The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Talk E

FIRSTLY HERE ARE SOME ELOQUENT FACTS ABOUT SOCIALIST LIBYA


* They owe no money to IMF/World Bank
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* Every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* Newly wed bride and groom receive $ 64 thousand to purchase an apartment.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - $ 0.14.

Gadaffi had an idea for a new currency called the golden Dinar. Made of actual gold, intended to truly share genuine wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35_Ai6EsMU

CiaranMT

So, what's the reason?

Jonny7

Possibly kicked off by 40 years of internal security forces doing what they please with anyone at any time

And possibly exacerbated when said government started firing anti-aircraft guns at them when they protested

The leader of a country talking about going house to house to "cleanse" the cockroaches - and using mercenaries to do it? - a bit extreme

Japan, US, Italy, etc already have oil contracts in the country

And please do not post "Russia Today" videos - they put Fox News to shame

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

Gadaffi had an idea for a new currency called the golden Dinar. Made of actual gold, intended to truly share genuine wealth.

CiaranMT wrote: »

So, what's the reason?

Have a guess.. :rolleyes:

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Gadaffi had an idea for a new currency called the golden Dinar. Made of actual gold, intended to truly share genuine wealth.

What? No he didn't. Gold Dinar's exist already, they are te same as Krugerands and other bullion coins.
Do you seriously think that bullion shares genuine wealth? Lol.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

What? No he didn't. Gold Dinar's exist already, they are te same as Krugerands and other bullion coins.
Do you seriously think that bullion shares genuine wealth? Lol.

He wanted to introduce the golden dinar as a new African currency and to trade oil for gold only, yes. At least it's backed by something physical unlike the dollar which isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The African dinar would have devalued the Dollar even more, if possible.

Talk E

I think I recall that you cant watch youtube vids so this is for your benefit.

Plans for attacking Muammar Gaddafi apparently go back some 20 years, and even US President Ronald Reagan tried to kill him, deeming him a threat to America power. The latest attacks are in keeping with the larger wave of aggression initiated by the Anglo-American power elite that is on to the next stage of its implementation of the "new world order."

This power elite, based mostly in the one-square mile City of London, is said to seek world domination if it can get it – and sooner rather than later in the face of a growing Internet Reformation.

But there may be another reason for the Libyan attacks that explain their timing. According to a Russia Today news story, for which I was interviewed (See – Real Cause for Gaddafi's Expulsion: Wanted Gold Currency?), Gaddafi was planning to introduce a gold dinar – "a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth."

The idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other currencies. RT calls it "an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world."

It was not a democratic perspective in the sense that a country's wealth would revolve around gold and its population. But that's how modern money works. The current dollar reserve system benefits the US. In Gaddafi's case, as he held some 144 tons of gold against a fairly small population, a gold dinar would prove a most powerful currency.

When I was interviewed by RT, I said the following: "If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks. ... So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."

There are many who believe Iraq's Saddam Hussein's overthrow by the US was sealed when he announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Sanctions and then a US invasion followed. Coincidence? Hussein's idea would have strengthened the euro, but Gaddafi's idea would have strengthened all of Africa in the opinion of hard-money economists. Gold is the ultimate honest money and the peg against which all other fiat currencies are ultimately devalued.

Pricing oil in something other than the dollar would attack the basis of US power in the world. The dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with the Saudis back in 1971 in which the Saudis as the world's largest oil producer agreed to accept only dollars for oil. RT concludes: "A change in this policy its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen."

The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry is in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.

http://www.thedailybell.com/2228/Gaddafi-Planned-Gold-Dinar-Now-Under-Attack.html

studiorat

In all fairness RT wheels that guy out for an expert interview every few months. It's like the Simsons or something.

Talk E wrote: »

He wanted to introduce the golden dinar as a new African currency and to trade oil for gold only, yes. At least it's backed by something physical unlike the dollar which isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The African dinar would have devalued the Dollar even more, if possible.

So what happened to the "Afro" as suggested by the African Central Bank due in 2021 or sometime?

Considering the strength of Russian trade with Libya don't you think your sources are a bit biased?

Pricing oil in something other than the dollar would attack the basis of US power in the world. The dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with the Saudis back in 1971 in which the Saudis as the world's largest oil producer agreed to accept only dollars for oil.

WTF? Is this meant to mean the end of the Bretton Woods agreement? That's so vague and inaccurate it's funny. A deal with the Saudi's, Lol. The Saudi's had nothing to do with the dollar being a reserve currency.
The deal he's talking about was the agreement to end Bretton Woods, why? Because gold was wasn't sufficient to meet the trade deficits dating back 30 years to WW2 and because a huge portion of the gold reserves that currencies were supposed to be pegged to was in the Soviet Union. remember the cold war?

