(PDF) 9/11 evidence to go public in Danish and UK courts

(PDF) 9/11 evidence to go public in Danish and UK courts

Expert witnesses to the ‘terror’ events at the World Trade Center in 2001 prepare to appear for the first time at the Danish High Court

Created: Tue, 03/10/2015 – 12:12 Last updated: Tue, 10/03/2015 – 12:11

 by: Tommy Hansen

Expert witnesses on the events of 9/11 in 2001 which triggered the global “War on Terror” are set to give evidence in public for the first time in a Danish court with testimony which casts doubt on the official narrative of what is probably the most significant global event in post-WWII history.

 The two witnesses are expected to give evidence which expresses widely shared doubts about the official explanation of the three building collapses in New York in 2001 – especially the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which received comparatively little attention in the global mainstream media.

The pair will give evidence at the Danish High Court in Copenhagen on Thursday as part of a case brought by Dr. Niels Harrit, who is appealing against the outcome of a libel suit he brought against journalist Søren Villemoes and Danish newspaper Weekendavisen.

The court case is regarded as significant by legal and other observers as one of the witnesses, Jan Utzon, is a world-renowned architect and member of AE911Truth, an organization of more than 2,300 architects and engineers who question the official story of the 9/11 events.

Another is Dr. Per Hedegård, a physics professor from the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, who was initially a critic of Harrit’s claims that the highly advanced explosive nano-thermite was present in the dust present in the aftermath of the 9/11 events in the U.S.,  but has reversed his position and is appearing in court to support Dr. Harrit.

The appeal hearing comes after Harrit sued Villemoes and Weekendavisen over an article entitled Madness in the Royal Library which Weekendavisen published in the newspaper on Dec. 7, 2012 and which referred to Harrit and other experts, academics and political activists who have questioned the events of 9/11 as “crackpots”, comparing them to “creationists” and Holocaust deniers.

Harrit, the co-author of a landmark scientific paper on the existence of nano-thermite in the dust from the explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11, is being allowed to submit more evidence to support his original claim against the newspaper after the lower City Court ruled against his libel suit in 2013.

 Also, Dr. Hedegård is supporting Harrit in a reversal of his former position when an article he wrote in 2010 dismissing Harrit’s claims was used as evidence used against Harrit in the original libel trial.

Supported by attorney Mads Krøger Pramming, chairman of the Danish whistleblower organization Veron, Harrit will present a video of the collapse of the WTC 7 building, as well as an actual sample of the dust from the incident in which the presence of active nano-thermite residues has been proven to exist according to a scientific article published in the Open Chemical and Physics Journal in 2009 by United Arab Emirates-based Benthams, a company which publishes scientific, technical and medical literature.

And in a separate court case in the UK related to 9/11, Matt Campbell of Sussex will go to Hastings Magistrates Court on March 23 claiming the UK state broadcaster the BBC engaged in “covering up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence” relating to the murder of his brother Geoff, who was killed inside the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

He is also expected to be allowed to present evidence and expert witnesses to give statements which he alleges prove the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 were controlled demolitions.

Campbell will claim he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC had been “willfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed” and that the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Campbell claims the BBC is refusing to inform the public of “incontrovertible scientific evidence relating to free-fall acceleration during the collapse of Building 7”.

He also states that the BBC “appears to be supporting a cover-up of the true events of that day”.

Representing Campbell’s case is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz, who also advised documentary film maker Tony Rooke during his trial at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013.

In a case attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe, Rooke was charged with non-payment of his TV license fee.

In defence, he accused the BBC of “intentionally misrepresenting facts about the 9/11 attacks” in relation to the UK state broadcaster reporting the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper Building 7 on 9/11, 2001, more than 20 minutes before it occurred.

The BBC later blamed misunderstandings between the informers on the ground and the reporter for the mistake.

Among other experts, Dr. Niels Harrit had been to appear as an expert witness in the trial, but the court rejected Rooke’s application to present Harrit’s evidence.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls from Horsham Magistrates Court insisted that the trial would not be “a public inquiry into 9/11”.

“This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act,” he ruled during the trial.

In sentencing Rooke, Judge Nicholls said: ‘Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.

“I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence. I would be unable to find a defence.”

