Posts tagged ‘Nicolas Sarkozy’

French lawyers to sue Sarkozy over Libya abuses, NATO Crimes In Libya ………


Cameron and Sarkozy in Benghazi ( filed under :… and so they came to a raped land, with blood on their hands) …………

Posted on September 16, 2011 by
It has been described as a moment Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy “will savour for years,” “the ultimate photo opportunity” and “a moment which will shape French and British foreign policy.”

When Cameron and President Sarkozy went to Benghazi  yesterday to express their support for Libyan rebels, they went straight to the site at which the rebels publicly beheaded an alleged pro-Gaddafi “mercenary” only weeks  before.

Here is a still from the video of the visit:

Still – Sarkozy and Cameron at the lynching site

Here is the actual footage of the visit:

Here is the building Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron were visiting in a picture (courtesy of Al Jazeera creative commons license):

Benghazi rebel headquarters

And here is footage of the rebel lynching which took place a few weeks ago as Human Rights Investigations reported, at the same location. The video shows a man being strung up and beheaded. As you can see the location is the same.


Video : Black Libyan police man was tortured, abused and then killed for been accused of being an  “African Mercenary”

Here is the still from 00:9

Still from above video to show location of lynching

In a short press conference earlier in the day David Cameron focused on Gadaffi’s alleged mercenaries saying

“The mercenaries should go home.”

Amnesty International crisis researcher, Donatella Rovera spent the period from 27 February to 29th May in Misrata, Benghazi, Ajdabiya and Ras Lanouf. In July she had this to say on the subject:

“We examined this issue in depth and found no evidence. The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”

It seems likely that some of those rebels cheering the two leaders to the rafters would have been amongst those showing similar enthusiasm at the lynchings.

Just to give some context to these events – the Libyan conflict is far from over, hundreds, perhaps thousands of African migrant workers are currently in detention in Tripoli or fearing for their lives in refugee camps. The town of Tawergha has been ethnically cleansed with the consent of the NTC leadership, and those who survived have fled and the south of Libya, which is to a large extent occupied by dark-skinned Libyans, is now under attack by NATO bombers and the “brigade to purge black skin, slaves,” as some of the Misratan rebels describe themselves.

related Post from

Incredible Scandal: ‘Libya rebels admit attacks on women & children’

here’s the Video of this Post :


French Fraud Behind Libya War Drive

Fake ‘intellectual’ with delusions of grandeur: Bernard Henri-Lévy

by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2011

The Libyan war has the French, of all people, in the forefront, with President Nicolas Sarkozy’s smug, self-satisfied face mugging for the camera as French fighter jets scream in the skies over Tripoli. The French, who sat out the Iraq war with haughty disdain, are now even more eager than the Americans to get into the thick of it: Sarkozy, in trouble at home, is hoping to distract critics from France’s ever-worsening domestic economic woes and his own party’s diminishing electoral prospects, with a good old-fashioned dollop of Napoleonic tonic. France – once again thrusting into North Africa in search of its former imperial glory! It’s enough to make one nostalgic for the Ugly American.

If the insufferable Sarkozy isn’t enough to make you vow never to eat French fries again, then the man behind Sarkozy’s grandstanding, Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French “public intellectual” and renowned phony, will push you over the edge into outright Francophobia. As the New York Times reports:

“It was Mr. Lévy, by his own still undisputed account, who brought top members of the Libyan opposition — the Interim Transitional National Council — from Benghazi to Paris to meet President Nicolas Sarkozy on March 10, who suggested the unprecedented French recognition of the council as the legitimate government of Libya and who warned Mr. Sarkozy that unless he acted, ‘there will be a massacre in Benghazi, a bloodbath, and the blood of the people of Benghazi will stain the flag of France.’”

Henri-Lévy is famous for … well, it’s not exactly clear. During the 1980s, he and a few of his French commie-socialist comrades excitedly announced that Marxism – which they had previously upheld as a glorious human experiment in idealism – was a Bad Thing. What Stalin’s crimes, committed half a century earlier, hadn’t revealed, the dictates of intellectual fashion and economic opportunity readily unveiled.

Yes, the French have their neocons, too, with BHL—as he’s known – leading the pack. Like his American brethren, BHL combines political polemics with entrepreneurship and has wound up the world’s richest “philosopher,” with inherited assets of his own to which he greatly added to thanks to his political connections.

