National Association of Terror Operations …….
http://www.presstv.ir
Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:25PM GMT
By Azartush Najjarian

NATO was created on April 4, 1949. NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium. NATO was originally created as a precautionary, counter-military organization, which would be prepared to fight the spread of soviet communism.
The true history of the movement depicts a very aggressive and offensive military apparatus. NATO is described as an organization with goals exclusively for self defense against external threats. Thus each member state mutually agrees to respond to an attack if and when NATO faces an external threat. Hence, as NATO originally was to function as a political entity, NATO transcended into a military organization. This is proved by its offensive blunders since its founding.
NATO Secretary General was Lord Ismay. Ismay’s famous words for the primary goal of the organization were: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The United States alliance with NATO was sealed in Washington, D.C on April 4, 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states and the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
Many Icelanders opposed joining and had an anti-membership March in 1949; thereafter, the goals were declared for NATO:
“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
NATO was originally conceived as an alliance to protect the Western democracies against any invasion by the Soviet Bloc during the cold war. However, none of the member nations of NATO were ever subject to any attack by a foreign army since membership.
The trend of NATO interventions involves military forces from wealthy parts of the world fighting with unimaginative-military advantages with regards to weaponry against impoverished groups in the third world. Humanitarian reasons have been used as the primary justifications in most all of these intervention wars led by NATO. The original twelve members of NATO in 1949 were the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Some of states were the major ex-colonial powers such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, France, Denmark and the US.
After the masses are programmed to commit to the protocols the elite wish to impose, the chaos begins. Propaganda is the tool of indoctrination and it goes back to psychological programming as we have discussed before, which is also synonymous with synthetic realities. Synthetic realities could be defined as the intentional manipulation and distortion of what we perceive to be true in order to achieve a particular aim or goal. In essence it is the annihilation of compassion, rationale, logic, and sympathy. It works to rape and distort human beings from their humanity and mutual desire to assist each other.
According to Thinkquest.org describes propaganda as such: “Propaganda is designed to manipulate the emotions and instincts of the general public. Relying on such low level emotions as hate and fear, it uses incomplete or incorrect information while avoiding logical arguments. It repeats ideas and catchphrases, often uses scapegoats, and relates itself with the high ideals. It tries to curtail individual thought, denounces or suppresses contradictory facts, and acts as a distraction. Mass communication is necessary for the success of propaganda.”
When considering NATO’s historical record of savagery and death, one of the most controversial interventions documented was in Yugoslavia. The former Yugoslav Republics included Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia (Republic), Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. The US and NATO allies attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the 24th of March 1999. Kosovo Albanians wanted independence from the Serbian province of Kosovo. Thus the US and NATO used false allegations to attack Yugoslavia claiming it was for humanitarian reasons. After almost a decade later on the 17th of February 2008 the situation became more transparent. NATO warplanes began attacking military targets first and then the infrastructure while many civilians were killed in the bombings.
The attack on Serbia was seen by Serbs as an attack on their nation and not against the regime of Milosevic. Cluster bombs were used in many areas, which are forbidden by international laws. The regular express train Skopie-Belgrade was targeted by a US pilot twice, which was full of civilians. NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. NATO also bombed a TV station in Serbia, which killed more than a dozen journalists. Amnesty International sought war crimes measures against the alliance. The Strasbourg Court refused to accept the case filed by Amnesty.
The fears of the Cold War in US history share much in ideology with the modern War on Terror. Both of these historic events were a type of synthetic manipulation of realities through media and politics. Americans were accused of being communist spies in the United States and were arrested unjustly during the Cold War.
The Japanese were also placed in concentration camps during WWII in the US. It would be apparent after little investigation that the US has a long history of bombing and terrorizing countries only to rebuild them and forge alliances. Is this the replay of the Masonic-motto: “Order out of Chaos”? We won’t have time to address this here, but there is sufficient history and writings addressing this subject.
Over the last decade NATO has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan backed by the US fighting the synthetic War on Terror. NATO and the US invaded Libya, and NATO is leading bombing campaigns in Libya for the ousting of Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi. The combined military spending of all NATO members is over 70 percent of the world’s defense spending. Former President George W. Bush said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as justification for the invasion of the country.
However, considering that NATO defines itself as a military defensive organization in special circumstances when its member states are being attacked, I’m not sure how bombing Libya fits NATO’s stated mission.
For that matter, none of their military adventures have ever followed the organization’s official intentions and stated policies. We must keep in mind that we live in an age where corporations, governments and militaries feel they are free to behave however they wish whether that means killing innocents, drone bombings, physical and psychological torture, military occupations and the like. The future is unpredictable and NATO will continue to play a similar role as the United States, which is the role of a world police force imposing draconian laws that they invent themselves to oppress others and still the resources of the indigenous.
AN/HGH
.
‘Russia to oppose UN anti-Syria bid’
http://www.presstv.ir

In an interview the Financial Times, Medvedev slammed the way the UN Resolution 1973 on Libya had been interpreted by Western powers, and said he would not like “a Syrian resolution to be pulled off in a similar manner,” Reuters reported.
“What I am not ready to support is a resolution [similar to the one] on Libya because it is my deep conviction that a good resolution has been turned into a piece of paper that is being used to provide cover for a meaningless military operation,” the Russian president pointed out.
“Right now, I am not sure that any resolution is needed because a resolution may say one thing but actions would be quite different. The resolution may say: ‘We condemn the use of force in Syria’ and after that, planes will take off into the air,” he further explained.
Since the beginning of the unrests in Syria in mid-March, scores of people, including security forces, have been killed.
The shadowy opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings. But the Syrian government blames armed gangs for the violence, saying that the unrest is being orchestrated from outside the Middle Eastern country.
In April, the Washington Post published secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, which indicated that the US has conducted a long campaign to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The Syrian president has vowed to bring the people responsible for the killings to justice.
.
Anonymous Message to NATO
Monday, June 6, 2011
Good evening, NATO.
We are Anonymous.
It has come to our attention that a NATO draft report has classified Anonymous a potential „threat to member states’ security”, and that you seek retaliation against us.
It is true that Anonymous has committed what you would call ‘cyber-attacks’ in protest against several military contractors, companies, lawmakers, and governments, and has continuously sought to fight against threats to our freedoms on the Internet. And since you consider state control of the Internet to be in the best interest of the various nations of your military alliance, you therefore consider us a potential threat to international security.
So we would like to make it clear that we, in reality, pose no threat to the people of your nations. Anonymous is not a reckless swarm attacking the websites of governments and companies out of hatred or spite. We fight for freedom. For ourselves, and the people of the world, we seek to preserve the liberty granted to the millions of people who have found it on the Internet.
In your draft, you mention the „data intelligence company” HBGary Federal, and how they were hacked by Anonymous. You use this as justification that we are a threat. What you conveniently fail to mention is that HBGary itself was engaged in illegal activity, including but not limited to: being contracted by the United States Chamber of Commerce to spy on & discredit unions and progressive groups, being contracted by the Bank of America to launch a campaign of misinformation against Wikileaks and it’s supporters (going so far as to blackmail journalists), developing a new type of Windows rootkit to spy upon individuals, and developing astroturfing software that could make an army of fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues.
That this company which „tries to protect the US Government from hackers” was partaking in such illegal activity against ordinary, uninvolved citizens, whether it be for „the aid of security” or not, is completely disgraceful and utterly unacceptable.
We care not whether the actions we have taken in this struggle have complied with laws of the United States or any other country. What your lot fail to understand is that we live in cyberspace. The only laws that apply are the laws set forth by our individual consciences. We break your nations’ laws when we recognize those laws to stand between the people and their freedom.
Anonymous is not simply „a group of super hackers”. Anonymous is the embodiment of freedom on the web. We exist as a result of the Internet, and humanity itself. This frightens you. It only seems natural that it would. Governments, corporations, and militaries know how to control individuals. It frustrates you that you do not control us. We have moved to a world where our freedom is in our own hands. We owe you nothing for it. We stand for freedom for every person around the world. You stand in our way.
We hope you come to see that your attempts to censor and control our existence are futile. But if this is not the case, if you continue to object to our freedoms — we shall not relent.
We do not fear your tyranny. You cannot win a battle against an entity you do not understand. You can take down our networks, arrest every single one of us that you can backtrace, read every bit of data ever shared from computer to computer for the rest of this age, and you will still lose.
So come at me bro. You can retaliate against us in any manner you choose. Lock down the web. Throw us in prison. Take it all away from us. Anonymous will live on.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
.
No democracy whatsoever for Yemen and Bahrain
Posted by EU Times on May 30th, 2011

Why would NATO not bomb Bahrain and Yemen? It would seem than their leaders, from a Western point of view, are no better than Gaddafi or al-Assad. According to the Western elites, they allegedly are rigidly oppressing their people.
What about the behavior of the Bahraini King and the Yemeni president? The former, unable to cope with people’s anger, brought in the Saudi troops for the suppression of the unrests. After the mass beatings and shootings of the protesters, the authorities have banned doctors from providing assistance to the opposition. King al-Khalifa was unaffected by the fact that there were no weapons in the hands of the protesters.
In turn, the Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh continues to destroy those who oppose his regime. The mass protests demanding his resignation have been going on since the beginning of February. The opposition accuses him of the appalling corruption.
The authorities responded to this by a brutal repression. Peaceful demonstrations were shot by police. Even at the lowest estimates of the Western media, the assistants of Saleh killed over 150 people during their dispersal. However, judging by the data of several local human rights activists, hundreds were dead among Saleh’s opponents.
According to the information from Sanaa, during the last week the Yemeni president has surpassed all his previous achievements. In the recent days the situation has deteriorated markedly for Saleh. He spoke out against a number of important clans, including the country’s largest tribe Hashid, whose fighters are now fighting against the National Guard loyal to the president.