The judge ordered Rooke to pay £200 costs and gave him a conditional discharge.

The Future Gaddafi Foresaw Libya, ISIS and the Unaffordable Luxury of Hindsight

The Future Gaddafi Foresaw Libya, ISIS and the Unaffordable Luxury of Hindsight



Who are you?” the late Muammar Gaddafi once rhetorically asked in a famous speech of his towards the end of his reign; (rightly) questioning the legitimacy of those seeking to over-throw his government at the time, calling them extremists, foreign agents, rats and drug-addicts. He was laughed at, unfairly caricatured, ridiculed and incessantly demonized; a distasteful parody video poking fun at the late Libyan leader even went viral on social media; evidently the maker of the video, an Israeli, thought the Libyan colloquial Arabic word “Zenga” (which means an Alleyway) sounded funny enough that he extracted it from one of Gaddafi’s speeches, looped it on top of a hip-hop backing track and voila… he got himself a hit video which was widely (and shamefully) circulated with a “revolutionary” zeal in the Arab world. We shared, we laughed, he died.


Libya Divided into Zones of Mercenaries and Terrorists RivalsBut the bloody joke is on all of us; Gaddafi knew what he was talking about; right from the get-go, he accused the so-called Libyan rebels of being influenced by Al-Qaeda ideology and Ben Laden’s school of thought; no one had taken his word for it of course, not even a little bit. I mean why should we have? After all, wasn’t he a vile, sex-centric dictator hell-bent on massacring half of the Libyan population while subjecting the other half to manic raping sprees with the aid of his trusted army of Viagra-gobbling, sub-Saharan mercenaries? At least that’s what we got from the visual cancer that is Al Jazeera channel and its even more acrid Saudi counterpart Al-Arabiya in their heavily skewed coverage of NATO’s vicious conquest of Libya. Plus Gaddafi did dress funny; why would anyone trust a haggard, weird-looking despot dressed in colorful rags when you have well-groomed Zionists like Bernard Henry Levy, John McCain and Hillary Clinton at your side, smiling and flashing the victory sign in group photo-ops, right?

Gaddafi called them drug-addicted, Islamic fundamentalists; we know them as ISIS… it doesn’t seem much of a joke now, does it? And ISIS is what had been in store for us all along; the “revolutionary” lynching and sodomization of Muammar Gaddafi amid manic chants of “Allahu Akbar”, lauded by many at the time as some sort of a warped triumph of the good of popular will (read: NATO-sponsored mob rule) over the evil of dictatorship (sovereign state), was nothing but a gory precursor for the future of the country and the region; mass lynching of entire populations in Libya, Syria and Iraq and the breakup of key Arab states into feuding mini-statelets. The gruesome video of Colonel Gaddafi’s murder, which puts to shame the majority of ISIS videos in terms of unhinged brutality and gore, did not invoke the merest of condemnations back then, on the contrary; everyone seemed perfectly fine with the grotesque end of the Libyan “tyrant”… except that it was only the beginning of a new and unprecedented reign of terror courtesy of NATO’s foot-soldiers and GCC-backed Islamic insurgents.



The rapid proliferation of trigger-happy terrorist groups and Jihadi factions drenched in petrodollars in Libya was not some sort of an intelligence failure on the part of western governments or a mere by-product of the power vacuum left by a slain Gaddafi; it was a deliberate, calculated policy sought after and implemented by NATO and its allies in the Gulf under the cringe-inducing moniker “Friends of Libya” (currently known as the International Coalition against ISIS) to turn the north-African country into the world’s largest ungovernable dumpster of weapons, al-Qaida militants and illegal oil trading.


So it is safe to say that UNSC resolution 1973, which practically gave free rein for NATO to bomb Libya into smithereens, has finally borne fruit… and it’s rotten to its nucleus, you can call the latest gruesome murder of 21 Egyptian fishermen and workers by the Libyan branch of the Islamic State exhibit “A”, not to mention of course the myriad of daily killings, bombings and mini-civil wars that are now dotting the entire country which, ever since the West engineered its coup-d’etat against the Gaddafi government, have become synonymous with the bleak landscape of lawlessness and death that is “Libya” today. And the gift of NATO liberation is sure to keep on giving for years of instability and chaos to come.