As questions are raised about the wisdom of Western intervention, the Pepe Le Pew of the War Party is perturbed, and he’s taken to the pages of the Huffington Post – home base for practically all the world’s phony “intellectuals” and empty-headed celebrities – to defend his baby:

“Ah yes. This war began less than a month ago, and already the Norpois, the leaden-footed proponents of salon diplomacy, well-versed in Munich-speak, have raised their heads again and, once over their initial astonishment, have taken up their favorite refrain: what are we doing, involved in this business?”

Leaving aside the pretentious allusion to Proust – the signature conceit of the “literary” French intellectual – notice how easily he reverts to the familiar lexicon of the neocons: “Munich-speak”? We’re not two weeks into this war, and already the War Party’s myrmidons are likening Gadhafi to Hitler! To the neocons, whatever their national origin, it’s always 1939: there’s always a Hitler somewhere in the world, and it’s our responsibility to stop him – which is why we need to spend more on the military than all other nations on earth combined. And if a target country just happens to be strategically located, or sits atop considerable oil reserves, well then who are we to look a gift horse in the mouth?

That’s a good point, however, about our “initial astonishment” at the Libyan intervention: I have to admit to being taken by surprise, because, as low as my opinion may be of President Obama, it was never that low. I never thought he would fall for Henri-Lévy’s line of guff, as regurgitated by the Three Harpies of the Libyan Apocalypse.

Well, then, what are we doing involved in this business?

“First of all, war aims. The ‘true’ aims of this war. And what if the allies had a ‘secret agenda’ and, in particular, “oil”. The imbeciles! The too-clever-for-their-own-good who, eternally seeking the hidden side of things, ultimately fail to see what is right there under their own eyes! Namely, that, oil for oil, there was one simple means to ensure control over Libyan oil, and that means was to touch nothing, to change nothing, and to go on dealing with Gadhafi, as they have for decades. Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama may be capable, like all politicians, of all the cynicism one likes. But concerning this affair, why not have the elementary honesty to recognize their share of sincerity?”

This is nonsensical. BHL may know his Proust, but he likely failed Economics 101. Go here and look at this map of foreign oil concessions in Libya, which are heavily concentrated in the rebellious eastern half of the country. Gadhafi made the British pay a huge price for their oil concessions: as British planes bomb Libyan air defenses – and a few civilians, too – does anyone think the rebels won’t give British Petroleum a better deal than Gadhafi ever would? And the French, who seem to have been largely left out of the Libyan oil rush, will certainly demand their share of the spoils.

Economics is not BHL’s strong point: you know how those French intellectuals are! Well, then, perhaps he’s better at military strategy, a favorite pastime of our neocon laptop bombardiers. On second thought, maybe not:

“Then, the length of this war. The way it has of ‘getting stuck’ in the sands of the Libyan desert, when we had hoped it would be short and sweet. Once again, grotesque. Unutterable bad faith. For–quite apart from the fact that four weeks is nothing compared to the decade of the Afghan war or the ten weeks of that of Kosovo–there is a reason, only one, that operations are lasting beyond the successful rescue of Benghazi. And this reason is the strategy of a Gadhafi who has hunkered down in the bunkers of his other cities, turning their inhabitants into human shields.”

A favorite neocon strategy: hyperbole. The opposition is not merely wrong, it is “grotesque.” These are not victims of error, but purveyors of “unutterable bad faith.” All for asking why it’s taking so long! BHL isn’t quite himself, it seems, unless he’s in a state of High Moral Dudgeon, but his passion let slip a telling detail. That he’s comparing an operation that was supposed to continue for “days, not weeks,” as the President put it, to the decade-long Afghan conflict merely confirms our worst fears about this latest adventure in world-saving: that an ambiguously defined mission, which is already expanding well beyond its original mandate, has every prospect of becoming a long term commitment.

“At that point, there are two strategies possible. Either blow up the crowd, in which case, yes, things will go swiftly (and it’s no surprise to see the butcher of Chechnya, Vladimir Putin, in the front ranks of those who think things are dragging on). Or else look out for the lives of civilians, not losing sight of the fact that the international community has provided a mandate to protect them, the civilians, and that it will take the time it will take. (To deny that, one must be drugged on quick solutions, drunk with the urge for immediacy, or, worse, irresponsible.)”