Head of State made a great mistake refusing to conduct a dialogue with the leaders of the Hashid, his native tribe. According to Yemeni sources, the rally was preceded by an attempt to arrest the clan leader Sheikh Sadiq al-Ahmar. The reason for this was his statement about his transition to the opposition.
In fact, we are now talking about a popular uprising. The president fears that it could turn into a full-scale civil war. This is not surprising as from time to time the country gets immersed in a real chaos. This time, the chaos is created by the President’s actions.
The cause for the armed actions that commenced on May 23 was the third failure of Saleh to immediately resign. Now he explains it by an alleged threat posed by the insurgents and militias of al-Qaeda to transform Yemen in the failed state as it happened with Somalia.
If this is the case, he said, then he would not make any concessions to his opponents and would fight those who threaten the security and stability in the country. Apparently, this is why one of his last speeches was made in the spirit of “I will leave when the violence stops.”
Saleh, who has been raining the country for 33 years, refused to sign an agreement on his resignation with the opposition on three occasions, each time putting forward new conditions. It is worth mentioning that the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) that works closely with representatives of Western countries also tried to persuad him.
On May 25, British Foreign Secretary William Hague was begging Saleh to sign the “road map” as quickly as possible to save the situation. Now the attempt of a peaceful transfer of power has failed miserably.
The Yemenis, tired of his 33-year rule and repression, have taken up arms. Each new act brings closer a catastrophe for Saleh. The prosecutor’s office of Yemen issued another warrant for the arrest of ten leaders of the Hashid. Thus, Saleh finally signed his own death sentence. It was his fighters who tipped the scales in favor of the opposition. In particular, they seized the building of the news agency SABA, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, as well as the national airline Yemenia.
The situation for Saleh has markedly deteriorated as a result of the armed action of the Arhab tribe, led by the famous Sheikh Abdul Majid al-Zindani, who is considered a prominent fundamentalist, allegedly supporting terrorism, by the U.S. and Israel. The soldiers of the Arhab have blocked the international airport of the country.
The seriousness of the situation is confirmed by the fact that the Americans have begun emergency evacuation of American citizens from Yemen, including part of the state embassy in Sanaa.
Why did the West that so zealously protects the armed Islamists who opposed al-Gaddafi and Assad have not noticed the mass killings by Saleh, as well as highly reactive, in terms of democracy, monarchy in Bahrain? It would seem that there is not much difference between the Arabs of Libya and Syria and the Arabs of Bahrain and Yemen. After all, in terms of the Western values of protection of different kinds of democratic freedoms, Saleh and Al-Khalifa are begging for democratization much more actively than Qaddafi and Assad.
However, the answer is simple enough. Bahrain is economically connected mainly to the United States and Saudi Arabia. Due to the fact that much of the Bahraini oil goes to the Americans, it would be foolish to expect them to refuse to support the local king who is successfully plundering the national wealth with their help.
The Bahraini Al Khalifa dutifully agrees to the conditions lucrative for the West and Saudi Arabia. This is his main difference from the obstinate Gaddafi. He did not want to give up his oil and gas fields for a pittance to multinational corporations.
Saleh is also considered one of their own. He was skillfully fooling the West, claiming that he is the only one capable of preventing the triumph of al-Qaeda in his country. In return he received astronomical sums of money to fight the terrorists amounting to half billion dollars a year.
However, the Western approval did not save Yemen from destabilization. Moreover, the fire that started in Tunisia and Egypt and flung to Libya and Syria thanks to the West, seized those Arab countries whose regimes were the U.S. allies. The fall of Saleh threatens to become one of the main shortcomings of the West after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Instability in Yemen poses a serious threat to all Arab oil producers in the entire Gulf region.
.
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) Themes Countries |
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:
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: 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]
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
|
BILDERBERGERS DANGEROUS
http://www.americanfreepress.net
By Mark Anderson
An influential legislator from Switzerland’s largest political party has issued a strongly worded letter to the head of the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, saying that the globalist Bilderberg group’s planned meeting in Switzerland June 9-12 threatens the nation’s deep-seated traditions of populist rule and neutrality as well as bringing many disreputable participants, some of whom are accused war criminals, to the traditionally neutral country.
The legislator, Dominique Baettig of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), was interviewed by this AFP writer last December and soon made headlines when he called for George W. Bush’s arrest for war crimes if he ever set foot in Switzerland. Bush canceled a Feb. 12 visit to Geneva.
Regarding Bilderberg’s pending visit, Baettig informed top cop Mrs. Simonetta Sommaruga: “I wish to draw your attention to . . . the discreet but influential Bilderberg group [meeting] in a hotel in St. Moritz [June 9-12].”
The group is a “global elite of bankers, industrialists, diplomats, U.S. and European NATO brass, crowned heads, media groups, their moguls and editors, as well as heads of state, whether retired or not, which coordinates, exchanges, organizes and structures, out of all democratic control, the major guidelines toward economic globalization.”
To convey the danger of Bilderberg’s influence, his letter adds, “Independence, private property and the private sphere are reduced by the usage of electronic virtual money and by . . . the control of all individuals in a biometric global gulag. . . . Higher debts of the [world’s] countries are encouraged . . . and they become the debtors of supranational private banks.
“Military and police tasks are privatized and military actions to dismantle independent states are planned and coordinated (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya; tomorrow Iran and Syria). The worst being the fact that they prepare the programmed end of traditional democracy, with a power shift from all states to the benefit of non-elected governance entities. . . .”
![]() |
His letter also notes that this “discreet group develops an ultra-liberal, free-trade society model, with a . . . world currency and the IMF as treasurer.”
Baettig noted that he’s especially troubled after “consulting the [Bilderberg] participants lists of [recent] years” and seeing “the undesirable presence” in Switzerland of certain “personalities” including Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney and others implicated in war crimes, torture and those “who are under investigation by the courts in The Hague, etc.”
Baettig asks Mrs. Sommaruga: “Are your services informed of the participants’ identities? As NATO is actually engaged in war actions (Libya, Afghanistan, targeted assassinations), the participation of NATO brass . . . does represent a major risk of a terrorist action in St. Moritz and, therefore, a serious danger for its inhabitants and neighbors. Not mentioning the . . .image loss for a sovereign and democratic nation which stands for an armed and integral neutrality. . . .”
He added that if “politicians, businessmen and media group owners sharing [globalist] motivations represents ‘crimes against the state,’ then that could undermine Swiss independence with ‘diplomatic treason.’”
.
Experts Warn of Balkanization of Libya
http://original.antiwar.com
CAIRO—As the battle for Libya rages on—with the country’s economic heartland, Misrata, being the scene of some of the uprising’s fiercest fighting—experts are warning that a “Balkanization” of Libya is possible if the U.S. and NATO opt to exploit loopholes in U.N. Resolution 1973 by arming the opposition.
In the region, “Muammar Gadhafi was advocating for the African Union (AU) to be independent instead of being subservient to the EU and the U.S. by pushing for the African Development Bank (ADB) and replacing the Franc with an African currency,” Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, research associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing on the Middle East and Central Asia, told IPS. “Realistically, the Libyan intervention is an attack on the African continent by cutting its head off. They don’t just want to ‘Balkanize’—fragment and divide—Libya, they want to ‘Balkanize’ the entire continent.”
“Now the West has rediscovered that Gadhafi is a dictator and a tyrant, they are prepared to take action against his regime, under U.N. Resolution 1973, which is primarily concerned with the protection of civilians. The irony is that NATO is now using EU weaponry to bomb some of the same weaponry it had sold to him earlier,” Kaye Stearman, media coordinator with the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), told IPS.
In response, former British ambassador to Libya Richard Dalton told IPS that “NATO has no strategic interests in Libya or elsewhere beyond what is stated in the North Atlantic Treaty as amplified by publicly announced decisions of the NATO Council. Its concern in Libya is the implementation of UNSC 1973.”
“The EU wants to see stability, prosperity, and good government in all its neighbours,” Dalton emphasized.
According to U.N. Resolution 1973, which authorized action to protect Libyan civilians, all member states must ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of the previous Resolution 1970.
Geographically, Libya is a gateway from North to Central Africa and is positioned between Eastern and Western Africa. Human rights advocates warn that by arming opposition groups, tribal conflict could spill outside of Libya’s borders. This would also be in direct violation of the U.N. mandate, they say.
“Some EU countries are also considering whether to supply arms to the anti-Gadhafi rebels, which could increase future instability. This can have unforeseen long-term consequences, which can bring great harm to societies and militate against peace-building,” says Stearman.
One example of how this has played out in the past, Stearman explains, is the U.S. arming of “mujahideen ‘freedom’ forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s, which actively prolonged conflicts, led to the growth of armed extremists, including local and foreign Taliban forces, the proliferation of a warlord-based society, and the thwarting of the growth of civil society. In addition, the same weaponry supplied by the U.S. was later used against U.S. and allied forces.”
During the Potsdam Conference in 1945—at the end of the Second World War—the Soviet Union, Britain, and the U.S. came to an impasse over the fate of seized Italian colonies in Libya. The U.S. wanted a U.N. trusteeship, but the Soviet Union suggested various provincial trusteeships, with Tripolitania under its command, Fezzan under France, and Cyrenaica under Britain.
That history is repeating itself now with the U.S. and the EU not only looking to divide Libya under two administrations in Tripoli and Benghazi, but also to eliminate a key competitor that had visions of uniting Africa, Nazemroaya said.
Libya and China were rapidly becoming key energy partners as Beijing positioned itself to be the third-largest buyer of Libyan oil—with more than 50 investment projects in the works.
Analysts like Asia Times reporter and author of Obama Does Globalistan Pepe Escobar point out that China has taken a serious hit with the recent unrest in North Africa. Its new contracts in Libya totalling $18 billion have declined by nearly 53 percent—this was the aim of U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) strategic policy to minimize China’s economic interest in Africa.