In an interview with the western media misinformation collective that is the BBC, ABC and the Sunday Times in February 2011; the late Muammar Gaddafi told his condescending interviewers; “have you seen the Al Qaeda operatives? Have you heard all these Jihadi broadcasts? It is Al Qaeda that is controlling the cities of Al Baida and Darnah, former Guantanamo inmates and extremists unleashed by America to terrorize the Libyan people…”. Darnah is now the main stronghold for ISIS in Libya.




In a bizarre coincidence (or some sort of cosmic irony); the date on which ISIS chose to release its video of the beheading of Egyptian captives, thereby officially declaring its presence in the war-torn country with three oil fields under its control, (appropriately) marked the 4th anniversary of the start of the so-called Libyan revolution on February 15th, 2011; a more apt “tribute” to commemorate the Western instigated regime-change debacle in Libya could not have been made.



But even long before ISIS became the buzzword, the acrid nature of a “revolutionary” Libya showed in full, sickening splendor almost instantly right after the old regime fell, everything the late Gaddafi was falsely accused of doing was literally perfected to a chilling degree by the so-called rebels; massacres, indiscriminate shelling of residential areas, car-bombings, mass arrests, torture, theft of oil and national resources… the whole lot. In 2013; two British pro-Palestine activists, on their way to Gaza with an aid convoy, got to experience first-hand the rotten fruits of the Libyan chapter of the so-called Arab Spring when they were abducted by a motely crew of Libyan revolutionaries-turned-warlords in the city of Benghazi and gang raped in front of their father.


The Human Rights and the gross hypocrisy of humanitarian NGOs

The Human Rights and the gross hypocrisy of humanitarian NGOs


The Human Rights and the gross hypocrisy of humanitarian NGOs

Proponents of Humanitarian Interventions must be patting themselves on the back these days; now that Libya has completed its democratic makeover from a country with the highest standard of living in Africa under Gaddafi’s rule into a textbook definition of a failed state; a godless wasteland of religious fanaticism, internal bloodletting and wholesale head-chopping, in fact Libya became so “democratic” that there are now two parliaments and two (warring) governments; each with its own (criminal) army and supported with money and caches of weapons from competing foreign powers, not to mention the myriad of secessionist movements and militias which the illegal coup against Gaddafi has spawned all over the country while free health care, education and electricity, which the Libyans took for granted under Gaddafi’s regime, are all now but relics of the past; that’s the “Odyssey Dawn” the Libyans were promised; a sanitized version of Iraq sans the public outrage, neatly re-packaged in a “responsibility to protect” caveat and delivered via aerial bombing campaigns where even the West’s overzealous Gulf Co-conspirators Club (GCC), driven by nothing beyond petty personal vendettas against Gaddafi, got to test the lethality of its rusted, American-made military aircrafts alongside NATO on the people of Tripoli and Sirte.




images (20)

This is what Gaddafi had predicted right from the get-go and then some; the ephemeral euphoria of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions was just too potent and too exhilarating for us to read the fine print; was it a conspiracy or a true revolutionary spirit gone awry? It doesn’t really matter now that ISIS has become the true legacy of Tahrir Square;they will turn Libya into another Afghanistan, another Somalia, another Iraq… your women won’t be allowed out, they will transform Libya into an Islamic Emirate and America will bomb the country under the pretext of fighting terrorism”, the late Libyan leader had said in a televised speech on February 22nd, 2011, and more prophetic words were never spoken.

America’s “clean war” Libyan prototype proved to be such a success that it was replicated with a wanton abandon in Syria; Paul Bremer’s “Blackwater” death squads of old, which reigned terror all over Iraq, are back… with an Islamic twist; bearded, clad in black and explosives from head to toe and mounting convoys of Toyota Land Cruiser trucks with an ever-expanding, seemingly borderless Islamic Caliphate (that somehow leaves the Zionist regime unencumbered in its occupation of Palestine) set in their sights.