BHL never acknowledges what is apparent to even a casual observer of the Libyan events: that Gadhafi has real support in the country, especially in the area around Tripoli. After all, it isn’t just mercenaries fighting on his behalf: his fellow tribesmen and their allies, as well as Gadhafi’s personal followers and the beneficiaries of the regime, are apparently rallying to his cause. This is the reason why it hasn’t been a quick victory for the rebels. But to BHL, the “literary” intellectual, who references Proust instead of anything related to the reality of Libya, this is inadmissible because it ruins the narrative, the tall tale he’s telling himself and his audience about the demonic despot versus the virtuous rebels.

His third argument is just another neocon ploy: the old “straw man” strategem. BHL tells us that some people are criticizing the rebels for their “amateurism,” and then goes on for a good paragraph using this “criticism” to valorize them and make the case for arming and training them. “Indigent bastards!, they say. Good for nothings! Short hitters!” Who is the author of such slanderous epithets? Perhaps he means Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who, when asked, didn’t put very much store in the rebels’ military prowess – but so what?

“Fourth objection, the National Council of Transition. After all, what do we know of this Council of ‘nebulous’ outlines? And wasn’t France jumping the gun a bit in recognizing it? There again, it takes a lot of nerve to think so. And there’s something profoundly perverse in this way of depicting who knows what occult power–an Angkar as in Cambodia, the black box of a Libya not as free as it professes to be–and in this way of spreading doubt and insinuating, in reality, the worst. For the members of the Council are well known. Their biographies are transparent. They are either those who have earned a price on their heads in Tripoli for rallying to the cause, whose respective political itineraries are known to all, or men who are new but who speak to whomever openly. But it’s true that, to set this supposed mystery to rest, one must take the trouble to go to Benghazi….”

Emtting clouds of obfuscatory rhetoric like a squid under attack, BHL resorts to the familiar abuse of his opponents: they aren’t just “perverse,” they are “profoundly perverse.” Those ingrates “have a lot of nerve” to even ask questions about just who the UN and the NATO powers are throwing their weight behind. Because, after all, “the members of the Council are well-known.” To whom are they well-known, exactly? Well, it turns out, “to set this supposed mystery to rest one must take the trouble to go to Benghazi”!

Now that’s a dirty trick. He makes us read all the way to the end of that tortured paragraph before getting to the punchline – some “humanitarian”!

Reality, however, once again departs from BHL’s preferred narrative, because the biography of, say, Col. Khalifa Haftar, the US-supported self-proclaimed “commander” of the Libyan rebel forces, is far from “transparent” – especially regarding his capture during the war with Chad, an event which seems to have conicided with his remarkable political turnaround. The most well known rebel leaders are former officials of the Gadhafi regime, who supported him loyally for many years and only saw the light when it looked like the regime was finished – a record that may indeed be transparent, but is hardly admirable.

“And then, Al-Qaeda. Ah! Al-Qaeda. On the pretext that, among the foreign jihadis who once left to fight in Iraq were a small majority of Libyans, one concludes that there would be a majority of jihadis at the heart of today’s Free Libya. The sophism, in this case, is not only perverse, it is despicable. And it’s the same abjectness, by the way, that, fifteen years ago at Sarajevo, inferred the probable birth of a fundamentalist State in the heart of Europe–and therefore the necessity to let Bosnia in its entirety die–from the presence of a handful of Iranians in the 7th corps of the Bosnian army. In this case, the truth is simple. It is possible that a few jihadis have infiltrated Derna or Benghazi. It is probably a rule that such sleeper agents profit from the chaos of war to reinforce their position. But it is a lie, accredited for the time being only by hazy statements backed by a Gaddafism which is in dire straits and fresh out of arguments, that they have a significant role in the ranks of the insurgents.”

Getting past the name-calling – his opponents are, once again, “perverse,” and even “despicable” – the fact-free nature of BHL’s “argument” is readily apparent. To begin with, it wasn’t just the Iranians who were fighting on the side of the Bosnians and Kosovars during the Balkan wars: al-Qaeda sent a brigade to fight for the KLA during the Kosovo war, and continues to be a presence in the region. Furthermore, BHL doesn’t even mention the ample evidence that Al-Qaeda had its best recruiting success in Libya, although he does mention the town of Derna, where many fighters who fought US troops in Iraq hailed from.

Aside from this, however, to say that bin Laden’s boys do not now play a significant role in the Libyan insurgency is not to rule it out as a distinct possibility. As the only seasoned fighters, except for defecting Libyan soldiers, they are bound to acquire some renown and authority on account of their military experience. I am not one who believes, as some do, that the rebellion is the brainchild of Osama bin Laden. Yet, given the evidence, it is rational to raise the question of al-Qaeda’s influence – unless you’re a myth-maker, a spinner of ready-to-wear narratives, in which case it’s better not to ask too many questions.

