Posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
03 December 2012
25 February 2012
The Mossad, the Israeli (Rothschild) intelligence and enforcement agency, specialises in terrorist attacks that are blamed on others
‘TERRORISTS’ ARE NOW ‘FREEDOM FIGHTERS’ ...
… ‘FREE WORLD’ HYPOCRISY AND THE MEK
… ‘FREE WORLD’ HYPOCRISY AND THE MEK
The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday
Humanity in general has grown up in many ways compared with other eras and the old undiluted conquest for sheer greed and control is no longer the easy sell that it once was. So the empire-builders of today have swapped their policy of 'see, want, take', for a white charger and the ‘sword of freedom’. They no longer kill and maim to invade and enslave. No, no. Now they kill and maim to ‘protect’ those they are killing and maiming. It is still ‘see, want, take’, of course, but it is hidden behind laughable excuses based on the good guys (‘us’) protecting ‘the people’ from the ‘bad guys’ (‘them’, the demon-of-the-moment).
America and Britain didn’t invade Afghanistan to secure their drug production and a strategic presence as part of a much bigger agenda for the region. They did so to ‘get Bin Laden’ and save the world from terrorism. They didn’t invade Iraq for oil and other strategic reasons. They did so to save the people from Saddam Hussein. They didn’t trash Libya to steal its oil and banking system. They did so to save the people from Colonel Gaddafi.
They are not seeking to invade Syria in a ‘domino-effect’ takeover of the Middle and Near East. Whatever gave you that idea? No, they want to invade to protect the people from President Assad. They don’t want to invade Iran for the oil, control of a vast country at a pivotal point between east and west, and trigger another global conflict. They want to invade to protect the world from Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons programme’ ...
... The MEK provided the US with the excuse they needed to target Iran diplomatically and militarily when it was allegedly the first source of ‘information’ that Iran was embarked on a nuclear weapons programme. But the MEK involvement in the US-Israel demonisation of Iran goes much deeper than that – especially with Israel. The Mossad, the Israeli (Rothschild) intelligence and enforcement agency, specialises in terrorist attacks that are blamed on others (see 9/11) and in using, funding and training ‘hired guns’ within the target community to do its very dirty work. The MEK is now one of them.
MEK terrorist leader Maryam Rajavi with former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, Rudy Guiliani, Frances Townsend (a one-time Homeland Security advisor) and Tom Ridge (who was head of Homeland Security to ‘fight terrorism’). They all want the MEK delisted as a terrorist group.
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAVID ICKE NEWSLETTER, GET IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HIS FANTASTIC NEWSLETTER LIBRARY ON A HOST OF SUBJECTS GOING BACK TO 2005, AND SEE HOURS OF VIDEO FOOTAGE OF DAVID'S INFORMATION, PLEASE CLICK HERE ...
03 February 2012
Obama: Not Cool, Just Cold-Blooded
“When the U.S. president arrogates to himself the right to bomb and kill at will, he makes himself an outlaw.”
By Glen Ford
February 02, 2012 "BAR" - - President Obama thinks killing people around the globe with drones is as cool as singing Al Green at the Apollo. In a live Web interview, Obama assured his audience that the U.S. unmanned drone force – now thought to number in the thousands and ranging from deadly Predators and Reapers to aircraft the size of small birds – was “kept on a very tight leash.” So, here we have a secret weapons program that violates other countries’ airspace and kills their citizens at will – and even kills American citizens without charge or trial – and Obama thinks that all he is obligated to do is give assurances that the weapons are on a “tight leash.”
The issue is not whether the American commander-in-chief has made sure that the drones are under his control, but that the United States is waging a terroristic war against at least four nations – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and possibly more – with not the slightest justification under international law.
The people of Iraq, who know a great deal about the effects of drones, are trying to figure out what their sovereignty and independence actually means when the U.S. State Department can fly drones above their cities as a safeguard to U.S. diplomatic installations. The question raised by Iraqis is not, Does Obama have those drones under tight controls, but Why is a foreign power, whose military was supposed to have left Iraq, flying aircraft in their skies? A New York Times article on Monday reported that the Iraqis’ were angry. But Obama dismissed their complaints as much ado about nothing; the article, he said was “a little bit overwritten.” I suppose Obama thinks he’s being cool, like breaking briefly into song at a Harlem fundraiser. But there is nothing cool about violating the territorial integrity of other countries – including nations like Iraq that Obama constantly describes as a U.S. ally.