Everyday the Arab World is awakened to a new-videotaped atrocity; steeped in gore and maniacal terror courtesy of ISIS (or IS or ISIL), and countless of other “youtubeless”, albeit more heinous crimes courtesy of America’s very own ever-grinding, one-sided drone warfare; the entire region seesaws between machete beheadings and hellfire missile incinerations. Death from above… as well as below; the War on Terror rears its ugly head once again; to bring in line those nasty terrorists that the West itself funded and sponsored in the name of democracy to destabilize “unsavory” regimes; an unrelenting Groundhog Day that starts with the Responsibility to Protect and ends with the War on Terror, with thousands of innocent lives, typically chalked up to collateral damage, crushed in the process.

This is exactly what Gaddafi foresaw; a Libya mired in utter chaos, civil conflict and western diktats; a breeding ground for Jihadi fundamentalism and extremists


too bad we just laughed his warnings off to an Israeli-made parody tune.

Ahmad Barqawi, freelance columnist and writer.



EU In Total Horror As Russia Prepares New “Nazi Law”

EU In Total Horror As Russia Prepares New “Nazi Law”

By: Sorcha Faal



A stunning report prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) circulating in the Kremlin today states that European Union (EU) foreign diplomats were left in “total horror” this past week after being alerted by their Russian counterparts to the catastrophic effects upon the NATO Alliance due to a proposed Federation Council (FC) law outlawing the sale of energy supplies to any nation that is now/or has been engaged in Nazi-like torture of prisoners of war or its own citizens.

According to this report, the Federation Council (the upper house of the parliament of the Russian Federation) began the adoption of this new “Nazi Law” under orders given by President Putin after the United States refused to heed Russia’s 14 December warning of retaliation against the imposition of additional sanctions by President Obama’s signing of a new Russian sanctions law on 18 December.


The proposed new “Nazi Law” being written by the FC, this report continues, would specifically forbid the sale of Russian natural gas, oil, oil by-products (and other such natural resources of the Federation) to any nation, or military alliance of nations, that: 1.) Has failed to support the United Nations resolution condemning attempts to glorify Nazism ideology and denial of German Nazi war crimes; 2.) Has used Nazi torture techniques against POW’s and/or civilians; and 3.) Has conducted mass executions of unarmed civilians.

To the first count, MoFA experts in this report say, the United States, Canada, and Ukraine, would be subjected immediately to this new laws harshest provisions due to their being the only three nations in the world to vote against the United Nations 21 November resolution that condemned any form of denial of Nazi war crimes, including the Jewish Holocaust.


To the second count, these same experts say, the United States, UK, Australia, and 51 other Western allied nations would, likewise, be sanctioned due to their complicity in the torture of prisoners-of-war using methods utilized by the Nazis during World War II, and which this past week caused the New York Times editorial board to call upon the Obama regime to prosecute former Vice President Dick Cheney for his crimes against humanity for his masterminding of.

To the third count, these MoFA experts state, there exists “substantial evidence” to indict the United States and Ukraine for the mass execution of unarmed civilians in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which killed 239, and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which killed 298.

The Council for Civil Society and Human Rights (CCSHR) appointed by President Putin to investigate the crimes involving both of these Malaysia Airlines disasters, the MoFA in this report states, has also received new evidence regarding these tragedies which include: 1.) Testimony and evidence from a Ukrainian officer stating that on the date of the shooting down of Malaysia Flight 17 one of his nations fighter jets landed after having fired its missiles with its pilot stating he had shot down the “wrong plane.; 2.) Two senior airline executives (Proteus Airlines CEO Marc Dugain and Emirates Airlines president and CEO Sir Tim Clark) publically stating that Malaysia Flight 370 was, likewise, shot down by the United States.


The most catastrophic effect of this “Nazi Law” being implemented, the MoFA in this report states it warned its EU counterparts about, would be the immediate cessation of natural gas flows to Europe which would, in effect, cripple them economically and subject their citizens to war-like rationing of heating supplies.

Important to note, this report continues, is that the MoFA had previously told the EU and US that their collective punishment” against the citizens of Crimea would not be accepted and would be responded to in kind.

Also to be noted, MoFA analysts in this report say, is that due to the Obama regimes creation of a permanent war zone” around the Federation, and the continued large-scale cyber espionage campaign against Russia, its government and businesses, only the harshest of penalties can even been considered against such a lawless and rogue nation the United States has become.