“I would add,” says BHL, that

“The best way of delivering Libya into the hands of chaos would be to abandon in mid-river those we have encouraged to ford it, giving in, at the last minute, to the sirens who would convince us to save what can be saved of the Gadhafi regime. He, really, is not only a butcher of civilians, a patent hater of the West and of democratic values, the declared enemy of the Arab–and, tomorrow, the African–spring, but a world class champion, all categories included, of terrorism. More than ever, this man should beat it.”

“This man should beat it”?

Either the Huffington Post needs to get a new translator, or else BHL is going all “cool” and “trendy” on us by riffing on a Michael Jackson tune.

The author’s stylistic idiosyncrasies aside, however, his arguments are oddly familiar: now that we’ve already gotten involved, the West can’t just leave. The neocons made – and continue to make – the same argument when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, they sang the same song as the Vietnam war came to a bloody and chaotic close: we can’t leave our heroic allies in the lurch!

Ho Chi Minh was, no doubt, a butcher of civilians – although the US surpassed him in that regard – and also “a patent hater of the West and of democratic values,” but that war was a mistake from the beginning – just like this one. In that conflict, too, we helped one side in a civil war which had divided the country into two de facto independent states, one totalitarian and the other “free.” That war, too, started out small, with military aid and “advisers,” eventually expanding into a presence of hundreds of thousands of troops and a long drawn out conflict that ended in disaster – as this one will if we follow the course laid out by BHL and the War Party.

A word about BHL: this guy is supposed to be a “public intellectual,” but what kind of “intellectual” gets bamboozled by an obvious hoax such as this? Read and laugh at the pretensions of this champion phony.

Read more by Justin Raimondo

Libyan War And Control Of The Mediterranean


by Rick Rozoff*


Had Muammar Gaddafi become too pesky for the likes of Nicolas Sarkozy and his Atlanticist partners, by standing in the way of their agenda for the domination of the Mediterranean sea region? France’s direct role in nurturing the rebellion against the Libyan leader is no longer a secret. In this article, Rick Rozoff offers some additional pointers, and analyzes the Libyan war in the context of the advancing transformation of the Mediterranean into NATO’s mare nostrum.

26 March 2011 

Chicago (USA)




 AfriCom: Control of Africa

GIF - 66.1 kb
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and fallen Egyptian President Hosni Mubarack are the merry co-chairs of the EU-Mediterranean summit held in Paris July 13, 2008.

A year after assuming the post of president of the French Republic in 2007, and while his nation held the rotating European Union presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy invited the heads of state of the EU’s 27 members and those of 17 non-EU Mediterranean countries to attend a conference in Paris to launch a Mediterranean Union.

In the words of Britain’s Daily Telegraph regarding the subsequent summit held for the purpose on July 13, 2008, “Sarkozy’s big idea is to use imperial Rome’s centre of the world as a unifying factor linking 44 countries that are home to 800 million people.”

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, however, announced that his nation would boycott the gathering, denouncing the initiative as one aimed at dividing both Africa and the Arab world, and stating:

“We shall have another Roman empire and imperialist design. There are imperialist maps and designs that we have already rolled up. We should not have them again.” [1]

The unprecedented summit was held with the intention of “shift[ing] Europe’s strategic focus towards the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans.” [2]

GIF - 27 kb
Blue: Members of the European Union Union for the Mediterranean / Green: Other members (primarily from the African Union & Arab League) / Striped green: Libya is currently only an observer member in the Union for the Mediterranean

The Mediterranean Union was renamed the less controversial Union for the Mediterranean and its members include all 44 nations originally invited to join except for Libya.

Less than three years later Sarkozy’s Mirage and Rafale warplanes were bombing Libyan government targets, initiating an ongoing war being waged by France, the United States, Britain and what the world news media refer to as an international coalition – 12 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the emirate of Qatar – to overthrow the Gaddafi government and implant a more pliant replacement.

The Mediterranean Sea is the main battle front in the world currently, superseding the Afghanistan-Pakistan war theater, and the empire of the new third millennium – that of the U.S., the world’s sole military superpower in the words of President Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, and its NATO partners – is completing the transformation of the Mediterranean into its mare nostrum.