“Obama apparently thought it was cool to stick a knife up Col. Gaddafi’s butt.”
Obama was too cool to let the U.S. Congress sweat him over the six-month aerial war waged by the United States and its NATO allies against the sovereign nation of Libya, at the conclusion of which Libya’s leader was murdered by U.S.-supported thugs. Obama apparently thought it was cool to stick a knife up Col. Gaddafi’s butt. The First Black President’s drones are busy over Somalia, whose government the U.S. and its African puppet allies overthrew in 2006, precipitating a humanitarian catastrophe that has only worsened as the U.S. war continues. All of Yemen is a killing zone for U.S. drones.
When the U.S. president arrogates to himself the right to bomb and kill at will, with no respect for national boundaries and sovereign rights, he makes himself an outlaw. So, I guess Obama is cool like Jesse James.
With his huge expansion of the drone terror wars and passage of preventive detention, Barack Obama has surpassed George Bush in lawlessness. But most Americans, especially African Americans, cannot imagine that Obama represents a danger to them. If George Bush had had thousands of drones that could fly up the hallway of an apartment building, ring the bell and assassinate whoever answered the door, Black folks would have been terrified. But, they're not scared of Obama, because he...is oh so cool.
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
By Glen Ford
February 02, 2012 "BAR" - - President Obama thinks killing people around the globe with drones is as cool as singing Al Green at the Apollo. In a live Web interview, Obama assured his audience that the U.S. unmanned drone force – now thought to number in the thousands and ranging from deadly Predators and Reapers to aircraft the size of small birds – was “kept on a very tight leash.” So, here we have a secret weapons program that violates other countries’ airspace and kills their citizens at will – and even kills American citizens without charge or trial – and Obama thinks that all he is obligated to do is give assurances that the weapons are on a “tight leash.”
The issue is not whether the American commander-in-chief has made sure that the drones are under his control, but that the United States is waging a terroristic war against at least four nations – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and possibly more – with not the slightest justification under international law.
The people of Iraq, who know a great deal about the effects of drones, are trying to figure out what their sovereignty and independence actually means when the U.S. State Department can fly drones above their cities as a safeguard to U.S. diplomatic installations. The question raised by Iraqis is not, Does Obama have those drones under tight controls, but Why is a foreign power, whose military was supposed to have left Iraq, flying aircraft in their skies? A New York Times article on Monday reported that the Iraqis’ were angry. But Obama dismissed their complaints as much ado about nothing; the article, he said was “a little bit overwritten.” I suppose Obama thinks he’s being cool, like breaking briefly into song at a Harlem fundraiser. But there is nothing cool about violating the territorial integrity of other countries – including nations like Iraq that Obama constantly describes as a U.S. ally.
“Obama apparently thought it was cool to stick a knife up Col. Gaddafi’s butt.”
Obama was too cool to let the U.S. Congress sweat him over the six-month aerial war waged by the United States and its NATO allies against the sovereign nation of Libya, at the conclusion of which Libya’s leader was murdered by U.S.-supported thugs. Obama apparently thought it was cool to stick a knife up Col. Gaddafi’s butt. The First Black President’s drones are busy over Somalia, whose government the U.S. and its African puppet allies overthrew in 2006, precipitating a humanitarian catastrophe that has only worsened as the U.S. war continues. All of Yemen is a killing zone for U.S. drones.
When the U.S. president arrogates to himself the right to bomb and kill at will, with no respect for national boundaries and sovereign rights, he makes himself an outlaw. So, I guess Obama is cool like Jesse James.
With his huge expansion of the drone terror wars and passage of preventive detention, Barack Obama has surpassed George Bush in lawlessness. But most Americans, especially African Americans, cannot imagine that Obama represents a danger to them. If George Bush had had thousands of drones that could fly up the hallway of an apartment building, ring the bell and assassinate whoever answered the door, Black folks would have been terrified. But, they're not scared of Obama, because he...is oh so cool.
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
01 February 2012
US was Target of Libyan-Style "Revolution"
The difference between the US Civil War and the Libyan "revolution"
is that Russia came to America's rescue in 1863 but did not intervene on Libya's behalf in 2011.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
The US Civil War took place for reasons similar to the "Arab Spring" revolution that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi.
Yes folks, Gadhafi may have been the Abraham Lincoln of our day.
