BEWARE THE RATVERMENTS OF LIBYA FALLING INTO THE TRAP OF THE COLONIZERS WHO THEN WILL BRING THE MESSIAH Abdul Basit Igtet AS THE NEW LEADER IN LIBYA
Concluding with the new wave of kidnapping Ambassadors in Libya its only fair to assume that the Ratverments of my country are playing a very dangerous game to which the Colonizers are a part of setting the trap for them. They (F.UK.U.S.) have been planning for the last three years how to get their hands in Libya and they came with a plan to groom Abdul Basit Igtet who supposedly his father in the early 80′s built a library in Benghazi and was at odds with the previous regime who put the father in jail and finally died. I will not go on to details what Mr. Igtet’s father was a corrupted and stole from the Libyan government to build what he built-in Benghazi as he is dead and can not defend himself.
But the son Mr. Abdul Basit Igtet steps on the dead body of his father making him a hero and the son is with the revolutionaries from the start. Mr. Igtet in his early 20′s he landed in Switzerland who by the way is not as educated as the media tries to portray him. Wondering where he got all these millions to put together a company and at the age of 45 his a multimillionaire? Raising this first question proves that his father had embezzled a lot of funds from the Jamahirya government. Adding to his so-called successful business he got involved with the most eligible billionaires bride Sara Bronfmanwho her father is Edgar Bronfman Sr. and former president of the World Jewish Congress. Believing that my readers are not that unintelligent you can make the connection where I am going with this. Mr. Igtet and Ms. S. Bronfman are living or married this has not been clarified but they have a daughter together which by the way on their biography of today this fact has been eliminated. Wondering why? Gathering it’s not good business to publicize their relationship to the public while Mr. Igtet is running for PRESIDENT OF LIBYA, following videos show how this man is groomed by the ZIONISTS/AMERICA listen to him how he thinks and believes that he will get elected.
He talks about the oil everything he says is what the Jamahirya government did for the Libyan people, nationalize? wasn’t that what the Jamahirya government did? Give a percentage to all Libyan people? Isn’t that what the Jamahirya government did? So what is so special about him? Well he is in the pockets of the Zionists which of course helps and lets not forget that He will make Libya to recognize Israel as a state plus give them a military base Isn’t that grand? Lets go onto the next video.
Bringing reconciliation in Libya, Mr. Igtet must have read the Green Book of the Jamahirya government all that he talks about is he wants to bring the peace, but the Jamahirya government was peaceful Igtet wants to bring transparency well Igtet should explain how he got his money? Igtet says he has built schools in Cambodia, made a lot of businesses, really with his money or his wife’s? Just listen how they are grooming him. Lets go on to the next video.
Igtet talking about his plan for Libya, here is a man talking about the problems which he has no idea as he has not lived in Libya for over twenty years, he is talking like he already governing the country, by saying we are isolated most of the videos are done in December 2013.
If you check the byline from January 2014 Libya has been escalating, with killings of Christian Egyptians, also murdered CIA/MI6/DGSE/MOSSAD agents, with people demonstrating and getting killed for their beliefs, explosions and assassinations mainly in Benghazi, the resignation of two prime ministers, I’m sure that all was well planned for Zeidan to be kidnapped and Thani to be shot at, the kidnappings of Ambassadors for exchange of Libyan prisoners in the respected countries, this isolates even more Libya with the international community and NATO giving a reason to bomb us again, also because The Green Resistance is advancing in big strides and taking over the South and East it’s only logical to conclude that the company (F.UK.U.S./ISRAEL) would need to put somebody who obeys to their needs and who better than Mr. Igtet his young, stupid and married to the World Jewish Congress by inheritance of the father in law..
The ratverments are falling into the trap allowing foreign troops like the Jordanian special forces to land into Libya for the search of their kidnapped Ambassador, of course we have other foreign troops that we do not talk about (USA TROOPS, UK TROOPS, FRENCH TROOPS, QATARI TROOPS, UN PEACEKEEPERS ) all protecting their resources, but no one complains, they keep us busy with the MILITIAS which are financed by the WEST to have a chaos so when they bring the MESSIAH MR. IGTET we will welcome him with open arms and it worries me that they do not see it. The Muslim brotherhood and Al Qaeda are helping the ratverments to fall into this trap so that finally the company F.UK.U.S./ISRAEL WILL COLONIZE US FOR GOOD.
You will probably ask me – is that a bad thing at least you will get rid of Muslim brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Our problem it’s not only to get rid of these extremists which by the way they will not leave but to get rid of our colonizers they are leaches sucking the blood of the Libyan people not caring for the children of Libya as long as they get their gold, oil, uranium and water.
So although I don’t like you ratverments pay close attention on what is really going on you have already sold Libya once don’t sell our country again because there will be no return of the colossal chaos that will happen and it will be worse than Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia.
To all TRIBE LEADERS my suggestion is to take ACTION put your differences aside and become one for the sake of LIBYA, it’s a shame that some of you went with the West believing that you were doing the right thing but as it has been proven in the last three years you were wrong. Its time to realize your mistake and move forward to unite all tribes and become one, forgive and forget all the atrocities that have been done to this wonderful country and lets kick out all the invaders we have staying in our country and chase them to drown into the sea. I beg you please wake up.