The attack on Libya followed by slightly more than three weeks a move in the parliament of the Eastern Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus to drag that state into NATO’s Partnership for Peace program [3], which if ultimately successful would leave only three of twenty nations (excluding microstate Monaco) on or in the Mediterranean Sea not full members of NATO or beholden to it through partnership entanglements, including those of the Mediterranean Dialogue (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia): Libya, Lebanon and Syria.

NATO membership and partnerships obligate the affected governments to open their countries to the U.S. military. For example, less than a year after becoming independent Montenegro had already joined the Partnership for Peace and was visited by then-commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe Admiral Harry Ulrich and the submarine tender Emory S. Land in an effort “to provide training and assistance for the Montenegrin Navy and to strengthen the relationship between the two navies.” [4] The next month four NATO warships, including the USS Roosevelt guided missile destroyer, docked in Montenegro’s Tivat harbor.

If the current Libyan model is duplicated in Syria as increasingly seems to be the case, and with Lebanon already blockaded by warships from NATO nations since 2006 in what is the prototype for what NATO will soon replicate off the coast of Libya, the Mediterranean Sea will be entirely under the control of NATO and its leading member, the U.S.

Cyprus in the only European Union member and indeed the only European nation (except for microstates) that is – for the time being – not a NATO member or partner, and Libya is the only African nation bordering the Mediterranean not a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership program.

Libya is also one of only five of Africa’s 54 countries that have not been integrated into, which is to say subordinated to, the new U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The others are:

Sudan, which is being balkanized as Libya may also soon be.

Ivory Coast, now embroiled in what is for all intents a civil war with the West backing the armed groups of Alassane Ouattara against standing president Laurent Gbagbo and under the threat of foreign military intervention, likely by the AFRICOM- and NATO-supported West African Standby Force and possibly with direct Western involvement. [5]

Eritrea, which borders Djibouti where some 5,000 U.S. and French troops are based and which was involved in an armed border conflict with its neighbor three years ago in which French military forces intervened on behalf of Djibouti.

Zimbabwe, which is among likely candidates for the next U.S.-NATO Operation Odyssey Dawn-type military intervention.

The Mediterranean has been history’s most strategically important sea and is the only one whose waves lap the shores of three continents.

Control of the sea has been fought over by the Persian, Alexandrian, Carthaginian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Spanish, British and Napoleonic empires, in part or in whole, and by Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany.

Since the end of World War Two the major military power in the sea has been the U.S. In 1946 Washington established Naval Forces Mediterranean, which in 1950 became the U.S. Sixth Fleet and has its headquarters in the Mediterranean port city of Naples.

JPEG - 18.2 kb
The burning frigate USS Philadelphia in the harbor of Tripoli, February 16, 1804. Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the North African Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States.
Painted by Edward Moran in 1897.

In fact the genesis of the U.S. Navy was the Naval Act of 1794, passed in response to the capture of American merchant vessels off the coast of North Africa. The Mediterranean Squadron (also Station) was created in reaction to the first Barbary War of 1801-1805, also known as the Tripolitan War after what is now northwestern Libya. The U.S. fought its first naval battle outside the Western Hemisphere against Tripolitania in 1801.

U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, also based in Naples, is assigned to the Sixth Fleet and provides forces for both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command. Its commander is Admiral Samuel Locklear III, who is also commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples.

He has been coordinating U.S. and NATO air and missile strikes against Libya from USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Sixth Fleet, as commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. Africa Command operation in charge of U.S. guided missile destroyers, submarines and stealth bombers conducting attacks inside Libya.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations (the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy), recently stated that the permanent U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean allowed the Pentagon, which “already was positioned for operations over Libya,” to launch Odyssey Dawn on March 19. “The need, for example in the opening rounds, for the Tomahawk strikes, the shooters were already in place. They were already loaded, and that went off as we expected it would.”

“That’s what you get when you have a global Navy that’s forward all the time….We’re there, and when the guns go off, we’re ready to conduct combat operations….” [6]

On March 22 General Carter Ham, the new chief of U.S. Africa Command, visited the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany and met with British, French and Italian air force leaders to evaluate the bombing campaign in Libya. He praised cooperation with NATO partners before the war began, stating, “You can’t bring 14 different nations together without ever having prepared for this before.” [7]

As the AFRICOM commander was in Germany, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Egypt to meet with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, commander in chief of the Egyptian armed forces and chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, to coordinate the campaign against Libya.