AFRICOM, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for U.S. military activities in 53 African nations.
The U.S. badly wanted a base in Africa, and the Libyan intervention has “now provided the opening,” Escobar told IPS. “AFRICOM’s participation is the Pentagon’s strategy to counter Chinese investments in Africa.”
Escobar says that at the 2010 Lisbon Summit of leaders of NATO governments the agenda was “total domination of the Mediterranean and the establishment of a NATO ‘lake’… Gadhafi’s business dealings with China irked Brussels, Paris, London, and, of course, Washington.”
In recent days, Libya’s opposition claim to have gained an upper hand by seizing control of the besieged city of Misrata, whose strategic seaport has been a key lifeline for humanitarian aid missions evacuating migrants and refugees fleeing the violence.
However, Nazemroaya points out that Misrata—which could be likened to a Shanghai on the African continent—is an important industrial and trade base for Libya and Africa that would be a major economic prize should the opposition maintain control.
“Misrata is a very important industrial city and economic heartland. Qasr Ahmed, which is located 250 kilometers east of Tripoli, is a commercial port, and the main headquarters for the Libyan Iron and Steel Company (Lisco) that exports over 60 percent of its products with nearly 50 percent going to markets in Italy and Spain,” Nazemroaya said. “Furthermore, the Libyan National Oil Company—which is one of the top 20 energy companies worldwide—is also based there. Privatization is happening under the guise of a foreign peacekeeping mission, which is why the EU wants to send soldiers.”
(Inter Press Service)
Read more by Simba Russeau
- Libyan Choice: Starve or Run – April 22nd, 2011 .
What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group
| http://www.voltairenet.org
by Thierry Meyssan* The idea that the Bilderberg Group is behind the creation of a mysterious future World Government has been spreading for years. Having had access to the archives of this very secret club, Thierry Meyssan shows that this belief leads in a false direction, serving to mask the true identity and function of the Group. In reality, the Bilderberg Group is a creation of NATO. It aims to influence key leaders on a global scale and, through them, to manipulate public opinion to get it to embrace the ideas and actions of the Northern Atlantic Alliance. |
9 May 2011 From All the versions of this article: Themes Countries NGO |
Every year since 1954, over one hundred of the most prominent personalities of Western Europe and North America meet – behind closed doors and under maximum security – within the Bilderberg Group. This exclusive seminar lasts for three days and almost nothing of the debates filters to the outside world. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, numerous journalists have taken an interest in this secretive, elitist organization. Certain authors have seen it as the beginning of a World Government, responsible for the major political, cultural, economic and military decisions of the second half of the twentieth century. This interpretation has also been voiced by Fidel Castro, but it has never been confirmed nor invalidated by any solid facts. In order to find out what the Bilderberg Group is or isn’t, I searched for documents and first hand witnesses. I obtained access to all of its records for the period 1954-1966 and numerous later documents, and I was able to talk with a former participant that I’ve known for years. No other journalist to date, including the authors who have popularized today’s stereotypes, has had access to this wealth of internal documents of the Bilderberg Group. Here’s what I discovered… The first meeting70 personalities from 12 different countries attended the first meeting of the Group. It was a three-day seminar, from May 29 to 31, 1954, near Arnhem (Netherlands). The guests were housed in two nearby hotels, but the debates were held in the Bilderberg Hotel, which gave the Group its name. The invitations with a letterhead from the Soestdijk Palace are intriguing: “I earnestly request your presence at the informal International Conference, to be held in the Netherlands in late May. This conference wishes to explore a number of issues of great importance for Western civilization and is intended to stimulate mutual understanding and goodwill through a free exchange of views.” The invitations were signed by the Prince Consort of the Netherlands, Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, and accompanied by several pages of administrative information concerning transportation and accommodation. At most, we learn that the delegates originated from the United States and 11 from Western Europe, and that 6 sessions of 3 hours each were scheduled. Given the Nazi past of Prince Bernhard (who had served in the SS cavalry until his marriage in 1937 to Princess Juliana) and in the context of McCarthyism in the U.S., it’s clear that the “issues of great importance for Western civilization” revolved around the struggle against communism. Once there, the anticipation of the guests was mitigated by the two chairmen: U.S. entrepreneur John S. Coleman and outgoing Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Paul van Zeeland. The first was an active partisan of free trade and the second a supporter of the European Defense Community (EDC) [1]. Last but not least, at the far end of the table (see photo) sat Retinger Joseph, the intellectual influence behind the British. All this suggests that the Dutch and British monarchies sponsored this meeting to support the European Defense Community and the economic model of free-market capitalism against the anti-Americanism that the Communists and the Gaullists were promoting. However, appearances are deceiving. The goal was not to campaign for the EDC, but to mobilize the elite for the Cold War. His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard, was chosen to convene this conference because his status as a prince consort would give it a Stately character without being formal. This was meant to hide the real sponsor: an inter-governmental organization which intends to manipulate the governments of some of its Member States. John S. Coleman was not yet the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, but he had already created the “Citizen’s Committee for a National Trade Policy” – CCNTP. According to him, absolute free trade, that is to say, the renunciation of all customs duties, would allow countries allied with the United States to increase their wealth and finance the European Defense Community (in other words, rearm Germany and integrate its potential military power within NATO). However, the documents in our possession show that the CCNTP was a “Citizen’s” committee in name only. This is actually an initiative of Charles D. Jackson, the White House psychological warfare adviser. The operation was controlled in reality by William J. Donovan, the former commander of the OSS (the U.S. intelligence service during the war), now in charge of building the American branch of the new secret service of NATO, Gladio [2]. Paul van Zeeland was not only the promoter of the European Defense Community, but also a politician of great experience. At the Liberation, he chaired the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILAE) whose objective was to create a customs and monetary union. This organization was established by Joseph Retinger, mentioned earlier. Specifically Retinger, who was acting as secretary for the Bilderberg conference, served during the war in the English secret services (OES) of General Colin Gubbins. A Polish adventurer, Retinger found himself advisor to the Sikorski government in exile in the United Kingdom. In London, he livened up the small world of governments in exile and compiled one of the best address books in newly liberated Europe. His friend, Sir Gubbins, officially left the service and the SOE was disbanded. Retinger ran a small textile business, which served as a “cover”. In fact, alongside his counterpart Donovan, he was responsible for creating the English branch of Gladio. He participated in all of the preparatory meetings of the Bilderberg conference and was present among the guests, seated next to Charles D. Jackson. Unknown to the participants, the secret services of NATO were, in fact, the organizing power behind the scenes. Bernhard, Coleman and Van Zeeland were used as fronts. Contrary to the idea developed by the creative journalists who imagined the Bilderberg Group forging a secret World Government, this club of influential leaders is in reality a lobbying tool to promote NATO’s interests. It is in fact much more serious and dangerous, because it is NATO which aims to be the secret World Government – guaranteeing the international status quo and maintaining U.S. influence. Moreover, the security of each subsequent meeting was not provided by the police of the host country, but by the soldiers of the NATO Alliance. Among the ten speakers, there were two former Prime Ministers (Guy Mollet, France, Alcide de Gasperi, Italy), three officials of the Marshall Plan, the Cold War hawk (Paul H. Nitze) and, above all, an extremely powerful banker (David Rockefeller). According to the preparatory documents, approximately 20 people were in the inner circle. They knew more or less in detail those who were pulling the strings and preparing in advance their work. The smallest details were prepared before hand and nothing was left to chance. On the other hand, the fifty other participants knew nothing of what was happening behind the scenes. They were chosen to influence their respective governments and public opinion in their countries. The seminar was organized to convince these leaders and incite them to diffuse the point of view of the NATO Alliance in their respective countries. The debates didn’t address the major international problems, but rather analyzed the supposed ideological strategy of the Soviets and set out how it should be countered by the “free world“. The first statements assessed the communist threat. The “conscious communists” are individuals who intended to put their homeland at the service of the Soviet Union in order to impose a collectivist world. They must be fought. But it was a difficult challenge because these “conscious communists” in Europe were embedded with a mass of Communist voters who knew nothing about their evil plans and followed them in hopes of improved social conditions. Gradually, the rhetoric became more radical. The “free world” must oppose the “world communist conspiracy“, not only in a general way, but also by responding to specific questions concerning U.S. investments in Europe or on decolonization. Finally, the speakers addressed the main problem which the Soviets, according to them, were exploiting to their advantage. For cultural and historical reasons, the political leaders of the “free world” used different arguments in the U.S. and in Europe, arguments that sometimes contradicted one another. The most emblematic cases are the purges organized by Senator McCarthy in the United States. They were essential to save democracy, but the method was perceived in Europe as a form of totalitarianism. The final message was that no diplomatic negotiation, no compromise was possible with the “Reds“. The role of the Communists in Western Europe had be prevented at any cost, but it would take cunning: as they cannot just be arrested and shot. They should be neutralized discreetly, without their voters realizing what’s happening. In short, the ideology developed was that of NATO and Gladio. No one said that elections should be rigged or that moderates should be assassinated, but all participants agreed that to save the “free world“, that freedom should be put “in brackets”. Although the proposed European Defense Community (EDC) was defeated three months later in the French Parliament under the attacks of the Communist deputies and the “nationalist extremists” (in other words, the partisans of de Gaulle), the Congress was none the less considered a success. Despite appearances, there was no intention to support the creation of the EDC or any other specific policy. The real goal was to spread the ideology of the ruling elite by influencing the opinion makers, who in turn would influence the rest of society. Objectively, the Western Europeans were less aware of the freedoms that they were being denied and increasingly aware of the freedoms that were not available to the people of Eastern Europe. The Bilderberg Group becomes an organizationA second conference was held in Barbizon, France, from March 18th to 20th 1955. The idea that the conferences would be held annually and that they required a permanent secretariat became increasingly evident. Prince Bernhard became less visible after he was caught influence peddling (Lockheed Martin scandal). He was replaced by the former British Prime Minister Alec Douglas Home (1977-80). The following Presidencies were held by former German Chancellor and President Walter Scheel (1981-85), former Governor of the Bank of England Eric Roll (1986-89), former NATO Secretary General Peter Carrington (1990-98), and finally the former vice-president of the European Commission Etienne Davignon (since 1999). For many years the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group was assisted by two Secretary Generals, one for Europe and Canada (the vassal states) and one for the U.S. (the ruler), however, there has been only one Secretary General since 1999. From one year to the next, the debates have been highly redundant. This is why the guests change regularly. But there is always a core group who prepares the conference in advance and the newcomers who are taught the atlanticist rhetoric in vogue. Currently, the annual seminars bring together over 120 participants, including one third of the permanent core group members. They were selected by the Alliance based on their social network and their capacity to influence the rest of society, irrespective of their particular functions in society. Thus, they remain members of the core group even after changing their job. Here is the exact list of the core group, including members of the Board of Directors, which serve as fronts for the guests, and the less visible members, in order to not scare away the newcomers.