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson ended the Charter of the Rothschild-controlled Bank of the United States. This Central Bank had given the Rothschilds exclusive right to create money and control of the US economy.
The bankers decided that the US had to be weakened by civil strife and brought to heel. It was intended that the northern states should become a British colony again, and the southern states should be dependent on France.
According to Gertrude Coogan, "the American Civil War was planned in London in 1857." (The Money Creators, p. 179.)
A group of French bankers supported the South and a British group supported the North. Napoleon III was loaned 200 million francs to invade Mexico in 1861. His troops came from the NATO of the day, Austria, Belgium, England France and Spain. In 1863, Napoleon III offered to subjugate the North in exchange for Texas and Louisiana.
The bankers' plan would have succeeded but for the intervention of Tsar Alexander II. He warned the "Allies" that an attack on the North would be considered an attack on Russia. He sent his Atlantic and Pacific fleets to New York and San Francisco to make the point. The bankers' backed down but made a mental note: Remove the Tsar.
The difference between the US in 1863 and Libya in 2011 is that Russia did not come to Libya's aid.
Like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, Muammar Ghadafi was resisting Rothschild world hegemony. An article in The New American, explains how Gadhafi became an outcast after being a "trusted ally" for so long:
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars -- demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) -- was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan.
When Abraham Lincoln eschewed the bankers' exorbitant rates and financed the war by creating "greenbacks," the bankers panicked.
Their house organ The London Times, feared that, "if the US furnished its own money without cost, it would be without debt and would have all the money necessary to carry on commerce. It would become prosperous beyond precedent...[It] must be destroyed."
Gadhafi was shot down in the dessert like a dog; Abe Lincoln was murdered at Ford theater.
Both the US Civil War and the Libyan revolution were instigated by the bankers to undercut opposition to their satanic world government agenda.
The final irony is that now, the US is the Rothschild's chosen goon menacing Iran, the last hold-out.
"Our watchword is force and make-believe," say the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
We are in bondage to Illuminati bankers who have used their credit monopoly to take over our government and society.
But the greater bondage is a mental and spiritual one: "Make-believe."
Our true condition is hidden from us by the mass media which diverts us with sex, lies and trivia.
is that Russia came to America's rescue in 1863 but did not intervene on Libya's behalf in 2011.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
The US Civil War took place for reasons similar to the "Arab Spring" revolution that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi.
Yes folks, Gadhafi may have been the Abraham Lincoln of our day.
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson ended the Charter of the Rothschild-controlled Bank of the United States. This Central Bank had given the Rothschilds exclusive right to create money and control of the US economy.
The bankers decided that the US had to be weakened by civil strife and brought to heel. It was intended that the northern states should become a British colony again, and the southern states should be dependent on France.
According to Gertrude Coogan, "the American Civil War was planned in London in 1857." (The Money Creators, p. 179.)
A group of French bankers supported the South and a British group supported the North. Napoleon III was loaned 200 million francs to invade Mexico in 1861. His troops came from the NATO of the day, Austria, Belgium, England France and Spain. In 1863, Napoleon III offered to subjugate the North in exchange for Texas and Louisiana.
The bankers' plan would have succeeded but for the intervention of Tsar Alexander II. He warned the "Allies" that an attack on the North would be considered an attack on Russia. He sent his Atlantic and Pacific fleets to New York and San Francisco to make the point. The bankers' backed down but made a mental note: Remove the Tsar.
The difference between the US in 1863 and Libya in 2011 is that Russia did not come to Libya's aid.
Like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, Muammar Ghadafi was resisting Rothschild world hegemony. An article in The New American, explains how Gadhafi became an outcast after being a "trusted ally" for so long:
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars -- demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) -- was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan.
When Abraham Lincoln eschewed the bankers' exorbitant rates and financed the war by creating "greenbacks," the bankers panicked.
Their house organ The London Times, feared that, "if the US furnished its own money without cost, it would be without debt and would have all the money necessary to carry on commerce. It would become prosperous beyond precedent...[It] must be destroyed."
Gadhafi was shot down in the dessert like a dog; Abe Lincoln was murdered at Ford theater.
Both the US Civil War and the Libyan revolution were instigated by the bankers to undercut opposition to their satanic world government agenda.
The final irony is that now, the US is the Rothschild's chosen goon menacing Iran, the last hold-out.