JPEG - 6.1 kb
Operation Odyssey Dawn: USS Barry (DDG 52) fires a Tomahawk cruise missile against Libyan targets.

The Pentagon’s website reported on March 23 that forces attached to AFRICOM’s Task Force Odyssey Dawn had flown 336 air sorties, 108 of them launching strikes and 212 conducted by the U.S. The operations included 162 Tomahawk cruise missile attacks.

Admiral Roughead stated that he envisioned “no problem in keeping operations going,” as the Tomahawks will be replaced from the existing inventory of 3,200. Enough to level Libya and still have plenty left over for the next war. [8]

The defeat and conquest, directly or by proxy, of Libya would secure a key outpost for the Pentagon and NATO on the Mediterranean Sea.

The consolidation of U.S. control over North Africa would have more than just regional repercussions, important as they are.

Shortly after the inauguration of U.S. Africa Command, Lin Zhiyuan, deputy director of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences, wrote the following:

“By building a dozen forward bases or establishments in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and other African nations, the U.S. will gradually establish a network of military bases to cover the entire continent and make essential preparations for docking an aircraft carrier fleet in the region.”

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with the U.S. at the head had [in 2006] carried out a large-scale military exercise in Cape Verde, a western African island nation, with the sole purpose of controlling the sea and air corridors of crude oil extracting zones and monitoring how the situation is with oil pipelines operating there.”

“[A]frica Command represents a vital, crucial link for the US adjustment of its global military deployment. At present, it is moving the gravity of its forces in Europe eastward and opening new bases in Eastern Europe.”

“The present US global military redeployment centers mainly on an ‘arc of instability’ from the Caucasus, Central and Southern Asia down to the Korean Peninsula, and so the African continent is taken as a strong point to prop up the US global strategy.

“Therefore, AFRICOM facilitates the United States advancing on the African continent, taking control of the Eurasian continent and proceeding to take the helm of the entire globe.” [9]

Far more is at stake in the war with Libya than control of Africa’s largest proven oil reserves and subjugating the last North African nation not yet under the thumb of the U.S. and NATO. Even more than domination of the Mediterranean Sea region.

 Rick Rozoff
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. Is the manager of Stop NATO international.
This author’s articles   


Russia Reports France Threat Against Obama Brought US Into Libya War

Posted by EU Times on Mar 25th, 2011

A shocking report written by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the meetings held between President Medvedev and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates this past week says that America’s war on Libya was “forced” onto it after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Libyan leader Gaddafi] threatened President Barack Obama with “total exposure” if the US didn’t attack.

Upon hearing Gates shocking admission of why the US began its war on Libya, this report says, Medvedev issued a warning that should too many civilians be killed America could expect Russian forces to move into the region to protect them, a warning that fell on deaf ears as Gates walked out of the meeting saying that he found Russia’s arguments “difficult to comprehend.”

Especially upsetting to Gates, this report continues, was Prime Minister Putin stating that United Nations resolution authorizing military action in Libya resembled the “medieval calls for crusades,”, a statement quickly rebutted by Medvedev as “unacceptable,” and who further warned that comments such as Putin’s could “lead to a clash of civilizations.”

The “total exposure” threatened by Sarkozy unless the US attacked Libya regards the American President’s most senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who, according to this report, is the Iranian born “handler” of Obama for the “Moon Cult” factions of the Islamic World seeking to bring about the return of the prophesied redeemer of Islam known as the Mehdi.

Important to note about Sarkozy’s threatening to expose Jarrett for her extensive ties to the Persian Nation was her stunning revelation a fortnight ago before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs in Washington that she is of Jewish heritage herself, and not a Muslim as those in the US elite power structure had believed.

Though Jarrett’s Jewish background may have taken Washington by surprise, this report says it was long known to Sarkozy, who, according to the French daily Le Figaro, has long been a spy for Israel’s MOSSAD intelligence agency, and as we can, in part, read:

“A report reveals that French President Nicolas Sarkozy worked for Israeli intelligence for a long time before he was elected president. French daily Le Figaro has revealed the French leader once worked for the Zionist regime as a sayan, Hebrew for ‘collaborator’.

Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky says sayans, who perform many roles, are Jewish citizens of other nationalities assisting Mossad. Le Figaro claimed that French police officials managed to keep secret a letter, which exposed Sarkozy’s past participation in espionage activities for Mossad.