Jonny7

Talk E wrote: »

I think I recall that you cant watch youtube vids so this is for your benefit.


http://www.thedailybell.com/2228/Gaddafi-Planned-Gold-Dinar-Now-Under-Attack.html

I think you need to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT

Russia has huge multi-billion dollar contracts with Libya.

studiorat

Quoting a state sponsored mouth-piece in a conspiracy forum, for shame:pac:

Jonny7

Its honestly right over their heads

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

In all fairness RT wheels that guy out for an expert interview every few months. It's like the Simsons or something.




So what happened to the "Afro" as suggested by the African Central Bank due in 2021 or sometime?

Considering the strength of Russian trade with Libya don't you think your sources are a bit biased?




WTF? Is this meant to mean the end of the Bretton Woods agreement? That's so vague and inaccurate it's funny. A deal with the Saudi's, Lol. The Saudi's had nothing to do with the dollar being a reserve currency.
The deal he's talking about was the agreement to end Bretton Woods, why? Because gold was wasn't sufficient to meet the trade deficits dating back 30 years to WW2 and because a huge portion of the gold reserves that currencies were supposed to be pegged to was in the Soviet Union. remember the cold war?

Whats all that got to do with the price of butter ?

The fact is he was in talks aimed at introducing the gold Dinar as the single African currency. This would clearly be a threat to the US and Europe.
If you think he wasn't, state it and stop blabbering on. :pac:

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think you need to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT

Russia has huge multi-billion dollar contracts with Libya.

Thanks for pointing that out.

All the more reason to remove him. Wouldnt it be great to have someone more sympathetic to western interests in Gadaffi's place to distribute these "huge multi-billion dollar contracts" more favorably. :pac:

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Whats all that got to do with the price of butter ?

It illustrates why your source for the story and your analysis of it is wildly inaccurate.

Talk E wrote: »

The fact is he was in talks aimed at introducing the gold Dinar as the single African currency. This would clearly be a threat to the US and Europe.
If you think he wasn't, state it and stop blabbering on. :pac:

I did, he tried it with the North Africa arab nations first, next it was a unified Africa movement. Gadaffi has been in and out of favor with everyone for the past 40 years.

He wasn't in talks about any gold dinar. There has been a talk of an 'Afro' currency for years, various countries are in and out of it all the time.

You say it's a fact but I don't think you would know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Show us where Gadaffi was 'in talks' about this magical golden diram.

Since you actually think Libya is a Socialist country (except in name), it seems to me that you are simply towing the hard core Russian line on the story, Sheepleski if you will.

Jonny7

Talk E wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out.

All the more reason to remove him. Wouldnt it be great to have someone more sympathetic to western interests in Gadaffi's place to distribute these "huge multi-billion dollar contracts" more favorably. :pac:

The guy was already giving the West almost as many contracts as we wanted, we aren't going to risk another Iraq just to get a few more, but why let common sense get in the way of a good theory.

If the world had a cancerous tumor, one of them would definitely be this guy.

(fairly long text coming up)
After the 1969 coup, Muammar Gaddafi closed American and British bases and partly nationalized foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya.

On 11 June 1972, Gaddafi announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for Palestinian armed groups "can register his name at any Libyan embassy will be given adequate training for combat". He also promised financial support for attacks.

On 7 October 1972, Gaddafi praised the Lod Airport massacre, carried out by the Japanese Red Army, and demanded Palestinian terrorist groups to carry out similar attacks.

Gaddafi created the Islamic Legion, a mercenary group associated with Arab supremacism.
He also played a key role in promoting oil embargoes as a political weapon, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West to end support for Israel.

In 1973 the Irish Naval Service intercepted the vessel Claudia in Irish territorial waters, which carried Soviet arms from Libya to the Provisional IRA.

In 1976 after a series of terror attacks by the Provisional IRA, Gaddafi announced that "the bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are the bombs of Libyan people. We have sent them to the Irish revolutionaries so that the British will pay the price for their past deeds".

Gaddafi was a close supporter of Ugandan President Idi Amin. Gaddafi was not alone – the Soviet Union armed Amin and East German Stasi agents came to build Amin's repression machinery.Gaddafi shipped troops to fight against Tanzania on behalf of Idi Amin. About 600 Libyan soldiers lost their lives attempting to defend the collapsing presidency of Amin, during which Amin's government killed hundreds of thousands of Ugandans.