Critical to note too is that when this MoFA report is combined with last weeks Ministry of Economic Development (MED) report outlining Putin’s “Samson Defense” strategy to collapse both the US and EU economies, China this week aligned itself with Russia against the Obama regime and its allies in an economic war many experts are predicting could soon erupt into total global warfare.

And as to what the Obama regimes “grand strategy” toward Russia really is, this report queries, no one seems to really know, including the esteemed international award WINNING journalist Patrick Smith, who in writing this week about the catastrophic fallout occurring in the EU due to Obama’s policies stunningly wrote that the information he received from Washington D.C. insiders stated that these “Obama Kidiots” are “making it up as they go along.”

And on the road where “lunacy meets sheer audacity”, this report concludes, the West is also now crying that they need more MONEY to counter Russia’s news services…which, mind you, have a budget of $120 million…compared to the BBC’s $370 million and Obama regimes staggering $716 million these nations spend on spreading their propaganda around the world.

As to how much more MONEY the West really needs before their lies are believed is anyone guess, Russia seems to do just fine by telling the truth.

December 23, 2014 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

[Ed. Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report “Who Is Sorcha Faal?”.]

People Wake Up! Psywar : Full Documentary HQ

People Wake Up! Psywar : Full Documentary HQ

This film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the elitist theory of democracy and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

Includes original interviews with a number of dissident scholars including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Peter Phillips (Project Censored), John Stauber (PR Watch), Christopher Simpson (The Science of Coercion) and others.

A deep, richly illustrated study of the nature and history of propaganda, featuring some of the world’s most insightful critics, Psywar exposes the propaganda system, providing crucial background and insight into the control of information and thought.

Libyen: Schreiben gegen den Mainstream

Libyen: Schreiben gegen den Mainstream

Medien Wie darf man über Libyen informieren? Einige Kommentare zu dem Beitrag von Mohamed Al-Fatah haben mich nachdenklich gemacht…

Ein Nutzerbeitrag von Angelika Gutsche

Mohamed Al-Fatah, ein Aktivist des Grünen Widerstands, hatte mich gewarnt: „Libya is a very hot issue and when you write about Lybia you will be bothered”. Er hatte mich vor Computerviren gewarnt und vor Belästigungen. Darauf war ich also gefasst. Doch wau, damit hatte ich dann doch nicht gerechnet! Einige Kommentare zu dem Gastbeitrag von Al-Fatah versuchten, mich in die Nazi- und Antisemitismus-Ecke zu drängen. Das tat weh. Das war wirklich der allerletzte Platz, an dem ich mich verortet sehen wollte. Es war der Versuch, mir die Deutungshoheit über meinen eigenen politischen Standpunkt zu entziehen. Wie infam! Doch wie reagieren? Würde ich mich auf diese Diskussion einlassen, so hieße das, die Kommentatoren aufzuwerten und mich in eine Verteidigungsposition zu begeben. Von meinem eigentlichen Anliegen, eine Diskussion über die Vorgänge in Libyen anzuregen, würde dies nur ablenken. Das war wohl auch der Grund für die Kommentare: Es sollte nicht über Libyen diskutiert werden, sondern darüber, ob ich zur „braunen Sauce“ gehörte. Wer lanciert solche Kommentare?

 Unsere Massenmedien werden nicht müde darüber zu lamentieren, wie stark in China das Internet zensiert wird. Doch auch bei uns stehe ich immer wieder vor der Merkwürdigkeit, dass kritische Videos oder Beiträge im Internet nicht mehr aufzufinden oder abzurufen sind. Verschiedene Initiativen sind inzwischen dazu übergegangen, als wichtig befundene Dokumentationen auf eigenen Seiten zu sichern. Wer sorgt dafür, dass unliebsame Beiträge und Videos aus dem Netz verschwinden?