The letter fixed Sarkozy’s alleged spying activities as far back as 1983.”

The reason for Sarkozy wanting the complete and total destruction of Libya lies in the threats made against him last week by the Libyan leader’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who threatened to reveal a “grave secret” that would bring down the embattled French President.

The “grave secret” feared by Sarkozy we can further read about as reported London’s Guardian News Service, and which, in part, says:

“Muammar Gaddafi’s son has claimed that Libya helped finance Nicolas Sarkozy’s successful election campaign in 2007, and demanded that the French president return the money to “the Libyan people”.

In an interview with the Euronews TV channel, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said Libya had details of bank transfers and was ready to make them public in a move designed to punish Sarkozy for throwing his weight behind opposition forces.”

Important to note about France’s relationship with Libya is that should it win this war it will have secured its energy security for the rest of this century as this North African Nation holds the largest oil reserves on the continent estimated at over 41 Billion barrels. Even more critical to note about Libya’s oil is that is the lightest, sweetest and easiest-to-extract black gold left on Earth and costs just $1.00 to extract.

Equally critical to note about France’s relationship with Libya was its having signed over $27 Billion in agreements with this North African country this past January, all of which is endangering the collapse of the French economy should they be cancelled.

As we had, also, noted in our March 8th report Global Resource War Warned Has Begun Between East-West, the vast water reserves of Libya (the largest ever discovered on the African continent) make this country a “prize” the West must have, and its military might will seek to ensure it gets.

Most appalling of the West’s war upon Libya is that it is coming at the expense of the African Nation of Ivory Coast where the UN estimates today over 1 million have fled their homes as civil war fears grow.

Most unfortunate for the hundreds of thousands of innocents set to die in the Ivory Coast is that their Nation has no massive oil or water resources for the West to attack them for, and leaving one to wonder if these Westerners have, indeed, lost what little moral conscious they had left.

To the outcome of the battle between the United States and France over the fate of Libya it is not in our knowing, other than to note the obvious that with each passing day this World of ours grows more dangerous by the hour.



Sarkozy “Was” a Mossad Agent?

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:03 CDT

Press TV

© Unknown
Nicolas Sarkozy
A report reveals that French President Nicolas Sarkozy worked for Israeli intelligence for a long time before he was elected president.

French daily Le Figaro has revealed the French leader once worked for the Zionist regime as a sayan, Hebrew for ‘collaborator’.

Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky says sayans, who perform many roles, are Jewish citizens of other nationalities assisting Mossad.

Le Figaro claimed that French police officials managed to keep secret a letter, which exposed Sarkozy’s past participation in espionage activities for Mossad.

The letter fixed Sarkozy’s alleged spying activities as far back as 1983.

In the immediate aftermath of Le Figaro’s exposé, the Zionist regime’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was on a state visit to France to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, which raised more questions about the report.

Analysts believe since Sarkozy took office in May, he has taken every opportunity to pledge his allegiance to the United States and the Zionist regime.

“Sarko the Sayan” has also followed in the footsteps of the White House by choosing a hostile approach toward Iran and its peaceful nuclear activities.


France’s Sarkozy: We’ll Crack Down on Protests

The Associated Press
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:43 CDT

© Remy de la Mauviniere/AP Photo
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, center, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, left, pose for a group picture at the Hotel Royal in Deauville, Tuesday Oct. 19, 2010.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is pledging to crack down on “troublemakers” attacking police at protests against a proposed higher retirement age.

He also says blockages of oil refineries that have sparked gas shortages “cannot exist in a democracy” where “there are people who want to work.”

He insists it’s his “duty” to pass pension reform, despite nationwide strikes and violent protests.

Sarkozy says demographics and people’s increasing life expectancy have made raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 a necessity and stressed that other European nations have already made similar changes.

Sarkozy was speaking Tuesday at a press conference in the French city of Deauville with the leaders of Russia and Germany.

Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

Paris – Some airliners steered clear of France and police clashed with stone-throwing youths Tuesday as a new round of nationwide strikes and protests over a bill raising the retirement age to 62 kicked off.

Workers in sectors across the French economy joined in one-day strikes Tuesday after a week of disruptions by protesting oil refinery workers, students and employees of the SNCF national railway operator. More than 200 protests are planned around the country Tuesday.

It was the sixth national day of demonstrations over the planned pension reform since early September. Union leaders have vowed to keep up the pressure until the government scraps the unpopular plan, saying retirement at 60 is a fundamental social right that past generations fought hard to achieve.