Gaddafi aided Jean-Bedel Bokassa, the Emperor of the Central African Empire.

Together with Moscow and Fidel Castro, Gaddafi supported Soviet protege Haile Mariam Mengistu, who was later convicted for a genocide that killed thousands at least.

In October 1981 Egypt's President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Gaddafi applauded the murder and remarked that it was a punishment.
Neighboring Arab countries and the United States became concerned of Gaddafi's policies, and they made a deal to increase in military credits and training.

In April 1984, Libyan refugees in London protested against execution of two dissidents. Libyan diplomats shot at 11 people and killed a British policewoman. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.

Gaddafi asserted in June 1984 that he wanted his agents to assassinate dissident refugees even when they were on pilgrimage in the holy city of Mecca. In August 1984, one Libyan plot in Mecca was thwarted by Saudi Arabian police.

After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as European countries support anti-Gaddafi Libyans.The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres "heroic acts".

In 1986 Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests.

Gaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as his territorial water and his navy was involved in a conflict from January to March 1986.

On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending the evening there. Gaddafi's plan was intercepted by Western intelligence. More detailed information was retrieved years later when Stasi archives were investigated by the reunited Germany. Libyan agents who had carried out the operation from the Libyan embassy in East Germany were prosecuted by reunited Germany in the 1990s.

Germany and the United States learned that the bombing in West Berlin had been ordered from Tripoli. On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers.

Gaddafi announced that he had won a spectacular military victory over the United States and the country was officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah". However, his speech appeared devoid passion and even the "victory" celebrations appeared unusual. Criticism of Gaddafi by ordinary Libyan citizens became more bold, such as defacing of Gaddafi posters. The raids against Gaddafi had brought the regime to its the weakest point in 17 years.
Many Western European countries took action against Libyan terror and other activities following years.

Gaddafi fueled a number of Islamist and communist terrorist groups in the Philippines. The country still struggles with their murders and kidnappings.

Gaddafi fueled paramilitaries in the Oceania. He attempted to radicalized New Zealand's Maoris. In Australia he financed trade unions and some politicians. In May 1987, Australia deported diplomats and broke off relations with Libya because of the activities in the Oceania.

In late 1987 French authorities stopped a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, which was delivering a 150 ton Libyan arms shipment to European terrorist groups.

In 1991, two Libyan intelligence agents were indicted by prosecutors in the United States and United Kingdom for their involvement in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
Six other Libyans were put on trial in absentia for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Chad and Niger. The UN Security Council demanded that Libya surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, pay compensation to the victims' families, and cease all support for terrorism. Libya's refusal to comply led to the approval of Security Council Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing international sanctions on the state designed to bring about Libyan compliance. Continued Libyan defiance led to further sanctions by the UN against Libya in November 1993.

Gaddafi trained and supported Charles Taylor, who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.

Libya had close ties with Slobodan Milošević's regime. Gaddafi aligned himself with the Orthodox Serbs against Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's Albanians. Gaddafi supported Milošević even when Milošević was charged with large-scale ethnic cleansing against Albanians in Kosovo.

In 1999, less than a decade after the sanctions were put in place, Libya began to make dramatic policy changes in regard to the Western world, including turning over the Lockerbie suspects for trial. This diplomatic breakthrough followed years of negotiation, including a visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Libya in December 1998, and personal appeals by Nelson Mandela. Eventually UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook persuaded the Americans to accept a trial of the suspects in the Netherlands under Scottish law, with the UN Security Council agreeing to suspend sanctions as soon as the suspects arrived in the Netherlands for trial.

Following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, Gaddafi decided to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programmes and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. The decision was welcomed by many western nations and was seen as an important step toward Libya rejoining the international community.

Since 2003 the country has made efforts to normalize its ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, 'The Libya Model', an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation, rather than force, when there is goodwill on both sides. By 2004 George W. Bush had lifted the economic sanctions and official relations resumed with the United States. Libya opened a liaison office in Washington, and the United States opened an office in Tripoli. In January 2004, Congressman Tom Lantos led the first official Congressional delegation visit to Libya.

Libya has supported Sudan's President Omar al-Beshir despite charges of a genocide in Darfur.

The release, in 2007, of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, who had been held since 1999, charged with conspiring to deliberately infect over 400 children with HIV, was seen as marking a new stage in Libyan-Western relations.
The United States removed Gaddafi's regime, after 27 years, from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.

On October 16, 2007, Libya was elected to serve on the United Nations Security Council for two years starting in January 2008. In February 2009, Gaddafi was selected to be chairman of the African Union for one year.
In 2009 the United Kingdom and Libya signed a prisoner-exchange agreement and then Libya requested the transfer of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who finally returned home in August 2009.