 Auch in Libyen wird – wie in jedem Krieg – der Kampf um die Herzen und Hirne mit Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda geführt. Doch ist in den westlichen Medien die Unterdrückung von Meinungen und Informationen, die dem Mainstream entgegenstehen, nirgendwo so gnadenlos und die Gegenpropaganda dermaßen dreist wie im Bezug auf den Libyen-Krieg. Um nur wenige Beispiele zu nennen: Die Süddeutsche Zeitung erblödete sich nicht, in ihrem Magazin einen Artikel zu bringen, in dem Gaddafi unterstellt wurde, er hätte heimlich sexuelle Ambitionen bezüglich der betagten und nicht gerade durch ihre Attraktivität auffallenden Madeleine Albright, der ehemaligen US-Außenministerin. Oder die Schlagzeile, dass die Kampfkraft von Gaddafis Armee mit Viagra gestärkt würde. Diese Behauptung wurde Monate später zwar zurückgenommen, aber erst einmal hatte sie ihren Zweck erfüllt. Oder: Es sollte eine gegen Gaddafi gerichtete Massendemonstration auf dem Grünen Platz in Tripolis gezeigt werden, im Bild störte nur die indische Flagge. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0). Dafür kam eine pro Gaddafi Großdemonstration nicht in die westlichen Medien, zu der – die Angaben schwanken zwischen ein und zwei – Millionen Libyer kamen. Und das bei einer damaligen Gesamtbevölkerung von sechs Millionen Menschen. Diese Liste des krassen Versagens der westlichen Medien ließe sich beliebig verlängern. Es lässt sich daraus nur eine Schlussfolgerung ziehen: Die Medien wollen nicht wahrheitsgemäß informieren, denn sie sind eingebunden in die Propagandamaschinerie eines unrechtmäßigen Krieges! (Vgl. dazu den Bestseller von Udo Ulfkotte „Gekaufte Journalisten“) Und der Nato-Krieg gegen Libyen war unrechtmäßig. Die letzten drei Jahre wurden alle Gräuel, Schandtaten und Ungerechtigkeiten verheimlicht, ebenso wie die wahren Motive für diesen Krieg als da sind die Gier nach Rohstoffen und Geld sowie der Wunsch nach Vernichtung eines unbequemen Gegenspielers.

 Vor dem Nato-Krieg wurde von einigen Seiten Kritik an Gaddafi geübt, sogar vom eigenen Sohn Saif Al-Islam. Sollte er die Nachfolge seines Vaters antreten, versprach man sich in der Folge eine Liberalisierung und Öffnung Libyens. Doch die Kritik von Seiten Saif Al-Islams war eine konstruktive, wie auch die Kritik anderer Libyer. Man wollte Veränderungen, die das Land verbessern sollten. Keinesfalls sollte diese  Kritik einen Nato-Bombenkrieg auf Libyen rechtfertigen mit dem bekannten Potential an Tod, Vertreibung und Zerstörung mit anschließender Neokolonialisierung.

 Wünschte der Westen überhaupt jemals eine Liberalisierung der Politik Gaddafis? War es nicht viel einfacher, medienkompatibel einen satanischen Gegner zu kreieren, um sich so zu jedem Zeitpunkt die moralische Legitimation für die erneute koloniale Eroberung Libyens zu verschaffen? Sollte Gaddafi weg, bevor sein Sohn Saif, bekannt für seinen Reformwillen, die Macht übernommen hätte? Wie hätte man es dann gerechtfertigt, in Libyen einzumarschieren, um an dessen Öl, Wasser, Geld und Militärstützpunkte zu kommen? Aufgrund des Öl-Reichtums Libyens wäre dessen Einfluss in der Welt, insbesondere in Afrika weiter gestiegen. Was, wenn sich die bis zum Krieg positive Zusammenarbeit mit China und Russland weiter verstärkt hätte?

 Mithilfe der Massenmedien gelang es, Gaddafi zum absolut bösen Diktator hoch zu stilisieren. Kein gutes Haar durfte an ihm gelassen werden. Doch hätte sich Gaddafi ohne Rückhalt in der Bevölkerung über 40 Jahre an der Macht halten können? Ich meine nein. Und das System der Jamahirija (Herrschaft des Volkes)? Über seine Funktionsfähigkeit kann man diskutieren. Aber entspricht das US-amerikanische Zwei-Parteien-System – beide Parteien finanziert durch die Wallstreet-Hochfinanz – unserem europäischen Demokratieverständnis? Oder das Fehlen eines allgemeinen Krankenversicherungssystems unseren Vorstellungen von einem Sozialstaat? Gar nicht zu reden von den durch und durch verrotteten, vom Westen gehätschelten arabischen Monarchien, Sultanaten und Militärdiktaturen des Maghreb und der arabischen Halbinsel, die ihr Volk mit eiserner Faust regieren. Im Vergleich zu den anderen arabischen Systemen nahmen Gaddafi, sein sozialer Anspruch und seine Jamahirija durchaus einen vorderen Platz im „good governance“-Ranking ein. Vor allem als nach dem Wegfall der westlichen Sanktionen, als das Land aufblühte und sein Wohlstand sprunghaft anstieg (leider auch die Korruption, die sich aber dank Gaddafi noch in Grenzen hielt) und auch Reformen Platz griffen, die Zufriedenheit der Bevölkerung weiter anstieg.