President Nicolas Sarkozy says it must go through to save France’s generous but money-losing pension system. The protests in France come as countries across Europe are cutting spending and raising taxes to bring down record deficits and debts from the worst recession in 70 years.

The Paris airport authority warned on its website and in signs at the airports: “Strike on Oct. 19. Serious difficulties expected in access to airports and air traffic.”

France’s DGAC civil aviation authority said up to half of flights Tuesday out of Paris’ Orly airport would be scrapped, and 30 percent of flights out of other French airports, including the country’s largest, Charles de Gaulle, serving Paris, would be canceled.

Most cancellations were expected on short- and medium-haul domestic and inter-European flights. The walkout by air traffic controllers was expected to last one day, with flights expected to return to normal on Wednesday.

Strikes by oil refinery workers have been ongoing, sparking fuel shortages that forced at least 1,000 gas stations to be shuttered. Others saw large crowds. At an Esso station on the southeast edge of Paris on Tuesday morning, the line snaked along a city block and some drivers stood with canisters to stock gasoline in case of shortages.

Truckers have joined the protest, running so-called “escargot” operations in which they drive at a snail’s pace on highways. On Tuesday, about 20 truckers blocked an oil depot in Nanterre west of Paris operated by oil giant Total, turning away fellow truckers coming to fill up with gasoline. Police stood by but did not intervene.

“If they (the government) continue, we won’t have any choice (but to continue),” said Jorge Goncalves, a trucker with the CFDT union blocking the Nanterre depot. “Today the government is stubborn. And how do you deal with stubborn people? You don’t let go,”

Students entered the fray last week, blockading high schools around the country and staging protests that have occasionally degenerated into clashes with police.

Across the country, 379 high schools were blocked or disrupted Tuesday to varying degrees – the highest figure so far in the student movement against the retirement reform, according to the Education Ministry.

At a high school in the Paris suburb of Nanterre closed because of earlier violence, a few hundred youths and nearly as many police gathered Tuesday morning.

The teens started throwing stones from a bridge, and police responded with tear gas and barricaded the area. It was not immediately clear if there were injuries or arrests. Nanterre has often seen student protests in past years.

In the Nanterre clashes, youths knocked an Associated Press photographer off his motorbike and kicked and punched him as they rampaged down a street adjacent to the school.

Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie pledged on Europe-1 radio Tuesday to stay firm against “troublemakers” on the margins of the protest movement.

The head of the UNEF student union, Jean-Baptiste Prevost, countered that students “have no other solution but to continue.”

“Every time the government is firm, there are more people in the street,” he told i-tele news channel, predicting a large turnout for Tuesday’s street marches.With disruptions on the national railway entering their eighth consecutive day Tuesday, many commuters’ patience was beginning to wear thin. Only about one in two trains were running on some of the Paris Metro lines, and commuters had to elbow their way onto packed trains.

At Paris’ Gare Saint Lazare, which serves the French capital’s western suburbs and the northwestern Normandy and Brittany regions, commuters waited on crowded platforms for their trains. Only about half of regularly scheduled trains were running out of the station Tuesday.

Caroline Mesnard, a 29-year-old teacher said she expected her commute to take about twice as long as usual – as it has since last Tuesday’s start of the open-ended strike on France’s trains.

“All I can say is that after eight days, it’s beginning to get a bit tiresome,” said Mesnard. “I’m really tired, but there’s nothing to be done but hang on and wait for this to end.”

In the Mediterranean port city of Marseille, strikes by garbage collectors have left heaps of rubbish piled along city sidewalks. But still, the piles of rotting garbage don’t appear to have diminished labor union support in a city that has long had an activist reputation.

“Transport, the rubbish, the nurses, the teachers, the workers, the white collar, everyone who works, we should all be united. If there is no transport today, we’re not all going to die from it,” said 55-year-old resident Francoise Michelle.

Sarkozy has stressed that 62 is among the lowest retirement ages in Europe, the French are living much longer and the pension system is losing money.

“This reform is essential, France is committed to it, and France will carry it out,” Sarkozy said Monday in the Normandy beach resort of Deauville.

The measure is expected to pass a vote in the Senate this week. Slated to take place on Wednesday, it’s been push back until Thursday so lawmakers have the time to examine hundreds of amendments brought by opposition Socialists and others.

%d bloggers like this: