and to create an atmosphere for intervention, because Qaddafi was presented as killing his people with a massive army of African mercenaries. In additions, the plight and murder of the scores of “Black Libyans” or foreign workers from sub-Sahara(n) Africa, which in many cases were barbarically decapitated and mutilated, have been ignored and not even covered by the same media outlets that talked about Qaddafi using African mercenaries.  Misinformation about the Momentum of Anti-Qaddafi Protests Leading up to the war on Libya, all sorts of inaccurate reports were made by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sky News, CNN, and other major networks. For example Al Jazeera reported that Shokri Ghanem, a top energy official in Libya, had fled Libya, but Reuters confirmed that this was not true. [20] Ghamen protested to Al Jazeera’s misreporting in an interview with Reuters: “‘This is not true, I am in my office and I will be on TV in a few minutes’ Ghamen said by telephone.” [21] At the very outset of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the North America media almost daily that U.S. tanks were at near the gates of Baghdad. Something similar has been reported about Libya in regards to the anti-Qaddafi protests. Incorrect reports were also made about cities that had fallen, but in reality old videos were being aired or footage of other Libyan cities were being shown on network television. Other reports claimed that there was major fighting in Tripoli and parts of it had fallen, when Tripoli was actually peaceful for days. Later on, the words “claim” and “claimed” were systematically used when these reports were made in an effort to vindicate distorted or incorrect information. On February 26, 2011 reports were made claiming that all the main Libyan cities where no longer under the control of the Libyan government. This was false. Cities like Sabha (in central Libya), Sirte/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli), and Tripoli itself were all under the control of Qaddafi’s government. [22] Overall the original coverage of the events in Libya grossly blew the violence out of proportion in order to justify the agenda of foreign intervention. Like the case of Iraq, with time the people of the world will realize this, but will there those who helped create these fabricated reports be held accountable for starting and supporting a war? The Propaganda War within Libya It should, however, be cautioned that a propaganda war is being fought by multiple sides. The U.S. and its allies have not held the solitary monopoly on propaganda. There are four major sides to the media war. The Libyan government in Tripoli and the Benghazi-based Transitional Council have also been involved in “perception management.” Aside from the foreign-based mainstream media there are two distinct sides of the media war within Libya. At the start of the NATO intervention in North Africa, the Libyan government in Tripoli reported that French and Qatari fighter jets were shot down. The Libyan government exhibited on Jamahiriya News what it claimed were three downed French and two downed Qatari pilots. The news came during the opening salvos of the war and it was brief and was never discussed afterward. [23] Additionally, the Libyan government and the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation also tried to present the capture of an Italian civilian vessel as a military victory by Libya against Italy and NATO. The Transitional Council too has been waging an intense propaganda war. With the help of Qatar the Transitional Council has established its own television and news channel. [24] This is how the Los Angeles Times described the news sources run by the Transitional Council: “It’s not exactly fair and balanced media. In fact, as [Mohammed G.] Fannoush [the former librarian who runs the media for the Transitional Council] helpfully pointed out [in his own words], there are four inviolate rules of coverage on the two rebel radio stations, TV station and newspaper: “No pro-[Qaddafi] reportage or commentary (at least until the tyrant in Tripoli is deposed). No mention of a civil war. (The Libyan people, east and west, are unified in a war against a totalitarian regime.) No discussion of tribes or tribalism. (There is only one tribe: Libya.) No references to Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. (That’s [Qaddafi’s] propaganda.)” [25] Moreover, Fannoush himself as the head of the opposition media acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times that the media in Benghazi serves as a mouthpiece for the Transitional Council. [26] The New York Times, which has predominately been supportive of the Transitional Council has been more blunt about the Transitional Council’s credibility: “[L]ike the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric [acts].” [27] The Transitional Council’s forces have even detained and interrogated Russian journalists. This is because of the generally unfavourable coverage of the NATO war in Libya by Russian journalists. Two reporters from Komsomolskaya Pravda and three television journalists from NTV, which is owned by Gazprom, were abducted and released in early-April 2011 by the Transitional Council. [28] The Transitional Council Leadership Always Supported Military Intervention Contradicting statements are not only being made by the U.S. government and Western European governments. The self-appointed figures of the Benghazi-based Transitional Council opposed to Qaddafi are also making contradictory statements. The Transitional Council has been described as being similar to Qaddafi’s regime, because “the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties.” [29] Moreover, the Transitional Council’s claims against Qaddafi are also similar to those made by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress against Saddam Hussein. Take for example the position of General Abdul Fatah Al-Yunis (Al-Younis), Qaddafi’s interior minister who defected. General Al-Yunis has said: “[H]e believed that the [W]est should be ready to launch airstrikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s palace in Tripoli to prevent him [from] attacking the Libyan people with chemical weapons or causing terrible casualties in some other way. He [also said that he] was also in favour of establishing an international no-fly zone as soon as possible.” [30] More importantly, there is a huge divide between the Transitional Council and the Libyans they purportedly represent. In Benghazi and its environs there were English posters and signs in English intended for foreing media cameras, saying “No Foreign Intervention,” “Libyan People Can Manage it Alone,” and “No To Foreign Military Intervention” as a message representing popular sentiment amongst the Libyan people on the anti-Qaddafi side. Wide sentiment against the U.S. and Britain in particular also existed in Benghazi and the region of Barqa. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Libya Despite what media sources from outside Libya were claiming at the outset of the revolt in Libya, Qaddafi’s back was not against the wall. He controlled most the country and a majority of the population, specifically in the western and southern parts of Libya, still supported him for a multitude of reasons. Hereto, Qaddafi still has wide support within the security and military apparatus of his country, not to mention his own tribe, militias, and the common people of Tripoli. According to this author, the media has also distored Qaddafi’s latest message about being “in a place they can’t reach him.” He was not referring to a physical place; he was talking about the hearts of the Libyan people. What the war against Libya has done is widen Qaddafi’s base of support. Patriotism has been a huge factor. Many good people who opposed Qaddafi at one point or another have united and locked ranks with Qaddafi and his regime. They have done this, because they believe that they have to stand united to save Libya from falling prey to the U.S. and its coalition and becoming a new and divided colony. To them Qaddafi is not the real target; Libya and Africa are the real targets. In a manner of speaking the good, the bad, and the ugly have been united under the Libyan regime’s ranks. This is also one of the reasons that the Pentagon and Brussels are working to make sure that internal divisions in Libya are continuously fuelled. They will use the Libyan people against one another to divide Libya. The Libyan people have been led into a trap and they are being misled. It must also be pointed out that the good, the bad, and the ugly have also gathered together on the Benghazi-based opposition side led by the Transitional Council. The enemy’s of genuine freedom and of the Libyan people have taken advantage of the situation in Libya. There is plenty of blame to go around in Libya, but its people must not fight one another. Libya collectively and as a whole lost the moment violence started. Nor can the Libyans let foreigners settle their differences. Any solution must be an internal one without any foreign interference. Share this Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Canadian-based sociologist and scholar. Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), specializing in geopolitical and strategic issues..