A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.
The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardianin the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.
The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?
Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:
Under the title “Online Covert Action”,the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience”and “compliance”:
The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?
As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.
Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.
2. Gaddafi is “bombing his own people”
3. Benghazi Save
4. African mercenaries
5. in May. fueled by Viagra mass rape
6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
7. Gaddafi – the Devil
8. Freedom Fighters – Angels [or rebels Santos]
9. victory for the Libyan people
10. defeat for “the left”
Since Colonel Gaddafi has lost his military control in the war against NATO and the insurgents or rebels or new regime, numerous talking heads have taken to celebrating this war as a “success”.
They believe that this is a “victory of the Libyan people” and we should all be celebrating. Others proclaim victory for the “responsibility to protect“,” humanitarian interventionism, “and condemn the” anti-imperialist left. “
Some who claim to be “revolutionaries,” or believe they support the “Arab revolution,” somehow find it possibleto sideline NATO’s role in the war, instead extolling the democratic virtues of the insurgents, glorifying his martyrdom, and expanding their role until everything else is pushed from view. I wish to dissent from this circle of acclamation, and remind readers of the role of fabrications ideologically motivated “truth” that were used to justify, enable, enhance, and motivate the waragainst Libya-and to emphasize how damaging the practical effects of those myths have been to the Libyans, and all those who favored peaceful, non-militarist solutions.
These ten myths are some of the most repeated claims by the insurgents, and / or by NATO, European leaders, the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and even the so-called “International Criminal Court”, the main actors speaking in war against Libya. In turn, we look at some of the reasons why these claims are better seen as imperial folklore, as the myths of the broader support of all myths-that this war is a “humanitarian intervention,” designed for ” protect civilians. “
Again, the importance of these myths lies in their wide propagation, with little doubt, and the lethal effect. Moreover, can severely distort the ideals of human rights and their invocation of the future, thus helping the continued militarization of Western culture and society.
Just a few days after street protests began on February 21 very quick to defect Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said :
“We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli planes still bringing mercenaries to the airports..” This is excellent: a myth that is composed of myths. With that statement was linked three key myths together - the role of airports (of Hence the need for that gateway drug of military intervention: the no-fly zone), the role of ” mercenaries ” (meaning, simply, black people), and the threat of ” genocide“(geared toward language of the UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect). As goofy and totally unfounded assertion that era, he was intelligent, improvising three horrible myths, one of them grounded in racist discourse and practice that endures to the present, with new atrocities reported against black immigrants in Libya and Africa on a daily basis. He was not alone in making these claims.
Among others like him, Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights , told Reuters on March 14 that if Gaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi, “there will be a suite of royal blood, a slaughter as we saw in Rwanda. “ That’s not the only time he remembered about Rwanda. Here was Lt. General Roméo Dallaire, the much worshiped Canadian force commander of the UN peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in 1994, currently an appointed senator in the Canadian Parliament and co-director of the project will intervene in Concordia University. Dallaire, in a race to judgment dizzying speed, not only made repeated references to Rwanda when trying to explain Libya, he spoke of Gaddafias “employing genocidal threats to ‘cleanse Libya house by house. ‘”This is a If it was taken selective attention to Gaddafi’s rhetorical excesses too seriously, when on other occasions, the powers that be rather quick to dismiss it: U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner scared Gaddafi alleged threats Europe, saying that Gaddafi is “someone who has given to overblown rhetoric”.
How very calm, by contrast, as very convenient, because on February 23, President Obama said he had instructed his administration to reach a “choice” to take against Gaddafi.
But “genocide” has a well established international legal definition, as seen repeatedly in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where genocide involves the persecution of a “one national, ethnical, racial or religious group “.
Not all violence is “genocidal.” domestic violence is not genocide. Genocide is notjust “lots of violence” nor violence against undifferentiated civilians. How much Dabbashi, Dallaire, and others do not was to identify the group of national, ethnic, racial or religious persecution, and how they differ in terms of the alleged perpetrators of genocide. They really should know better (and do), one as UN ambassador and the other as a more exalted and lecturer on genocide expert. This suggests that myth-making was either deliberate, or founded on prejudice.
What foreign military intervention did, however, was to enable the actual genocidal violence that has been routinely sidelined until very recently: the horrific violence against African migrants and black Libyans , identified solely on the basis of their skin color .That has carried out unhindered, without apology , and until recently, without much notice . Indeed, the media even collaborates , rapid to assert without evidence that any captured or dead black man must be a “mercenary”. This is the genocide that the white, Western world, and those who dominate the “conversation” about Libya, have missed (and not by accident).
Two. Gaddafi is “bombing his own people”.