"Our watchword is force and make-believe," say the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
We are in bondage to Illuminati bankers who have used their credit monopoly to take over our government and society.
But the greater bondage is a mental and spiritual one: "Make-believe."
Our true condition is hidden from us by the mass media which diverts us with sex, lies and trivia.
09 December 2011
War On Iran Has Already Begun. Act Before It Threatens All Of Us
Escalation of the covert US-Israeli campaign against Tehran risks a global storm. Opposition has to get more serious
By Seumas Milne
December 08, 2011 " The Guardian" -- They don't give up. After a decade of blood-drenched failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, violent destabilisation of Pakistan and Yemen, the devastation of Lebanon and slaughter in Libya, you might hope the US and its friends had had their fill of invasion and intervention in the Muslim world.
It seems not. For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France. Covert support for armed opposition groups has spread into a campaign of assassinations of Iranian scientists, cyber warfare, attacks on military and missile installations, and the killing of an Iranian general, among others.
The attacks are not directly acknowledged, but accompanied by intelligence-steered nods and winks as the media are fed a stream of hostile tales – the most outlandish so far being an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US – and the western powers ratchet up pressure for yet more sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.
The British government's decision to take the lead in imposing sanctions on all Iranian banks and pressing for an EU boycott of Iranian oil triggered the trashing of its embassy in Tehran by demonstrators last week and subsequent expulsion of Iranian diplomats from London.
It's a taste of how the conflict can quickly escalate, as was the downing of a US spyplane over Iranian territory at the weekend. What one Israeli official has called a "new kind of war" has the potential to become a much more old-fashioned one that would threaten us all.
Last month the Guardian was told by British defence ministry officials that if the US brought forward plans to attack Iran (as they believed it might), it would "seek, and receive, UK military help", including sea and air support and permission to use the ethnically cleansed British island colony of Diego Garcia.
Whether the officials' motive was to soften up public opinion for war or warn against it, this was an extraordinary admission: the Britain military establishment fully expects to take part in an unprovoked US attack on Iran – just as it did against Iraq eight years ago.
What was dismissed by the former foreign secretary Jack Straw as "unthinkable", and for David Cameron became an option not to be taken "off the table", now turns out to be as good as a done deal if the US decides to launch a war that no one can seriously doubt would have disastrous consequences. But there has been no debate in parliament and no mainstream political challenge to what Straw's successor, David Miliband, this week called the danger of "sleepwalking into a war with Iran". That's all the more shocking because the case against Iran is so spectacularly flimsy.
There is in fact no reliable evidence that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons programme. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report once again failed to produce a smoking gun, despite the best efforts of its new director general, Yukiya Amano – described in a WikiLeaks cable as "solidly in the US court on every strategic decision".
As in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the strongest allegations are based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But even the US national intelligence director, James Clapper, has accepted that the evidence suggests Iran suspended any weapons programme in 2003 and has not reactivated it.
The whole campaign has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Iran, which says it doesn't want nuclear weapons, is surrounded by nuclear-weapon states: the US – which also has forces in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as military bases across the region – Israel, Russia, Pakistan and India.
Iran is of course an authoritarian state, though not as repressive as western allies such as Saudi Arabia. But it has invaded no one in 200 years. It was itself invaded by Iraq with western support in the 1980s, while the US and Israel have attacked 10 countries or territories between them in the past decade. Britain exploited, occupied and overthrew governments in Iran for over a century. So who threatens who exactly?
As Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said recently, if he were an Iranian leader he would "probably" want nuclear weapons. Claims that Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel because President Ahmadinejad said the state "must vanish from the page of time" bear no relation to reality. Even if Iran were to achieve a nuclear threshold, as some suspect is its real ambition, it would be in no position to attack a state with upwards of 300 nuclear warheads, backed to the hilt by the world's most powerful military force.
The real challenge posed by Iran to the US and Israel has been as an independent regional power, allied to Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas movements. As US troops withdraw from Iraq, Saudi Arabia fans sectarianism, and Syrian opposition leaders promise a break with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the threat of proxy wars is growing across the region.
A US or Israeli attack on Iran would turn that regional maelstrom into a global firestorm. Iran would certainly retaliate directly and through allies against Israel, the US and US Gulf client states, and block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Quite apart from death and destruction, the global economic impact would be incalculable.
All reason and common sense militate against such an act of aggression. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel's Mossad, said last week it would be a "catastrophe". Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, warned that it could "consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret".
There seems little doubt that the US administration is deeply wary of a direct attack on Iran. But in Israel, Barak has spoken of having less than a year to act; Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has talked about making the "right decision at the right moment"; and the prospects of drawing the US in behind an Israeli attack have been widely debated in the media.
Maybe it won't happen. Maybe the war talk is more about destabilisation than a full-scale attack. But there are undoubtedly those in the US, Israel and Britain who think otherwise. And the threat of miscalculation and the logic of escalation could tip the balance decisively. Unless opposition to an attack on Iran gets serious, this could become the most devastating Middle East war of all.
By Seumas Milne
December 08, 2011 " The Guardian" -- They don't give up. After a decade of blood-drenched failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, violent destabilisation of Pakistan and Yemen, the devastation of Lebanon and slaughter in Libya, you might hope the US and its friends had had their fill of invasion and intervention in the Muslim world.
It seems not. For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France. Covert support for armed opposition groups has spread into a campaign of assassinations of Iranian scientists, cyber warfare, attacks on military and missile installations, and the killing of an Iranian general, among others.
The attacks are not directly acknowledged, but accompanied by intelligence-steered nods and winks as the media are fed a stream of hostile tales – the most outlandish so far being an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US – and the western powers ratchet up pressure for yet more sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.
The British government's decision to take the lead in imposing sanctions on all Iranian banks and pressing for an EU boycott of Iranian oil triggered the trashing of its embassy in Tehran by demonstrators last week and subsequent expulsion of Iranian diplomats from London.
It's a taste of how the conflict can quickly escalate, as was the downing of a US spyplane over Iranian territory at the weekend. What one Israeli official has called a "new kind of war" has the potential to become a much more old-fashioned one that would threaten us all.
Last month the Guardian was told by British defence ministry officials that if the US brought forward plans to attack Iran (as they believed it might), it would "seek, and receive, UK military help", including sea and air support and permission to use the ethnically cleansed British island colony of Diego Garcia.
Whether the officials' motive was to soften up public opinion for war or warn against it, this was an extraordinary admission: the Britain military establishment fully expects to take part in an unprovoked US attack on Iran – just as it did against Iraq eight years ago.
What was dismissed by the former foreign secretary Jack Straw as "unthinkable", and for David Cameron became an option not to be taken "off the table", now turns out to be as good as a done deal if the US decides to launch a war that no one can seriously doubt would have disastrous consequences. But there has been no debate in parliament and no mainstream political challenge to what Straw's successor, David Miliband, this week called the danger of "sleepwalking into a war with Iran". That's all the more shocking because the case against Iran is so spectacularly flimsy.
There is in fact no reliable evidence that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons programme. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report once again failed to produce a smoking gun, despite the best efforts of its new director general, Yukiya Amano – described in a WikiLeaks cable as "solidly in the US court on every strategic decision".
As in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the strongest allegations are based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But even the US national intelligence director, James Clapper, has accepted that the evidence suggests Iran suspended any weapons programme in 2003 and has not reactivated it.
The whole campaign has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Iran, which says it doesn't want nuclear weapons, is surrounded by nuclear-weapon states: the US – which also has forces in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as military bases across the region – Israel, Russia, Pakistan and India.
Iran is of course an authoritarian state, though not as repressive as western allies such as Saudi Arabia. But it has invaded no one in 200 years. It was itself invaded by Iraq with western support in the 1980s, while the US and Israel have attacked 10 countries or territories between them in the past decade. Britain exploited, occupied and overthrew governments in Iran for over a century. So who threatens who exactly?
As Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said recently, if he were an Iranian leader he would "probably" want nuclear weapons. Claims that Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel because President Ahmadinejad said the state "must vanish from the page of time" bear no relation to reality. Even if Iran were to achieve a nuclear threshold, as some suspect is its real ambition, it would be in no position to attack a state with upwards of 300 nuclear warheads, backed to the hilt by the world's most powerful military force.
The real challenge posed by Iran to the US and Israel has been as an independent regional power, allied to Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas movements. As US troops withdraw from Iraq, Saudi Arabia fans sectarianism, and Syrian opposition leaders promise a break with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the threat of proxy wars is growing across the region.
A US or Israeli attack on Iran would turn that regional maelstrom into a global firestorm. Iran would certainly retaliate directly and through allies against Israel, the US and US Gulf client states, and block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Quite apart from death and destruction, the global economic impact would be incalculable.
All reason and common sense militate against such an act of aggression. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel's Mossad, said last week it would be a "catastrophe". Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, warned that it could "consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret".
There seems little doubt that the US administration is deeply wary of a direct attack on Iran. But in Israel, Barak has spoken of having less than a year to act; Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has talked about making the "right decision at the right moment"; and the prospects of drawing the US in behind an Israeli attack have been widely debated in the media.
Maybe it won't happen. Maybe the war talk is more about destabilisation than a full-scale attack. But there are undoubtedly those in the US, Israel and Britain who think otherwise. And the threat of miscalculation and the logic of escalation could tip the balance decisively. Unless opposition to an attack on Iran gets serious, this could become the most devastating Middle East war of all.
28 September 2011
The Lion of the Desert (historical film)
The first part of the historical film «The Lion of the Desert» (with Spanish subtitles) starring Anthony Quinn.Based on the life of Libyan tribal leader Omar Mukhtar, the film highlights the struggle of the Libyan people, during the period 1912 to1931, against Italian and European colonialism.
The remaining parts of the film can be found at the end of the article.
Libya - The Real War Starts Now
by Pepe Escobar
9 September 2011
from VoltaireNet Website
Spanish version
Political, economic and social instability in Libya did not end with the fall of Tripoli and the alleged victory of NATO rebels. Gaddafi’s decision to go underground has caught everyone by surprise.
The unfolding scenario is reminiscent of Omar Mukhtar’s legacy, the Libyan leader who struggled against Italian colonialism for nearly twenty years, from 1912 to 1931.
Everything can still change in a country where most of the population hasn’t said its final word yet and the neo-colonial powers in place are very fragile.
Enough about The Big G’s downfall. Now comes the real nitty-gritty; Afghanistan 2.0, Iraq 2.0, or a mix of both.
The "NATO rebels" have always made sure they don’t want foreign occupation. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - which made the victory possible - can’t control Libya without boots on the ground. So multiple scenarios are now being gamed in NATO’s headquarters in Mons, Belgium - under a United Nations velvet cushion.
According to already leaked plans, sooner or later there may be troops from Persian Gulf monarchies and friendly allies such as Jordan and especially NATO member Turkey, also very keen to bag large commercial contracts. Hardly any African nations will be part of it - Libya now having being "relocated" to Arabia.
The Transitional National Council (TNC) will go for it - or forced to go for it - if, or when, Libya spirals into chaos. Still it will be an extremely hard sell - as the wildly disparate factions of "NATO rebels" are frantically consolidating their fiefdoms, and getting ready to turn on each other.
There’s no evidence so far the TNC - apart from genuflecting in the altar of NATO member nations - has any clue about managing a complex political landscape inside Libya.
READ MORE...
9 September 2011
from VoltaireNet Website
Spanish version
Political, economic and social instability in Libya did not end with the fall of Tripoli and the alleged victory of NATO rebels. Gaddafi’s decision to go underground has caught everyone by surprise.
The unfolding scenario is reminiscent of Omar Mukhtar’s legacy, the Libyan leader who struggled against Italian colonialism for nearly twenty years, from 1912 to 1931.
Everything can still change in a country where most of the population hasn’t said its final word yet and the neo-colonial powers in place are very fragile.
Enough about The Big G’s downfall. Now comes the real nitty-gritty; Afghanistan 2.0, Iraq 2.0, or a mix of both.
The "NATO rebels" have always made sure they don’t want foreign occupation. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - which made the victory possible - can’t control Libya without boots on the ground. So multiple scenarios are now being gamed in NATO’s headquarters in Mons, Belgium - under a United Nations velvet cushion.
According to already leaked plans, sooner or later there may be troops from Persian Gulf monarchies and friendly allies such as Jordan and especially NATO member Turkey, also very keen to bag large commercial contracts. Hardly any African nations will be part of it - Libya now having being "relocated" to Arabia.
The Transitional National Council (TNC) will go for it - or forced to go for it - if, or when, Libya spirals into chaos. Still it will be an extremely hard sell - as the wildly disparate factions of "NATO rebels" are frantically consolidating their fiefdoms, and getting ready to turn on each other.
There’s no evidence so far the TNC - apart from genuflecting in the altar of NATO member nations - has any clue about managing a complex political landscape inside Libya.
READ MORE...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