Osama died in 2001: MSNBC hit piece unwittingly reveals corroboration for Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik’s assertion

by Paul Joseph Watson
Global Research, May 13, 2011
Prison Planet

An MSNBC hit piece that attempts to debunk Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik’s assertion that Osama Bin Laden died from Marfan syndrome in 2001 unwittingly provides corroboration from a top Cornell doctor who first made similar statements in an interview with Salon magazine two months after 9/11.

Pieczenik, a State Department official in three different administrations and an award-winning Harvard Medical School luminary, told The Alex Jones Show last week that the alleged raid on Bin Laden’s compound was a fable because Osama had already been dead for the best part of a decade. Pieczenik originally appeared on the show back in April 2002 when he asserted that Bin Laden had been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse.

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.

According to French intelligence reports, CIA agents visited Bin Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, two months before 9/11.

It was also widely acknowledged at the time that Bin Laden needed a kidney dialysis machine because of renal health problems. Indeed, CBS News reported that Bin Laden was having kidney dialysis treatment the night before 9/11. No dialysis machine was found in the alleged compound in Pakistan, which prompted the corporate media to backtrack and report that that he actually had kidney stones, not kidney disease, despite the fact that the CIA admitted back in 2008 that Bin Laden had suffered from kidney failure.

Other accounts from 2000-2001 claimed that Osama was also suffering from Hepatitis C and had only two more years to live. Despite all these health problems, on Saturday the White House released video footage of Bin Laden which it claimed was filmed in fall 2010, although the clips show a younger and healthier looking Osama compared with video footage from 2001.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer and can cause instant death from the sudden rupture of the aorta.

“Back then, after the 9/11 terror attacks, medical experts weighed in on bin Laden’s tall, frame, lanky limbs and long face, all classic physical symptoms of Marfan syndrome,” states the MSNBC report.

The article then quotes Dr. Richard Devereux, a clinician who treats patients with the illness at the Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York. In a November 9, 2001 interview with Salon magazine, Devereux said of Bin Laden, “He is Marfanoid. He seems to have long fingers and long arms. His head appears to be elongated and his face narrow … It’s certainly conceivable that he has the Marfan syndrome and could be evaluated for it.”

After MSNBC attempted to speak to the doctor again on the topic in light of Bin Laden’s alleged assassination, they were told by a hospital spokesman that Devereux “doesn’t want to talk about bin Laden now.”

Despite MSNBC’s best efforts to debunk Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died from Marfan syndrome in 2001 – they go on to quote another doctor who claims that Bin Laden never had the illness – Pieczenik’s source for the information comes directly from intelligence files that he saw over nine years ago confirming that the terror leader was dead. This means that the entire narrative of Bin Laden’s alleged assassination put out by the Obama administration is an act of mass public deception. Obama has benefited enormously from cultivating a ‘tough guy’ image out of the fabled raid, enjoying a 13 point approval rating bounce according to an Associated Press poll.

Pieczenik’s credibility is beyond reproach (bio). As well as serving under five US presidents, he wrote the book on psychological warfare and counter terrorism for the State Department, while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world. He also won two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards while studying at Harvard Medical School.

Pieczenik’s record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus. He was a top spymaster involved in all manner of black-ops, undercover missions and classified work.

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden has been dead for years is also backed up by a myriad of other intelligence professionals and heads of state, including Former CIA officer and hugely respected intelligence & foreign policy expert Robert Baer, as well as former FBI counter-terror head Dale Watson, who have all gone on the record to state that Osama was dead long before the raid on his alleged Pakistani compound earlier this month.

Paul Joseph Watson is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Paul Joseph Watson

.