 Nebenbei bemerkt, wieso sollen Konkurrenz und Wettbewerb nur in der Wirtschaft gut sein? Ein Wettstreit der politischen Systeme, den jeweiligen kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Gegebenheiten angepasst, macht unsere Welt vielgestaltiger. Wie können wir so vermessen sein, in der ganzen Welt unser sogenanntes westliches Wertesystem nicht nur mit missionarischem Eifer, sondern auch mit Gewalt durchsetzen zu wollen? (Einmal vorausgesetzt, es wäre wirklich in diesem Krieg auch darum gegangen.) Die Jamahirija könnte aufgrund ihrer basisdemokratischen Vorstellungen, eingebettet in eine Stammesstruktur, und ihrer sozialen Leistungen in einem Wettstreit der Systeme durchaus bestehen.

 Aber das darf nicht gesagt werden, auch wenn die simple Gleichung: Diktator ist gleich böse und muss weg, nicht immer aufgeht. Man sollte sich bei uns vor Vereinfachungen hüten, wenn man von den betreffenden Ländern nur wenig Ahnung hat und noch weniger Ahnung, welche Schrecken auf eine gestürzte Regierung folgen werden. In einem warmen Wohnzimmer, satt und bequem auf einem Sofa sitzend, lassen sich guten Gewissens leicht andere Völker in Krieg, Leid, Vertreibung und Tod hetzen. Man ist ja auf der Seite der „Guten“ und “Diktatoren“ müssen nun mal weg.

 Auf unseren Individualreisen durch Libyen trafen wir auf eine stolze, selbstbewusste und freundlich-hilfsbereite Bevölkerung. Ich persönlich stand der Jamahirija und Gaddafi recht indifferent gegenüber, zu viel Personenkult, klar, aber doch auch Respekt für Gaddafis unbeugsamen politischen Weg und Anerkennung dessen, was er für sein Land geleistet hatte.

 Als klar wurde, wohin der Weg der Nato geht, dass eine Invasion und Neokolonialisierung Libyens bevorstanden, wurde jedoch jede Kritik am System Gaddafi belanglos. Die meisten Libyer wollten nur noch ihr Land vor dem westlichen Aggressor verteidigen und so schlossen sich die Reihen um Gaddafi. Denn welcher Libyer kann diesen Krieg, der sein Land zerstört, gewollt haben, die vielen Toten, das große Leid, den Hass? Andere Länder wie die USA schaffen sich künstlich ihre Feinde, um von inneren Schwierigkeiten abzulenken. Die Kritik verstummt, das Volk hält zusammen. In Libyen existiert dieser äußere Feind real.

 Ich wünsche den traumatisierten Menschen in ihrem kriegsverwüsteten Land, dass sie sich von ihren kolonialen Feinden befreien, selbstverwaltet und selbstbestimmt über ihr Land, deren Bodenschätze und Güter zum Wohle aller verfügen können. Und ich glaube, dass nur der Grüne Widerstand und die Großen Stämme, denen schweres Unrecht zugefügt wurde, eine Befreiung in diesem Sinne bewerkstelligen können. Für die weitere Zukunft hoffe ich, dass alle in Libyen lebenden Stämme und deren Menschen unter Berücksichtigung ihrer jeweiligen Interessen und Wünsche wieder zu einem friedlichen Zusammenleben zurückfinden. Eine große Hilfe dabei wäre, die faire und offene Berichterstattung über die Vorgänge in diesem Land. Eine Wunschvorstellung, denn in Libyen geht es nicht um die dort lebenden Menschen, sondern: Es geht um Geld, um sehr viel Geld.