Board of directors
Members of the hidden core group
The Bilderbergers don’t necessarily represent the companies or institutions in which they work. However, it is interesting to observe the diversity of their political and economic influence. The Lobby of the most powerful military organization in the worldIn recent years, the number of topics discussed at the annual conferences has increased to keep up with world events. But the subjects of discussion are not really important, because the discussions have no precise objectives in and of themselves. The conferences are merely a pretext to convey other messages. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the most recent preparatory documents and we can only speculate about the directives that NATO will try to disseminate through these leaders of opinion. The reputation of the Bilderberg Group has led some authors to imagine that the Group nominates people to important positions. This is ridiculous and it obscures those who truly pull the strings behind the scenes within the Atlantic Alliance. For example, during the last U.S. presidential elections, it was reported that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disappeared on June 6, 2008, in order to negotiate an end to their rivalry. In reality, they participated in the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group in Chantilly, Virginia (USA). The following day, Mrs. Clinton announced that she was retiring from the race. Some authors concluded that the decision was taken during the Bilderberg meeting. The logic is faulty, since the decision was already a foregone conclusion three days before, given the number of votes for Senator Obama at the Democratic Party’s nominating committee. According to our sources, something else happened. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton concluded a financial and political agreement. Senator Obama bailed out his rival financially and offered her a position in his administration (Clinton refused the vice-presidency and instead chose the State Department) in exchange for her active support during the campaign against McCain. Then, the two leaders were presented by James A. Johnson to the Bilderberg Conference, where they assured the participants that they would work together. Barack Obama had already been NATO’s candidate for a long time. Mr. Obama and his family have always worked for the CIA and the Pentagon. [3] Moreover, the initial funds for his campaign were provided by the Crown of England, via a businessman named Nadhmi Auchi. In presenting the Black Senator to the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Alliance was, in fact, organizing public relations at the international level for the future president of the United States. Similarly, it was reported that the Bilderberg Group held an impromptu dinner outside of the Conference on November 14th, 2009 at the Chateau de Val Duchesse, owned by the King of Belgium. The former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman van Rompuy, delivered a speech. Five days later he was elected president of the European Council. Once again, some authors wrongly concluded that the Bilderberg Group had been the “kingmaker”. In reality, the President of the European Union could not be chosen outside of the NATO circles, and it should be remembered that the European Union itself was the result of several secret clauses in the Marshall Plan. In addition, this choice must be endorsed by the Member States. This type of decision requires lengthy negotiations and is obviously not taken during an informal dinner with friends. Also according to our source, the Bilderberg Group President, Etienne Davignon, convened this special dinner to introduce Van Rompuy to his influential relays. These contacts were all the more necessary since the first person to occupy the new post of President of the European Council was totally unknown outside of his own country. During the meal, Mr. Van Rompuy outlined his program for creating a European tax to directly fund the institutions of the Union without going through the Member States. The role of the Bilderbergers was to proclaim far and wide, that they know Herman von Rompuy and testify to his qualities to chair the Union. The reality of the Bilderberg Group is less romantic than some authors have imagined. The incredible deployment of military force to ensure security during the meetings is not so much intended to protect, but rather to impress those who participate. It does not display their power, but instead shows that the only real power in the West is NATO. Everyone has the “choice” to either support NATO and be supported by it… or fight it and be relentlessly crushed. In addition, although the Bilderberg Group developed an anti-communist rhetoric when it was created, it was not oriented against the USSR and is not today oriented against Russia. It follows the strategy of the Alliance which is not a pact against Moscow, but rather the defence – and possibly the extension – of Washington’s zone of influence. At its inception, NATO had hoped to integrate the Soviet Union, which would have implied a commitment from Moscow not to challenge the division of the world stemming from the Conferences of Potsdam and Yalta. Recently the Alliance met with President Dmitry Medvedev at the Lisbon Summit and proposed that Russia join the group. It was not intended to be a form of subservience, but recognition of the existing New World Order, in which all of Central and Eastern Europe now falls under the U.S. orbit. Russian membership would be a sort of peace treaty: Moscow would concede defeat in the Cold War and recognize the new division of the world. In this case, the Bilderberg Group would invite Russian personalities to its annual meetings. Bilderberg would not ask these personalities to influence public opinion in Russia in order to Americanise them, but to convince them to renounce their dreams of past greatness and glory.
|
VIDEO: LIBYA: NATO’s Objective is to “Create a State of Chaos”
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
NATO forces have carried out over 2,000 air strikes on Libya and keep insisting they are all intended to protect civilians. But in fact they want this conflict to last, and there is no rush to end the war says analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.
“Their objective is not to save civilians, it is to break up the country and to turn it into another Somalia, another Afghanistan, a failed state that they can take advantage of and manipulate, and take all resources,” says Nazemroaya.
“They are achieving their objective. And that’s to break up Libya and bomb it into state of chaos.”
Nazemroaya calls Libya the financial backbone of Africa and that it has always been attractive for the West.
“What they do care about are the financial assets and resources of Libya which they want to appropriate.
They have already set up oil cooperation in eastern Libya, based in Benghazi and a national bank based in Benghazi. They control this just as they control the national banking of Bosnia” says Nazemroaya. “In fact the first step of this war was to take Libya’s money by freezing its billions of dollars of assets in North America and Europe. That was the first step in this war. That is how the war started – financially, when they stole Libya’s money.”
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
.
VIDEO: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria and Libya
found on : http://www.globalresearch.ca
|
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
|
|
![]() |
|
|
Global Research, May 1, 2011
|
|
Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
.
North Atlantic Terrorist Organization Murders Gadhafi’s Son And 3 Grandchildren
Image Credit: NoState.com
Posted by Alexander Higgins – May 1, 2011 at 3:31 am – Permalink – Source via Alexander Higgins Blog






NATO, or the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization, murders Gadhafi’s son and 3 grandchildren by bombing a family party at the home of Gadhafi’s son in a residential upscale neighborhood.
Highlights:
- A NATO commander says that “we do not target individuals”, while bombs were dropped directly on the house of Gadhafi’s son in a residential neighborhood during a family gathering.
- CNN calls Libya’s call for peaceful negotiation following the bombing as vowing revenge”
- A Libyan spokesman calls the strike, which also killed several children, a “war crime”
- Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were in the house at the time but are in good health
The Libyan government called the air strike a direct attempt to assassinate Gadhafi and an international war crime.
Quoting Libyan Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim who gave a press conference on state TV following the attacks, who said the incident which killed Sayf al-Arab Gaddafi
“We ask the world to look into this carefully because what we have now is the law of the jungle,” he said.
“How is this helping in the protection of civilians? Mr Saif al-Arab was a civilian, a student… He was playing and talking to his father and mother and his nieces and nephews and other visitors when he was attacked and killed for no crime he committed.”
The airstrike was “a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country. This is not permitted by international law [...] If people claim they want to protect civilians, we have declared again and again that we are read for negotiations, ready for road maps to peace, ready for political transitional periods, ready for elections, ready for referendums.”
NATO does not care to test our promises, does not care to test our statements. They only care to rob us of freedom, our wealth which is oil, and our right to decide our future as Libyans.
Nato responded to the claims with a round of double speak.
A Nato air strike in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has killed the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, a government spokesman has said.
Colonel Gaddafi himself was in the large residential villa which was hit by the strike, the spokesman added, but was unharmed.
His son Saif al-Arab was said to be dead, as well as three grandchildren.
Nato has confirmed the air strike, without denying or confirming the reported deaths.
A Nato spokesman said the strike had hit a “known command-and-control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighbourhood”.
“All Nato’s targets are military in nature… We do not target individuals,” said Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard.
He said that he was aware of reports that members of Col Gaddafi’s family had been killed, but made no further comment.
“We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict,” said Lt-Gen Bouchard.
Source: BBC
However the NATO claims that was an attack on a Command and control center is absurd. As the BBC notes in same piece quoting the garbage statement from the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization the air strike murdered Gadhafi’s son who had no ties to the government and in fact was a student studying abroad in Germany who just very recently returned home to Libya.
[...]
Journalists taken to the site of the air strike said the building was extensively damaged and one unexploded bomb remains at the site.
Saif al-Arab, who had a lower profile than his brother Saif al-Islam, had been studying in Germany and returned to Libya recently.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the villa in which he was killed was attacked “with full power”.
[...]
Even the BBC sidebar describing the scene of the western terrorist attack notes there was a family gathering at the scene not a command and control center as NATO claims.