Talk E

(fairly short reply coming up)

You stole someones post from another forum ? Kinda shameless isn't it ?



http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-446137.html


The only part you wrote yourself, you made a balls of.

If the world had a cancerous tumor, one of them would definitely be this guy.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

(fairly short reply coming up)

You stole someones post from another forum ? Kinda shameless isn't it ?


http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-446137.html

It's a bit like the OP then isn't it. The only difference is the one you stole was everywhere and you put the word "firstly" into it to make it look like you wrote it didn't you. Eloquent facts :rolleyes: ha ha.

http://inquiringminds.cc/eloquent-facts-of-the-socialist-libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/stargazer13/first-predator-strike-car_n_852854_85535944.html

http://www.facebook.com/notes/real-news-blog-when-truth-matters/eloquent-facts-of-the-socialist-libya/172533896138586




Gadaffi has never been involved in the Gold Dinar, it started in Malayasia and Indonesia who have minted their own.

The use of gold as a currency is however strongly supported by "Austrian Economists". The original author of the quoted in the articles and video is, oddly enough a self confessed apostle of that school. Conspiracy anyone?

Talk E

I posted that for your benefit and I linked, anyway it's not the same using a news source as stealing someones post. :pac:

I'ma do a little more research and get back to you on this which admittedly I should have done first.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

I posted that for your benefit and I linked, anyway it's not the same using a news source as stealing someones post. :pac:

No you didn't link anything. You stuck up a video.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

FIRSTLY HERE ARE SOME ELOQUENT FACTS ABOUT SOCIALIST LIBYA


* They owe no money to IMF/World Bank
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* Every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* Newly wed bride and groom receive $ 64 thousand to purchase an apartment.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - $ 0.14.

Gadaffi had an idea for a new currency called the golden Dinar. Made of actual gold, intended to truly share genuine wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35_Ai6EsMU

SEE NO LINKS TO THE SOURCE OF YOUR ELOQUENT FACTS ha ha !

Talk E

Like I said... "it's not the same using a news source as stealing someones post. "

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Like I said... "it's not the same using a news source as stealing someones post. "

GO on outs that. You dressed up as your own and got snared. :cool:

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

GO on outs that. You dressed up as your own and got snared. :cool:

Lol. No way, just forgot to link. Even if I did, least it wasnt a post from another forum. That's just unforgivable. :pac:

Jonny7

Talk E wrote: »

(fairly short reply coming up)

You stole someones post from another forum ? Kinda shameless isn't it ?



http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-446137.html


The only part you wrote yourself, you made a balls of.

Incorrect, I got it directly from Wikipedia, and edited out the citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya (Libya under Gaddafi)

Instead of trying to engage the topic you obviously just searched for those lines just to somehow
undermine the argument

Did you even bother to read any of it before googling the first line?

Jonny7

I've pretty much found the source of this, coupled with the other video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ

Since when do conspiracy theorists suddenly start lapping up state propaganda?

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've pretty much found the source of this, coupled with the other video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ

Since when do conspiracy theorists suddenly start lapping up state propaganda?

I know. In one instance Gadaffi had 140 people killed by snipers for protesting. And some twits would rather believe it's a Zionist plot or some bollix.

Russia wiped out over 4 billion dollars (or something or others) in a deal to sell Libya arms, build a railway and stage a naval base there. So Putin and his comrades need Gadaffi there, otherwise that's 4 billion down the swanny. That's why they sat on their arse during the vote. Hence we're seeing RT doing their best to spread the word.

Libya is socialist only in name, Gadaffi has wasted billions of vanity projects so although the GDP looks healthy there's no distribution of wealth. Health care isn't all it's made out to be either to be with most who can afford it traveling abroad.

Thing is this has been coming for a long time. There's been dissent in Benghazi long before the Arab spring.

profitius

studiorat wrote: »

I know. In one instance Gadaffi had 140 people killed by snipers for protesting. And some twits would rather believe it's a Zionist plot or some bollix.

You think the Western governments are spending hundreds of millions/billions just because of that? If that was the case they'd be going into dozens of other countries. People who believe that tend to be a bit naive.

studiorat

profitius wrote: »

You think the Western governments are spending hundreds of millions/billions just because of that? If that was the case they'd be going into dozens of other countries. People who believe that tend to be a bit naive.

No, I think it's one reason. Another is the uprising has already taken control of several costal cities and has forced many senior Libyan diplomats to defect overseas. The rebels include officers from the original coup which saw Gadaffi come to power as well as ministers from his own government.



Libya has the option to form a government through free elections, the anti-Gadaffi members are in a position to do that. As I've said already there has been unease with the situation for at least the last two years. This is not the case in Syria for example.


When you say Western Governments who exactly are you talking about?
The original no-fly zone was to protect civilians and was backed by the Arab League as well as the UN.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

No, I think it's one reason. Another is the uprising has already taken control of several costal cities and has forced many senior Libyan diplomats to defect overseas. The rebels include officers from the original coup which saw Gadaffi come to power as well as ministers from his own government.



Libya has the option to form a government through free elections, the anti-Gadaffi members are in a position to do that. As I've said already there has been unease with the situation for at least the last two years. This is not the case in Syria for example.


When you say Western Governments who exactly are you talking about?
The original no-fly zone was to protect civilians and was backed by the Arab League as well as the UN.

Perhaps the League were unaware of the U.N's definition of no fly zone.

CAIRO — The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces — whose images have filled Arab television screens for two days.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Perhaps the League were unaware of the U.N's definition of no fly zone.

Who did you rob that one off. Come back to me when you have an idea of your own.

Jonny7

Talk E wrote: »

Perhaps the League were unaware of the U.N's definition of no fly zone.

About the Moussa quote I'll give you that much, he complained before, then backed out, now hes complaining again. In my opinion the man is an idiot and the league is a sham.

I feel you are dipping and diving and sniping here, do you know anything about this conflict? personally, I've been following it since day one (same with Egypt and Tunisia)

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Incorrect, I got it directly from Wikipedia, and edited out the citations

AKA Plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya (Libya under Gaddafi)

Jonny7 wrote: »

Instead of trying to engage the topic you obviously just searched for those lines just to somehow
undermine the argument

Somehow? :pac:

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've pretty much found the source of this, coupled with the other video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ

Since when do conspiracy theorists suddenly start lapping up state propaganda?

What's a conspiracy theorist?

Talk E

Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?

studiorat

The following were all mentioned in the resolution no. 1973.

- League of Arab States
- African Union
- Organization of the Islamic Conference

There's no chance that they didn't know what the resolution entailed.

Out of the 15 members of the UN security council not one voted against the resolution, both Russia and China have the power of veto but they abstained. In fact Russia has vetoed more resolutions than the others put together, but didn't this time. I suspect it's because Russia and everyone else knew perfectly well that the no fly zone would escalate to it's present state. Their president said as much, and I also suspect they were hoping not to have to write off their "little investment" to supply arms and stage their naval base in Libya.

Jonny7

Talk E wrote: »

Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?

They are backtracking - they did it before, said the airstrikes were too strong, then backtracked on that and then after said they fully supported the coalition

and now Moussa is saying its too strong again, there are still so few civilian casualties, nothing has changed - as much as they can't stand Gaddafi they can't stand the "West' - They are being torn both ways.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

AKA Plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya (Libya under Gaddafi)


Somehow? :pac:

You mean the first post or my post

Or am I the bad guy and he isn't?

If you spell something wrong in a thread or don't post your urls, they'll come get you.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's a conspiracy theorist?

I can base a definition on the ones I live with -

High on intelligence, low on critical thinking

Or I can just say low on common sense

Either way they don't believe a single politician in US/UK/Israel dies naturally of a heart attack, it always has a shadowy cause, somehow, they'll find it - oddly all other countries are exempt from that theory

So plagarism and the definition of a conspiracy theorist, any thoughts on Libya?

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?

Brown fella missed one here.

Anyway...

Some eloquent facts that make a nonsense of the Original Post.

Libya only produces about 2% of the worlds oil, Saudi can easily make up the shortfall.

About 85% of Libya's oil is bought by Europe.

75% of Libya's petrol is imported because it doesn't have the refineries.

They couldn't decide to trade in gold because the just don't have the clout, it could all too easily backfire on them.

http://www.nationaljournal.com

jackiebaron

Welcome to the Violent World of Mr. Hopey Changey By John Pilger

May 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed … murdered … I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt”. Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged”.

The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.

Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.

In the “rebel” east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities”. In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libya’s oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.

The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozy’s imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools”. The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya.

Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic’s trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron’s government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his country’s democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.

The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain’s 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain’s goal is to control Africa’s oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.

And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones – a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush.

The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel’s blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents’ stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changey’s list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “America’s interests [that] are essential to them”. He insults us all.

studiorat

Any fool can cut and paste hyperbole from a website.

I wonder does Jackiebrown actually understand the article?
Care to give us your view of what you think is going or have you just been pilgered? :rolleyes:

Can anyone on this forum think for themselves anymore?

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Welcome to the Violent World of Mr. Hopey Changey By John Pilger

May 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed … murdered … I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt”. Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged”.

The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.

Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.

In the “rebel” east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities”. In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libya’s oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.

The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozy’s imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools”. The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya.

Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic’s trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron’s government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his country’s democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.

The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain’s 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain’s goal is to control Africa’s oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.

And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones – a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush.

The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel’s blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents’ stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changey’s list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “America’s interests [that] are essential to them”. He insults us all.

Let me sum up what the above author believes

-There is an American-backed counter-revolution in Cairo
-The West is trying to stop democracy
- The UN mandate and NATO attack on Libya is bogus
- There was no genocide in Kosovo
- Claims that Gaddafi is being painted as a new Hitler and is being portrayed as commiting genocide against his own people
- There is some sort of plot concerning the Libyan "rebels" regarding oil
- The blockage of Gaddafi assets are "robbery"
- France wants to return to its colonies
- Writes a paragraph on bad arabs and good arabs
- Britain wants control of African oil and a return to colonialism
- Paragraph comparing Obama to Bush, all the same evils
- The good Palestinians and bad Israeli paragraph

Some of this stuff I agree with, other parts of it are borderline crazy. The piece taken as a whole is a biased, angry, selective rant.

If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

I know. In one instance Gadaffi had 140 people killed by snipers for protesting. And some twits would rather believe it's a Zionist plot or some bollix.

Russia wiped out over 4 billion dollars (or something or others) in a deal to sell Libya arms, build a railway and stage a naval base there. So Putin and his comrades need Gadaffi there, otherwise that's 4 billion down the swanny. That's why they sat on their arse during the vote. Hence we're seeing RT doing their best to spread the word.

Libya is socialist only in name, Gadaffi has wasted billions of vanity projects so although the GDP looks healthy there's no distribution of wealth. Health care isn't all it's made out to be either to be with most who can afford it traveling abroad.

Thing is this has been coming for a long time. There's been dissent in Benghazi long before the Arab spring.

How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

No, I think it's one reason. Another is the uprising has already taken control of several costal cities and has forced many senior Libyan diplomats to defect overseas. The rebels include officers from the original coup which saw Gadaffi come to power as well as ministers from his own government.



Libya has the option to form a government through free elections, the anti-Gadaffi members are in a position to do that. As I've said already there has been unease with the situation for at least the last two years. This is not the case in Syria for example.


When you say Western Governments who exactly are you talking about?
The original no-fly zone was to protect civilians and was backed by the Arab League as well as the UN.

Why no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.

There was lots of dissent in Tripoli

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8338293/Libya-protests-focus-on-Tripoli-as-demonstrators-set-public-buildings-on-fire.html

Why no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap

Because if there was, you'd say why is there no action in Syria? and if there was you'd say why no action in Yemen? and if there was, you'd say why all this action they are trying to take over the Middle East argle bargle!!

Cmon, use your noggin, if the situation had spiralled out of control in Egypt and the military had followed Mubarak's orders, then you'd be saying why are they in Egypt and not in Libya

Its very selective objectivity if you ask me

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap.

Saudi's not a dictatorship. But to try and answer your inane question; possibly because the UK are training Saudi Troops, maybe because the UK and Bahrain are both constitutional monarchies, definitely because both Bahrain and Saudi have vastly bigger oil infrastructures than Libya. Also don't forget that the protests in Bahrain, despite being mercilessly crushed and not looking for a complete change of regime either.

jackiebaron wrote: »

How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.

Are you for real? That's one of the most stupid generalizations I've seen in a long time and really shows how little you know about what you are talking about.

What on earth gave you the impression there was no 'dissent' in Tripoli? WTF were they doing in Tripoli in Feburay? About 250 people shot dead, the Parliment set on fire. FFS :rolleyes:

TRIPOLI Feb 21 (Reuters) - A government building in the Libyan capital is on fire, a Reuters reporter said on Monday.

"I can see the People's Hall is on fire, there are firefighters there trying to put it out," the reporter said....

So would you like to tell us what you think makes an "authentic":rolleyes: uprising? Don't tell me one that Jim Corr made up is it?

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Any fool can cut and paste hyperbole from a website.

I wonder does Jackiebrown actually understand the article?
Care to give us your view of what you think is going or have you just been pilgered? :rolleyes:

Can anyone on this forum think for themselves anymore?

Yea Studiorat and any fool can try to have some manners and show respect when disagreeing with a post. But you don't sometimes apparently.:)

By the way i find your use of the phrase "pilgered" odious. A lazy criticism of a great journalist. He rightly threatened court proceedings regarding it's use in print.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Let me sum up what the above author believes

-There is an American-backed counter-revolution in Cairo
-The West is trying to stop democracy
- The UN mandate and NATO attack on Libya is bogus
- There was no genocide in Kosovo
- Claims that Gaddafi is being painted as a new Hitler and is being portrayed as commiting genocide against his own people
- There is some sort of plot concerning the Libyan "rebels" regarding oil
- The blockage of Gaddafi assets are "robbery"
- France wants to return to its colonies
- Writes a paragraph on bad arabs and good arabs
- Britain wants control of African oil and a return to colonialism
- Paragraph comparing Obama to Bush, all the same evils
- The good Palestinians and bad Israeli paragraph

Some of this stuff I agree with, other parts of it are borderline crazy. The piece taken as a whole is a biased, angry, selective rant.

If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.

I'm curious to know which parts are "borderline crazy". This "guy" Pilger has written for many papers and been to countless warzones and his view of the world is arguably exactly the same as when he started his career. To suggest that he would change his views after a visit to Tripoli is a bit weak now in fairness...

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

I'm curious to know which parts are "borderline crazy". This "guy" Pilger has written for many papers and been to countless warzones and his view of the world is arguably exactly the same as when he started his career. To suggest that he would change his views after a visit to Tripoli is a bit weak now in fairness...

He's well known, the man is on a mission, he's as biased a Glen Beck, I mean when he has started doing interviews with Russia Today then don't expect a single objective rational piece from the man. Show me one single event, or report, or situation that has ever happened that John Pilger hasn't used to malign the West - you'll be very hardpressed - he's very "focused" if you know what I mean, and has lost any/all objectivity, he's on par with a wingnut like O'Reilly

and trust me, if you're a reporter in Tripoli, life can be dangerous, I doubt these guys came back and wrote a big rant about imperialist USA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12695077

I'd prefer to get my news from non-ranting obsessed biased reporters thank you, watch a bit of BBC, Al Jazeera, US news, Euronews, Al Arabiya, etc I find the laws of averages works best, wake up sheeple

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

Yea Studiorat and any fool can try to have some manners and show respect when disagreeing with a post. But you don't sometimes apparently.:)

By the way i find your use of the phrase "pilgered" odious. A lazy criticism of a great journalist. He rightly threatened court proceedings regarding it's use in print.

I find it a very useful description of what he does. Well clearly no one has the right to contradict a journalist as well renowned as Pilger. :pac:

In the article posted, Pilger mentions Mustafa Abdul Jalil and says he was the justice minister until Feb, trying to tar him with the same brush, what he conveniently leaves out is that Jalil had taken a stand against the regime in 2009 and 2010 * regarding prisoners held illegally. He mentions missile attacks but neglects to tell us that both sides are launching missiles, that Gaddafi launched fighter and helicopter attacks on his people in his own capital city. Even by the standards on this forum for being selective with the truth Pilgers article is suprising.

Why do you un-questioningly hang on every word he says? I wonder what he makes of pro government forces laying landmines, he's probably quite happy to turn a blind eye to that, since it's not fascist lizard zionists laying them. His selective morality and his selective reporting is sickening IMO.

ed2hands

I don't want to take away your right to criticise studiorat; ta for the info. Gonna digest what you both said and check it out but i don't really buy it from first impressions. He's wrong about some things, but as with most of the articles, books, docs and films he calls it pretty well IMO. You go to the responses section of his New Statesmen articles and you see all the same sort of vitriol for a man who has championed so many great causes and done some REAL reporting.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by Cynthia McKinney, in Tripoli[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?” writes Cynthia McKinney as bombs rain down on Tripoli, capital of Libya.[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." If the humanitarian ruse is allowed against Libya, why not…anywhere? “People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NATO: A Feast of Blood[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by Cynthia McKinney, in Tripoli[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was created by the United States in response to the Soviet Union's survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NATO is a collective security pact wherein member states pledge that an attack upon one is an attack against all. Therefore, should the Soviet Union have attacked any European Member State, the United States military shield would be activated. The Soviet Response was the Warsaw Pact that maintained a "cordon sanitaire" around the Russian Heartland should NATO ever attack. Thus, the world was broken into blocs which gave rise to the "Cold War."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Avowed "Cold Warriors" of today still view the world in these terms and, unfortunately, cannot move past Communist China and an amputated Soviet Empire as enemy states of the U.S. whose moves anywhere on the planet are to be contested. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an accelerated opportunity to exert U.S. hegemony in an area of previous Russian influence. Africa and the Eurasian landmass containing former Soviet satellite states and Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the many other "stans" of the region, have always factored prominently in the theories of "containment" or "rollback" guiding U.S. policy up to today. [/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus.“[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]With that as background, last night's NATO rocket attack on Tripoli is inexplicable. A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night (Monday), rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus. If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Women carrying young children ran out of the hotel. Others ran to wash the dust from their eyes. With sirens blaring, emergency vehicles made their way to the scene of the attack. Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sporadic gunfire broke out and it seemed everywhere around me. Euronews showed video of nurses and doctors chanting even at the hospitals as they treated those injured from NATO's latest installation of shock and awe. Suddenly, the streets around my hotel became full of chanting people, car horns blowing, I could not tell how many were walking, how many were driving[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Whatever the military objectives of the attack (and I and many others question the military value of these attacks) the fact remains the air attack was launched a major city packed with hundreds of thousands of civilians.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I did wonder too if the any of the politicians who had authorized this air attack had themselves ever been on the receiving end of laser guided depleted uranium munitions. Had they ever seen the awful damage that these weapons do a city and its population? Perhaps if they had actually been in a city under air attack and felt the concussion from these bombs and saw the mayhem caused they just might not be so inclined to authorize an attack on a civilian population.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am confident that NATO would not have been so reckless with human life if they had been called on to attack a major western city. Indeed, I am confident that they would not be called upon ever to attack a western city. NATO only attacks (as does the US and its allies) the poor and underprivileged of the 3rd world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Only the day before, at a women's event in Tripoli, one woman came up to me with tears in her eyes: her mother is in Benghazi and she can't get back to see if her mother is OK or not. People from the east and west of the country lived with each other, loved each other, intermarried, and now, because of NATO's "humanitarian intervention," artificial divisions are becoming hardened. NATO's recruitment of allies in eastern Libya smacks of the same strain of cold warriorism that sought to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow the Cuban Revolution with "homegrown" Cubans willing to commit acts of terror against their former home country. More recently, Democratic Republic of Congo has been amputated de facto after Laurent Kabila refused a request from the Clinton Administration to formally shave off the eastern part of his country. Laurent Kabila personally recounted the meeting at which this request and refusal were delivered. This plan to balkanize and amputate an African country (as has been done in Sudan) did not work because Kabila said "no" while Congolese around the world organized to protect the "territorial integrity" of their country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I was horrified to learn that NATO allies (the Rebels) in Libya have reportedly lynched, butchered and then their darker-skinned compatriots after U.S. press reports labeled Black Libyans as "Black mercenaries." Now, tell me this, pray tell. How are you going to take Blacks out of Africa? Press reports have suggested that Americans were "surprised" to see dark-skinned people in Africa. Now, what does that tell us about them?[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The sad fact, however, is that it is the Libyans themselves, who have been insulted, terrorized, lynched, and murdered as a result of the press reports that hyper-sensationalized this base ignorance. Who will be held accountable for the lives lost in the bloodletting frenzy unleashed as a result of these lies?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Which brings me back to the lady's question: why is this happening? Honestly, I could not give her the educated reasoned response that she was looking for. In my view the international public is struggling to answer "Why?".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What we do know, and what is quite clear, is this: what I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Many suspect it is about all the oil under Libya. Call me skeptical but I have to wonder why the combined armed sea, land and air forces of NATO and the US costing billions of dollars are being arraigned against a relatively small North African country and we're expected to believe its in the defense of democracy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What I have seen in long lines to get fuel is not "humanitarian intervention." Refusal to allow purchases of medicine for the hospitals is not "humanitarian intervention." What is most sad is that I cannot give a cogent explanation of why to people now terrified by NATO's bombs, but it is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." Where is the Congress as the President exceeds his war-making authority? Where is the "Conscience of the Congress?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For those of who disagree with Dick Cheney's warning to us to prepare for war for the next generation, please support any one who will stop this madness. Please organize and then vote for peace. People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs. Libyans don't need NATO helicopter gunships, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and depleted uranium to settle their differences. NATO's "humanitarian intervention" needs to be exposed for what it is with the bright, shining light of the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As dusk descends on Tripoli, let me prepare myself with the local civilian population for some more NATO humanitarianism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Stop bombing Africa and the poor of the world![/FONT]
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/nato-feast-blood