Earlier this evening we heard three enormous explosions to the west of the city. Normally we are taken to the bomb sites within an hour, but tonight there were a lot of concerned faces around the hotel, a lot of whispering and secrecy.
Two hours later we were eventually brought to the villa, which was surrounded by reinforced concrete, cameras, and military positions. This is clearly an exclusive neighbourhood. Inside, total destruction.
There were signs there had been a family gathering. There were no bodies in the house, they had been removed, and we are reliant on the government’s account of what happened.
It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have escaped unscathed, though according to the government spokesman the Libyan leader and his wife were present and are safe and well. But there’s no independent evidence they were there.
As the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization continues its campaign of murder and terror the government of Libya has repeatedly asked for a cease-fire with NATO and the revels to negotiate a peace deal as the BBC further reports:
‘Violating human rights’
Saturday’s strike came less than a day after a speech by his father was broadcast on state TV, in which Col Gaddafi called for a ceasefire and negotiations.
During his speech the Libyan government reported a Nato air attack on a complex that includes the state TV building, which it said was also designed to kill Col Gaddafi.
Several air strikes against Col Gaddafi’s sprawling Bab al-Aziziya compound have been reported recently.
So the situation here is Gadhafi is on state TV asking for a cease-fire and the Libya government is saying the are willing to hold open elections and transition to a new government. Apparently, the western allies don’t want this news getting out so they bomb the TV station to prevent Gadhafi from requesting negotiations and a cease-fire. Meanwhile western media plays the war drum that there is no end in sight to the war in Libya and a stalemate is feared and what is liking going to become part of a perpetual war. All of this in the name of peace and while we are supposedly over there protecting civilians we are now bombing residential neighborhoods and targeting homes with woman and children at family gatherings.
Our corporate media news outlets, which so many of us trust to be the only truthful and reliable source of news, continues to expose their role as a nothing more than a mouthpiece the government propaganda machine.
For example, in the last attack on military targets by our dear NATO, trying to assassinate Gadhafi, which again is a clear violation of international war crimes law, a disabled children’s hospital was blown to pieces.
Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike
Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:08pm GM
TRIPOLI, April 30 (Reuters) – Shattered glass litters the carpet at the Libyan Down’s Syndrome Society, and dust covers pictures of grinning children that adorn the hallway, thrown into darkness by a NATO strike early on Saturday.
It was unclear what the target of the strike was, though Libyan officials said it was Muammar Gaddafi himself, who was giving a live television address at the time.
Source: Reuters
So go ahead CNN and the rest of the corporate media, keep printing lies echoing nothing more that false government propaganda. It is no wonder that corporate news viewership continues to tank online, offline and on TV while alternative news outlets continue to explode.
Needless to say CNN goes in a bout of Newspeak out of 1984 to call the Libyan press conference and call for a peaceful ceasefire negotiation a rally against the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.
Ibrahim said several of Moammar Gadhafi’s grandchildren also died in the attack.
The house in Tripoli was destroyed by the strike, with a massive crater where the house used to be. At least one unexploded bomb could be seen.
The building was in a residential area of Tripoli, according to Ibrahim, who insisted that Saif al-Arab Gadhafi was a student in Germany who was not deeply involved in Libya’s military and government. The 29-year-old was the sixth of Gadhafi’s eight biological children.
Ibrahim railed against NATO after the fatal strike, calling it an illegal act and a “war crime.” He vowed revenge.
Speaking at a rally, Ibrahim told fellow Libyans, “Every one of you are Saif al-Arab.”
Source:
Seriously, watch the press conference on the BBC link yourself and see how CNN is twisting this story for yourself. CNN is doing a wonderful job here of victimizing the victims. Look they are vowing revenge and using the death as a call to martyrdom when my own ears tell me they want the violence to end and are begging to NATO to stop bombing them and work out a peace plan and a road map to a transitional government.
CNN repeats the garbage from NATO saying the regret all lost of lives. But do they really? If that is the case why are they dropping bombs on a civilian party were family members are meeting up in an upscale residential neighborhood?
“We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of this ongoing conflict,” Bouchard said. “NATO is fulfilling its U.N. mandate to stop and prevent attacks against civilians with precision and care — unlike Gadhafi’s forces, which are causing so much suffering.”
The NATO commander stated that all targets “are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the Gadhafi regime’s systemic attacks on the Libyan population … We do not target individuals.”
Military targets in nature? Bombing Gadhafi’s son’s home with women and children in it and CNN prints this garbage “We do not target individuals”. Horse shit! Even in IRAQ they went on a massive manhunt and killing off Saddam Hussein’s family members and the are do the same thing here.
CNN also notes that the son who was killed was hit by American bombs in 1986 in yet another bombing raid on residential area.
This is not the first time that Moammar Gadhafi reportedly has been at the site of an airstrike that killed one of his children.
In April 1986, U.S. forces launched an airstrike that targeted Moammar Gadhafi’s residential compound. As a result, the Libyan leader’s adopted daughter, Hanna Gadhafi, was killed.
Saif al-Arab Gadhafi, then just 3 years old, was hospitalized after suffering injuries in that strike, Libyan officials then said. Video shows what Libyan officials claimed were him and his brother Khamis, though both boys were heavily bandaged and their faces were not clearly visible.
At the time, President Ronald Reagan told the American people the bombings were an act of self-defense following the bombing of a West Berlin club that killed two American servicemen and injured several others.
.
Libya offers Misrata rebels amnesty, respects Tunisia
http://www.uruknet.info
Reuters
TRIPOLI, April 29, 2011 (Reuters) – The Libyan government said on Friday it had taken control of Misrata’s port and warned rebels in the besieged city they faced further bloodshed unless they handed in their weapons in four days and received a pardon.
Libya was coordinating with the Tunisian government to prevent a disaster on the border, government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told reporters. He blamed the rebels for border violations and pledged respect for Tunisia’s sovereignty.
Ibrahim also urged any foreign fighters to leave the country or we will “finish you off”.
“We will fight for Misrata soldier by soldier, young man by young man, young woman by young woman,” Ibrahim said.
(Reporting by Lin Noueihed, editing by Tim Pearce)
.
related News :
NATO bomb attack on Libya kills Misrata “rebel” fighters
NATO Bombs Gadhafi Cribs (But Not to Kill Him, Honest)
.
Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists’ War
http://www.infowars.com
Tony Cartalucci
The Land Destroyer Report
April 20, 2011
As the global corporate-financier oligarchs prepare the way rhetorically and logistically to send in the ground troops we were told would never set foot on Libyan soil, in a war that was only to last days, then weeks, but now over a month, the discernment, ambition, and true intentions of the Libyan rebels must be called into question.
After rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to being trained in Afghanistan and subsequently fighting American troops there, and admitting many of the rebel fighters now joining him in Libya had similarly returned from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it must strike them as tremendous irony that the same Americans they were filling pine boxes with overseas, are now protecting their lives and handing them an entire country to rule over.
Of course in life, nothing is quite that simple. The rebels seem to forget that just months ago Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was also the recipient of similarly ironic support from the West. In the end, it appears it was merely a ploy to disarm and infiltrate Qaddafi’s regime ahead of a US funded, armed, and supported militant uprising. The betrayal does not end there, with the militant rebels in tanks and fighter jets, brandishing newly procured weaponry flowing over the Egyptian border with Washington’s full knowledge and in direct violation of UNSC r.1973, the corporate owned media has continuously branded these militants as Libyan “civilians” and Qaddafi’s attempts to restore order in his country as an inhumane “massacre.”
The intent is to fully justify any means necessary to remove Qaddafi from power, and so the rebels think, hand the country and its riches over to the green shoots of democracy led by the valiant Al Qaeda-linked militants that toppled a tyrant. What woeful ignorance.
While the dichotomy of Western politics is merely for public consumption, what each camp states publicly can be put together as a composite giving us a clearer picture of the overall globalist agenda. Neo-Conservative war monger Daniel Pipes, a PNAC signatory, CFR member, and co-conspirator in many of the darkest chapters of recent American history, was recently sharing his “doubts” over the final result of the “Arab Spring.” He believes that ultimately extremists will prevail in many cases and only complicate US relations with certain countries.
Of course, Pipes most likely didn’t miss the memo and is fully aware that the “Arab Spring” is a US funded gambit, one his fellow “Neo-Cons” lining the National Endowment for Democracy and the fraudulent Freedom House are admittedly involved in. At the very least, he must have picked up the New York Times and read as much. So what exactly is Pipes trying to tell us? He is saying that as soon as the Libyan rebels secure Libya, or the Muslim Brotherhood takes hold of Syria, or Yemen, or wins out in a co-opted counterrevolution against International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt, the blinders Western propagandists seems to be wearing will suddenly drop and point out that indeed the globalists have installed extremists “by accident.”
To rectify this, Libyan rebels will be betrayed just as quickly as Qaddafi was. They will be removed from power, and replaced by Western stooges protected by NATO ground troops, conveniently already being put on the ground in Libya, and will stay there permanently. The globalist “Neo-Con” think tank Foreign Policy Initiative has stated, “The best way to reduce the potential dangers posed by extremist infiltration is for the United States and its allies to remain engaged in Libya.”
This engagement most likely will take the shape of the other unending “engagements” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the years of cross-border raids into Pakistan. The oil money that once built water ways, public housing, and farms from Benghazi to Tripoli, will be funneled directly out of the country and into the corporate-financier’s accounts. The corporate-financier oligarchs will have taken yet another nation-state down with the help of its own gullible population, and for their gullibility, they will pay for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children’s children.
To understand the full scope of the global corporate-financier oligarchy’s designs toward any given nation, we must simply look back at the brazen admissions made over the intended future stemming from the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer’s (CFR) planned economic reformation of the broken nation. The Economist enumerates the “economic liberalization” of Iraq in a piece titled “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream:”
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.
Anyone who would willfully make a deal with such people must have their discernment called into question. As Hugo Chavez of Venezuela said of Hosni Mubarak’s decades of appeasing the globalists and his eventual ousting from power at the hands of US funded, trained, and supported protesters, “that’s how the devil pays.” Indeed it is, and it is an instructive lesson for others including the rebels of Benghazi to consider as they attempt to make their own deals with the globalists today.
.
related news .
Gaddafi accuses Al-Qaeda of coordinating uprising
.
The kings and princes: The agents of the West to preach democracy!
|
Bahrain Escapes Censure by West as Crackdown on Protesters Intensifies
http://www.commondreams.org
Published on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 by The Independent/UK
Saudi troops’ demolition of mosques stokes religious tensions
Bahraini government forces backed by Saudi Arabian troops are destroying mosques and places of worship of the Shia majority in the island kingdom in a move likely to exacerbate religious hatred across the Muslim world.
Mourners carry the body of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer, who died in police custody. The harshness of the government repression is provoking allegations of hypocrisy against Washington, London and Paris. Their mild response to human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian armed intervention in Bahrain is in stark contrast to their vocal concern for civilians in Libya. (AP) “So far they have destroyed seven Shia mosques and about 50 religious meeting houses,” said Ali al-Aswad, an MP in the Bahraini parliament.
He said Saudi soldiers, part of the 1,000-strong contingent that entered Bahrain last month, had been seen by witnesses helping demolish Shia mosques and shrines in the Sunni-ruled kingdom.
Mohammed Sadiq, of the Justice for Bahrain organisation, said the most famous of the Shia shrines destroyed was that of a revered Bahraini Shia spiritual leader, Sheikh Abdul Amir al-Jamri, who died in 2006. A photograph taken by activists and seen by The Independent shows the golden dome of the shrine lying on the ground and later being taken away on the back of a lorry. On the walls of Shia mosques that have been desecrated, graffiti has been scrawled praising the Sunni King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and insulting the Shia.
The attack on Shia places of worship has provoked a furious reaction among the 250 million Shia community, particularly in Iran and Iraq, where Shia are in a majority, and in Lebanon where they are the largest single community.
The Shia were already angry at the ferocious repression by Bahraini security forces of the pro-democracy movement, which had sought to be non-sectarian. After the monarchy had rejected meaningful reform, the wholly Sunni army and security forces started to crush the largely Shia protests on 15 and 16 March.
The harshness of the government repression is provoking allegations of hypocrisy against Washington, London and Paris. Their mild response to human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian armed intervention in Bahrain is in stark contrast to their vocal concern for civilians in Libya.
The US and Britain have avoided doing anything that would destabilise Saudi Arabia and the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf, to which they are allied. They are worried about Iran taking advantage of the plight of fellow Shia, although there is no evidence that Iran has any role in fomenting protests despite Bahraini government claims to the contrary. The US has a lot to lose because its Fifth Fleet, responsible for the Gulf and the north of the Indian Ocean, is based in Bahrain.
Sunni-Shia hostility in the Muslim world is likely to deepen because of the demolition of Shia holy places in Bahrain. Shia leaders recall that it was the blowing up of the revered Shia shrine of al-Askari in Samarra, Iraq, by al-Qa’ida in 2006 that provoked a sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia in which tens of thousands died. They see fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine, upheld by the state in Saudi Arabia, as being behind the latest sectarian assault and attempt to keep the Shia as second-class citizens. Mr Sadiq believes Saudi troops are behind the attacks on mosques and shrines. “What is happening comes from the ideology of Wahhabism which is against shrines,” he said. To the Wahhabi, the Shia are as heretical as Christians. Mr Aswad said soldiers in Saudi uniforms had been seen attending the destruction of Shia religious sites.
Yousif al-Khoei, who heads a Shia charitable foundation, said he could “confirm that reports of desecration of Shia graves, shrines and mosques and hussainiyas [religious meeting houses] in Bahrain are genuine and we are concerned that Saudi troops, who believe that shrines are un-Islamic and are trying to enforce that Wahhabi doctrine on the Shia of Bahrain, will undoubtedly result in heightened sectarian tensions.”
Some 499 people in Bahrain are known to have been detained during the current unrest and many are believed to have been tortured. Four who died in detention this month showed signs of severe abuse and appeared to have been beaten to death.
In the case of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer, who had turned himself in to the security forces after threats to detain his family if he did not do so, photographs showed signs of whipping and beating. The Bahraini human rights activist who photographed the body was later detained and accused of faking the picture, but the same injuries were witnessed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
There are continuing arbitrary arrests of people who took part in the pro-democracy protests that began on 14 February. Even waving a Bahraini flag is considered an offence, and a doctor who was shown on television shedding tears over the body of a dead protester was detained.
The aim of government repression is evidently to terrorise the Shia and permanently crush the protest movement. Doctors who treated injured demonstrators have been arrested and on 15 April the authorities detained a lawyer, Mohammed al-Tajer, who defended protesters in court. Human Rights Watch says the families of many of those detained have no word on what has happened to them. The authorities do not seem concerned about providing plausible accounts of how detainees died. In the case of Mr Saqer, who was detained on 3 April and whose body was released six days later, the government said he had “created chaos” in the detention centre and had died while the disturbance was being quelled.
Human Rights Watch, which saw his body during the ritual before he was buried in his home village of Sehla on 10 April, said “his body showed signs of severe physical abuse. The left side of his face showed a large patch of bluish skin with a reddish-purple area near his left temple and a two-inch cut to the left of his eye. Lash marks crisscrossed his back, some reaching to his front right side. Blue bruises covered much of the back of his calves, thighs, and buttocks, as well as his right elbow and hip. The tops of his feet were blackened, and lacerations marked his ankles and wrists.”
The fighting in Libya and unrest elsewhere in the Arab world has drawn attention away from Bahrain, and the authorities have also arrested pro-democracy journalists and prevented several foreign journalists entering the country.
Timeline of unrest
14 February Anti-government protests dubbed the “Day of Rage” attract thousands, prompted by demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia. One person is killed.
15 February Bahrain police open fire on crowds at the dead protester’s funeral. King Hamad attempts to appease the demonstrators, pledging to hold an investigation into the “regrettable” deaths.
26 February The ruling al-Khalifa family makes concessions to Bahrain’s majority Shia population. Hardline Shia dissident Hassan Mushaima is allowed to return from voluntary exile.
3 March First clashes between the Sunnis and Shia Muslim communities since February’s protests.
15 March Martial law is declared one day after Saudi troops enter Bahrain in an attempt to end the unrest. The United Arab Emirates vows to send 500 police.
16 March Bahraini forces arrest six opposition leaders and crack down on protesters.
18 March The geographical focal point of the mainly Shia protests, Pearl Roundabout in Manama, is demolished in an attempt to quash the rebellion. At least seven people die.
3 April Authorities lift a ban on the main opposition newspaper.
4 April Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls on Saudi Arabia to pull out of Bahrain.
10 April The body of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer is buried, seven days after he was taken into custody. His body showed signs of whipping and beating.
13 April A Shia opposition party claims that another protester has died in police custody – the fourth so far.
16 April Tensions rise further with new arrests and the alleged death of a female student.
.
Russia accuses NATO of going beyond UN resolution on Libya
http://rt.com
Published: 17 April, 2011, 10:29
As the operation in Libya closes in on its first month, coalition members are swearing to push further until Colonel Gaddafi goes, despite the UN no-fly zone resolution only allowing NATO involvement to secure humanitarian protection.
The gamesmanship is making many countries increasingly uneasy. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned at the beginning of the week that Libya risks total collapse and reiterated Russia’s position that to restore order in the North African country, those parties involved need to be acting in strict accordance with the international resolutions.
Russia and China both have the right of veto when it comes to resolutions of the UN Security Council. Though they have not used this right over the last month they abstained from the vote and have not been participating in the operation.
There have been some concerns as to whether NATO is acting beyond the boundaries of UN Resolution 1973.
“The UN Security Council’s resolution must be fulfilled in accordance with the wording and meaning, not with the free interpretation of some states. Because we voted for a no-fly zone to stop the escalation of the conflict so that we can separate the two sides, but what we are having now is a military operation. It may not be on the ground yet but it is certainly going up above,” President Medvedev stated this week. “A number of countries were taking part and then NATO stepped in. But the resolution does not say a word about it.”
On Friday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was visiting Berlin for a Russia-NATO conference where Libya was naturally on the agenda. Lavrov reiterated much of what President Medvedev said earlier, clarifying again the Russian stance on the issue and making it clear that it is not the resolution [1973] itself that is the problem, but the way it is being implemented that raises questions.
“Today we witness that some NATO actions in Libya are exceeding the framework defined by the UN Security Council. It is already being discussed that UN Resolution 1973 could also be used for ground operations,” Lavrov declared.
“The resolution does not provide for such actions and does not approve them, nor does the UN deal support regime change in Libya,” admonished the Russian foreign minister.
NATO’s methods in Libya are also prompting questions over how far they could extend the operation.
org Post here
related news :
Libya denies firing cluster bombs
.
What a Strange Way to Protect Civilians: Depleted Uranium and Libya
http://original.antiwar.com
“We are there to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”
– William Hague
“I was watching ABC News last night and, lo and behold, there was a DU impact. It burned and burned and burned.”
- Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project commenting on Libya attack.
“Depleted uranium tipped missiles fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way… I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.”
– Marion Falk, chemical physicist (retd), Lawrence Livermore Lab, California, USA
To date depleted uranium’s deathly dust has traveled its horrible route from Iraq (The first Gulf War in 1990/91) to the Balkans (with the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999) to Afghanistan (2001-) and back to Iraq (2003-) Now we have the attack on Libya and I raise the question as to whether DU is being used once again in this latest “war”; whether this “nuclear waste with wings” continues its journey bringing with it short- and long-term death.
In the first 24 hours of the Libyan attack, US B-2s dropped forty-five 2,000-pound bombs. Did any of these massive bombs, along with the Cruise missiles launched from British and French planes and ships, contain depleted uranium? Doug Rokke joins others such as Conn Hallinan, of Foreign Policy in Focus, in believing that the answer is yes.
DU is the waste product from the process of enriching uranium ore. It is used in nuclear weapons and reactors. Because it is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, it is highly valued by the military for its ability to punch through armored vehicles and buildings. When a weapon made with a DU tip strikes a solid object like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it, then erupts in a burning cloud of vapor. The vapor settles as dust, which is not only poisonous, but also radioactive.
An impacting DU missile burns at 10,000 degrees C. When it strikes a target, 30% fragments into shrapnel. The remaining 70% vaporizes into three highly-toxic oxides, including uranium oxide. This black dust remains suspended in the air and, according to wind and weather, can travel over great distances. If you think Iraq and Libya are far away, remember that radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales.
Particles less than 5 microns in diameter are easily inhaled and may remain in the lungs or other organs for years. Internalized DU can cause kidney damage, cancers of the lung and bone, skin disorders, neurocognitive disorders, chromosome damage, immune deficiency syndromes and rare kidney and bowel diseases. Pregnant women exposed to DU may give birth to infants with genetic defects. Once the dust has vaporized, don’t expect the problem to go away soon. As an alpha particle emitter, DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In the “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, more than 1,500 bombs and missiles were dropped on Baghdad. Seymour Hersh has claimed that the US Third Marine Aircraft Wing alone dropped more than “five hundred thousand tons of ordnance.” Much of it DU-tipped.
Al Jazeera reported that invading US forces fired two hundred tons of radioactive material into buildings, homes, streets and gardens of Baghdad. A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor took a Geiger counter to parts of the city that had been subjected to heavy shelling by US troops. He found radiation levels 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal in residential areas. With its population of 26 million, the US dropped a one-ton bomb for every 52 Iraqi citizens or 40 pounds of explosives per person.
The tragedy is that we will only know years after the bombing has stopped the extent of short- and long-term damage to the population, as the people of Fallujah in Iraq are now discovering from the horrific consequences of the depleted uranium and white phosphorous weaponry the US used on the city in 2004.
In the first 24 hours of the attack on Libya by the US and its allies £100 million worth of ordnance was used. No doubt much of it destroyed armaments and military installations sold to Libya by the very same countries now doing the bombing. The European Union’s arms control report said member states issued licenses in 2009 for the sale of £293.2 million worth of weapons and weapons systems to Libya. Britain issued arms firms licenses for the sale of £21.7 million worth of weaponry to Libya and were also paid by Colonel Gadhafi to send the SAS to train his 32nd Brigade.
The UK Ministry of Defense and US Department of Defense are careful how they refer to DU and prefer not to answer questions about its use. But in those “official” documents we have been able to view it is clear that DU is commended for its excellent penetrating qualities and we must assume that what is considered of military value is going to be used especially when the political spokespeople for the military are keen to deny that DU has any harmful affects on human beings.
Thus the UK Defense Secretary, Liam Fox, in correspondence with Bill Wilson, a member of the Scottish Parliament in February 2011 said: ”The UK does not support resolutions that presuppose DU is harmful… The Government’s policy remains that DU can be used within weapons; it is not prohibited under current or likely future international agreements. UK armed forces use DU munitions in accordance with international humanitarian law. It would be quite wrong to deny our serving personnel a legitimate capability.”
Liam Fox is repeating the views of earlier UK Defense Secretaries. This is an excerpt from then Defense Secretary, Des Brown’s letter to Tony Benn, dated 21 April 2008: ”In conclusion, our view remains that DU can be legitimately used within weapons and that it would be quite wrong for the UK Government to deny our troops a legitimate capability that provides the best possible protection for them during armed conflicts.”
Note that the letters appear to have been written by the same person!
Since we are being told, when we’re told anything, that DU is not dangerous and is an effective tool for warfare why would they not continue its use? So long as that is the official opinion from the military and the politicians we must take it at face value and force them to confirm that we are mistaken and that DU is no longer used.
I would love to be proved wrong as would, even more so, the people who are under bombardment. But The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons have stated that: ”The likelihood of DU use in Libya has now increased following the deployment and use of A-10 and Harrier AV-8B aircraft. ICBUW calls for pressure to be brought on the US to clarify the situation, and to put DU ammunition beyond use.”
This is unlikely to happen according to Doug Rokke, who recently told me: ”The DoD/MoD jerks will always deny the use and always deny adverse health effects. That is the standing order. DU is so good against all types of target that they will never give it up.”
Which weapons systems use DU?
The military and the politicians are very shy about the uses of depleted uranium, but here is a list of all platforms using DU, and the rounds themselves.
- A10 aircraft: Of all the US military platforms that fire DU, the A-10 is responsible for the greatest proportion of DU fired.
- AMX-30 Tank:French Main Battle Tank, active from the mid 1960s to the 2000s. From the mid 1990s it was equipped with a 105 mm uranium round. No longer in service in France but widely exported.
- Leclerc Tank: The current French Main Battle Tank. Fires the OFL 120 F2 uranium round. Also adopted by the United Arab Emirates.
- M1/M1A1/M1A2 Abrams Tank: The US Main Battle Tank, and platform for large caliber DU munitions.
- M101 20 mm Davy Crockett Spotting Round: A historical DU round, used by the US to estimate firing trajectory on the Davy Crockett nuclear rifle. No longer in use.
- M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System: A new US weapons system utilizing old DU rounds and the M68 cannon.
- M2 & M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle: US Armored personnel carrier, which fires M919 DU rounds with its 25mm cannon.
- M774 105mm APFSDS-T round: US 105 mm Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot round.
- M829 120mm APFSDS-T round: US Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot round. Fired from the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks, the M829 is the largest DU round in the US arsenal.
- M833 105mm APFSDS-T round: US 105mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot round, used in the M60 Patton series of tanks, and the M1 Abrams.
- M900 105mm APFSDS-T round: US Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot Tracer round. Used in the original M1 Abrams tank, also in the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System.
- M919 APFSDS 25mm round: US 25mm Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot 25mm round used in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
- OFL 105 F2 APFSDS-T round: French 105 mm Round, used in the AMX-30 tank. No longer thought to be in service in France, but may have been exported.
- OFL 120 F2 APFSDS-T round: French DU round used by the Leclerc Main Battle Tank. First fielded in 1996, and still in active service.
- PGU-14 30mm API round: US 30mm Armour piercing incendiary round used in the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft.
- PROCIPAC APFSDS-T round: Next generation French 120mm uranium round. Reported to be under development in the early 2000s, but not thought to be produced in large numbers.
Source: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/85.html
.
Muammar Kadhafi’s Letter to Barack Obama
http://www.voltairenet.org
| by Muammar al-Gaddafi*
|
5 April 2011 Countries |
Our son, Excellency, We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action. I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that. Enough evidence is available, Bearing in mind that you are the president of the strongest power in the world nowadays, and since Nato is waging an unjust war against a small people of a developing country. This country had already been subjected to embargo and sanctions, furthermore it also suffered a direct military armed aggression during Reagan’s time. This country is Libya. Hence, to serving world peace … Friendship between our peoples … and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato off the Libyan affair for good. As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed member of AlQuaeda in Benghazi. You — yourself — said on many occasions, one of them in the UN General Assembly, I was witness to that personally, that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples. That America helps only. This is the right logic. Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention is the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame. The problem now stands as follows:- 1. There is Nato intervention politically as well as military. 2. Terror conducted by AlQaueda gangs that have been armed in some cities, and by force refused to allow people to go back to their normal life, and carry on with exercising their social people’s power as usual.
|
US Goal to Break Up Libya like Yugoslavia
http://tv.globalresearch.ca
American fighter jets, submarines and missile ships have officially stopped firing at Gaddafi’s troops.
Ever since Washington handed over command of the military operation to the NATO coalition, the US has been slowly winding down its involvement and decreasing the number of its weapons at Libya’s borders.
However, the US has decided to leave some ships in the area for a while, in case NATO troops need some military support. From now on, the participation of the Americans in the operation will only be possible upon the special request of NATO and approval from the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, as what has been dubbed a humanitarian intervention in Libya is gaining pace, political experts around the globe have voiced growing doubts that the military operation in Libya is justified.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, from the Center for Research on Globalization, who joined RT from Ottawa to discuss the current situation in Libya, calls NATO’s humanitarian effort a simple cover-up.
“There are Russian and Ukrainian nurses testifying that hospitals are being bombed and civilians are being hurt,” he told RT. “So this is not a humanitarian effort, it’s a smokescreen. This is a war of aggression against Libya.”
.
Riz Khan – Intervention in the Arab world
Why are Western nations so keen to intervene in Libya and why are they not coming to the aid of other Arabs facing similar violence?
NATO uses depleted uranium bombs against Libya
http://www.uruknet.info
The Voice of Russia
:: Article nr. 76375 sent on 30-mar-2011 19:14 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=76375
Link: english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/30/48203222.html
.
Libya/Iraq : Washington’s precious catch: the oil and the bank accounts
|
28 March 2011 All the versions of this article: |
|
http://www.voltairenet.org
International affairsEditorial: Washington’s precious catch: the oil and the bank accounts The Americans have reaped hundreds of billions of dollars after having frozen Mubarak’s, Ben Ali’s and Gaddafi’s bank accounts. This enticing sum which has become under the control of the American administration and some of its European partners met an urgent need in the ranks of the major industrial countries in these times of crisis, in which their governments are forced to issue treasury bonds to fund their growing expenses, to activate the economic wheel and resist the suffocating stalemate. In addition to this economic and financial dimension, the availability of hundreds of billions of dollars is alleviating the industrial states’ need for Chinese help, at a time when the Chinese government is demanding costly political prices that are making the American empire feel the retreat of its international influence even further. Real gains reside in these frozen billions as they are compensating for the loss resulting from the fall of rulers who had offered major services to the American and Western hegemony over the Arab countries. During the next few years, the new governments in these countries will find it difficult to liberate and restore these frozen assets, while the proof for that is what was seen in Iraq whose debt was multiplied by the Americans following the occupation, without them returning anything from the funds they froze throughout twenty years. In that same context, they have hijacked Iraq’s oil which is still underground for the next twenty years. The Arab affairsEditorial: Plan to sabotage Al-Assad’s reforms The timing of the transfer of the infection to Syria and the fueling of the turmoil in it through the payment of funds and the mobilization of a massive Lebanese, Arab and foreign machine to serve the current campaign targeting the country, point to a blunt attempt to block the way before president Bashar al-Assad’s reform project. The proof for that is the continuation of this campaign following the announcement of the decisions of the Baath Party command on Thursday. Indeed, what is required is turmoil and the mobilization of parts of the Syrian youth to serve the project of chaos which has turned into a chapter of terrorist violence exercised by outlaws and infiltrators, some of whose sources of financing and armament were exposed following their involvement in the Daraa events. This campaign did not undermine Al-Assad’s determination to fix the relations between Syria and Lebanon, as he adopted a series of measures including the ending of Abdul Halim Khaddam’s and Ghazi Kanaan’s control over the so-called Lebanese file, while completely turning his back on the deals offered to him by Jacques Chirac and Western envoys dispatched by Bush’s administration to trade Syrian military presence in Lebanon with the pledge to disarm the resistance. Throughout the past years, President Al-Assad and the Syrian command placed the deterrence of the American-Israeli project in the region at the top of their list of priorities and the Syrian efforts focused on redrafting the Middle Eastern map outside the circle of imperialistic hegemony. Syria thus engaged in partnerships across the border, enhanced the alliance with Iran and secured harmony with Turkey. Al-Assad’s strategy drew up the facets if the independent Middle Eastern bloc that is cooperating economically, politically and on the security level. This consecrated the embracing of the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq on stable grounds and proved its efficiency following difficult tests in the Lebanon and Gaza wars. The plan to transfer the protests infection to Syria, aims at blocking the way before the reform project of President Al-Assad who announced his determination to implement it as a first response to the Arab popular revolutions. The denial of calm in Daraa and the attempts to give the impression that demonstrations are being staged through fabricated reports spread by Syrian dissidents abroad and adopted by Western and Arab media outlets participating in the plan to sabotage Syria, aim at saying that the situation in Syria is unstable and that the reforms are not perceived seriously, although popular protests were launched on Thursday night and Friday morning in more than one location in the Syrian capital and provinces in support of President Al-Assad and the decisions which he promised to implement. The Arab fileSyria Yemen Libya Egypt Palestine The Israeli fileThe bombing which targeted a bus in the occupied city of Jerusalem, the Israeli military escalation which followed it against the Gaza Strip and the threats of Israeli military leaders – at the head of whom is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu- were the main headlines tackled by the Israeli press this past week. A few hours after Netanyahu made his threats, Israeli war planes launched a series of raids on several areas of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian resistance launched a number of Grad missiles on the Israeli settlements. The papers also focused on the Iron Dome system which will obstruct the missiles launched from the Gaza Strip towards the Israeli settlements. On the other hand, the Israeli papers extensively tackled the decision to imprison former president of the Hebrew state, Katsav, against the backdrop of sexual crimes. In regard to Libyan affairs, the papers addressed the international dispute over the nature of the participation in the military attack on Libya, the goals behind the Western intervention and the United States’ role in the military campaign. The Lebanese fileHezbollah secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a celebration organized to express solidarity with the Arab revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya, that the new majority’s accountability started since the Bristol meeting when the March 14 forces announced they will not participate in the government. Nasrallah pointed to the presence of “massive pressures exercised on Mikati by ambassadors and states. They are saying to him: do not form a government which only includes the new majority. But how can he do that? It is a new majority which has the right to form the government. There are discussions over the color of the government, its formula, its ministerial statement and its future policies.” He added: “There are calls to summon foreign powers and I know as well as you that the Americans, the French, the West and the Arab world are being sought out to pressure the prime minister-designate. And if a day comes when we will need to reveal the details, we are ready to do that.” Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati said to An-Nahar in response to a question about the outcome of his contacts and efforts: “There is slow progress.” Regarding the veracity of what was said about disputes between him and certain sides in March 8, he stated: “There are different viewpoints and I am seeking a government formation that will be comfortable to all the sides… Quite honestly, I have not yet lost hope. I never did.” In response to another question, he assured: “Syria has never interfered at this level,” adding he was not pessimistic. Prime Minister of the caretaker government Saad al-Hariri said: “The other team made a mistake when it thought that we were negotiating to resolve the crisis due to our insistence on maintaining power and thus tried to annul us politically.” He added: “We do not want to annul anyone. However, we will do our best to eliminate the tutelage of the arms over the Lebanese state and people, because it is affecting the state’s action, economic development and Lebanon’s progress on all levels. It has started to pose a threat on the interests of the Lebanese abroad after it turned into a tool to export the Iranian revolution to the Arab and Islamic states.” News analysisThe United States and the Arab revolutions The American fileA few days following NATO’s launching of the military campaign against Libya and the strongholds of Muammar Gaddafi, the American papers pointed to the clear divisions in the ranks of the alliance and tackled the existing dispute over who should be running the military operations and command. Moreover, the Washington Post indicated there was no proof for the fact that the attacks launched by NATO had prevented the regime’s forces from killing civilians or had turned the balance of power in favor of the revolutionaries. As for the Los Angeles Times, it assured that President Barack Obama was facing increasing criticisms inside and outside the US due to the military campaign in Libya. Also in the context of the Middle Eastern events, the papers talked about the retreat of the support of the Yemeni tribes toward President Ali Abdullah Saleh and about five army generals having joined the anti-regime protesters. This will further weaken the Yemeni president’s grip over the authority, the papers said, although he has been in power for over thirty years. The Washington Post thus wondered about the nature of the developments in the Arab world, but also about the nature of the revolution and whether it aimed at achieving democracy against a tyrannical rule or was a mere tribal confrontation. The British fileThe British papers issued last week tackled the repercussions of the events in Libya, NATO’s assignment to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and the dispute regarding NATO’s role in the military operation. They also addressed the renewal of the confrontations between the Palestinians and the Israelis against the backdrop of the Jerusalem explosion and the Israeli air raids on the Gaza Strip. Moreover, they talked about Saudi Arabia’s motives to interfere in Bahrain and play on the strings of sectarianism, the fears of seeing Al-Qaeda’s further infiltration in Yemen if its president were to insist on staying in power and the air campaign launched on Libya under the hegemony of American aircrafts. Saudi interference in Bahrain fuels sectarianism and hypocrisy behind Arab interference in Bahrain, especially that of Saudi Arabia
|
![]()
Globalists—Through UN—Force U.S. Into Libyan War
http://www.americanfreepress.net
By James P. Tucker Jr.
The United States, under Bilderberg-Trilateral Commission orders, is now engaged in not two, but three wars in the Middle East where America has no legitimate national interest. But the world’s entrenched international financiers do have a huge interest in war profits, purchased at the cost of soldiers’ blood. These powerful globalists also perceive maverick rulers like Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi as roadblocks in their push for establishing a world regime.
Before the U.S. joined the invasion, Qadaffi sent a personal letter to President Obama in which he reportedly told Obama that Islamic fundamentalists tied to al Qaeda were the primary source of the ongoing political troubles in North Africa—including Libya. Qadaffi challenged Obama: “If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?”
This was no “crazy conspiracy theory” coming from the eccentric Libyan strongman alone. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—among other highlevel figures in the American military diplomatic intelligence community—raised concerns (like Qadaffi) about the possibility al Qaeda might be responsible for some of the unrest in Libya and/or that al Qaeda could benefit from the consequences of American intervention.
Qadaffi also sent terse notes to heads of state in France, Britain and to the UN secretary-general, also saying: “You never have the right to intervene in our internal affairs. Who gave you that right? Our country is not your country.”
![]() |
American non-interventionists—who honor the words of President George Washington who cautioned his countrymen not to become involved in the affairs of other nations—find wisdom in Qadaffi’s words, even if they do not like his style of governing. If the United States intervened in every nation where dictators hold sway, Americans would have been at war with the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and virtually every nation in Africa, to name but a few.
And while warmongering elements within the pro Israel “neoconservative” network and their congressional allies such as Sens. John McCain (RAriz.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) were calling for U.S. military intervention in Libya, even the neoconservative Washington Times, which is fiercely anti-Qadaffi and eager for his ouster, admitted in a front page story that many top retired military leaders were quietly urging the Obama administration to avoid intervention in Libya.
While the globalists were manipulating the United States into war in Libya—which is looking increasingly like it is about to become a classic “quagmire” of the Vietnam-Afghanistan-Iraq mode—two-thirds of Americans among a broad cross section in several polls expressed opposition to the Afghanistan war. In addition, polls show that many Americans believe the U.S. cannot afford another war given the current state of the economic situation and joblessness in the United States.
Nevertheless, Bilderberg-Trilateral Commission power is so strong that these two pro world government groups were able to put America’s fighting men and women into harm’s way, and they did it by having the president seek guidance, not from Congress, but from the world’s governmental body—the UN. As we go to press, the United States is raining bombs down on Libyan cities in another undeclared war.
AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
.







