We must remember that one of the reasons why early in rushing to impose no-fly zonewas to preventGaddafi using his air force to bomb “his own people”, a distinct phrasing that echoes what proven in the demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
On February 21, when the first alarmist “warnings” about “genocide“were made by the Libyan opposition,bothAl Jazeeraand the BBC claimed that Gaddafi had deployed his air force against protesters, as the BBC “reported “: “Witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city.” However, on March 1, in a press conference at the Pentagon , when asked: ” Did you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of him, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent? “answered U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, ” We haveseen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. ” Backing him up was Admiral Mullen: “That is correct. we ‘ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. “
In fact, claims that Gaddafi also used helicoptersagainst unarmed protesters are totally unfounded, a pure invention based on false claims. This is important since it was Gaddafi’s domination of Libyan air space that foreign interventionists wanted to nullify, and therefore myths of atrocities perpetrated in the air took on added value of providing a starting point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to “protect civilians”.
David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times , as early as March 21 confirmed that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming that there are no battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making highly exaggerated claims of his barbaric behavior “. The “so inflated claims” are what became part of the folklore of the imperial environment events in Libya, that suited Western intervention. Rarely did the Benghazi-based question journalistic crowd or contradict their hosts.
Three. Save Benghazi.
This article is being written as the Libyan opposition forces march on Sirte and Sabha, the two last remaining strongholds of the Gaddafi government, with ominous warnings to the population to be delivered, or otherwise. Apparently, Benghazi became somewhat of a “holy city” in international discourse dominated by leaders of the European Union and NATO.
Benghazi was the only city on earth that could not touch. It was like a sacred place. Tripoli? Sirte? Sabha? These can be sacrificed, as we all look on, without a hint of protest from any of the existing powers-that, even as the first reports of how the opposition has slaughtered people in Tripoli. So back to the Benghazi myth.
“If we wait another day, “said Barack Obama in his March 28 address , “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a slaughter that have affected the region and stained the conscience of the world. “
In a joint letter, Obama with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said:. “By responding immediately, our countries advancing Gaddafi forces stopped the bloodbath he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented. Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. ” Not only French aircraft bombedretreating column, what we saw was a very short column that included trucks and ambulances, and that clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi.
Apart from the “exaggerated rhetoric” Gaddafi, the U.S. were quick to dismiss when it suited its purposes, it is not up to date yet you provided no evidence that programs of Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of “tens of thousands” of lives as proclaimed by Obama.Cameron and SarkozyThis by Professor Alan J. is best explained Kuperman in ” False pretense for war in Libya? “
“The best proof that Gaddafi did not plan genocidein Benghazi is that do not occur in the other cities that were fully or partially recovered, including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya,which together have a population greater than Benghazi ….Gaddafi acts were far from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields …. Despite ubiquitous mobile phones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate slaughter …. Nor Gaddafi increasingly threatens slaughter of civilians in Benghazi, as Obama says .’s warning ‘mercilessly’, March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised a amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Qaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.”
In a bitter irony, what evidence there is of massacres, committed by both sides, is now found in Tripoli in recent days, months after NATO imposed its “life-saving” military measures .
Revenge killings daily reported most frequently, including the slaughter of black Libyans and African migrants by rebel forces. Another sad irony:in Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months, well after Gaddafi forces were repulsed, not even that has prevented violence: revenge killings have been reported there too, the lowest number 6 below.
April. African mercenaries.
Patrick Cockburn summarized the functional utility of the myth of the “African mercenary” and the context in which it arose: ” Since February, the insurgents, often supported by foreign powers, said the battle was between Gaddafi and his family on the one hand, and the Libyan people, on the other. Their explanation of t that large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money. “
As he notes, black prisoners were put on display for the media (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention), but Amnesty International later found that all the prisoners had supposedly been released since none of them were fighters, but rather were undocumented workers from Mali, Chad and West Africa.
The myth was useful for the opposition to insist that this was a war between “Gaddafi and the Libyan people,” as if he had no domestic support at all an absolute and colossal lie so that one might think that only children small could believe such a fantastic story. Myth is also useful for cementing the intended rupture between “the new Libya” and Pan-Africanism, realigning Libya with Europe and the “modern world”, which the opposition so explicitly crave.
The “African mercenary” myth, as was deadly, racist practice, is a fact that paradoxically has been both documented and ignored it. Months ago he offered me a comprehensive review of the role of the media, led byAl Jazeera, as well as planting media, in creating the African mercenary myth.
The racist attacks and murders of African Saharan black Libyans and continues to the present.
Patrick Cockburn and Kim Sengupta speak of the recently discovered mass of “rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli“.
Even while showing us video of hundreds of bodies in the Abu Salim hospital, the BBC dares not highlight the fact that most of those who are clearly black people, and even wonders about who might have killed. This does not is a question for the anti-Gaddafi forces interviewed by Sengupta: “Come and verify. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries,” shouted Ahmed Bin Sabri, lifting the tent door to show the body of a dead patient, his gray dark red blood-stained shirt, the saline pipe running into his arm black with flies. Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed? “
Today, Human Rights Watch has reported: “Dark Skin Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans face particular risks because rebel forces and other armed groups have often considered them Gadhafi mercenaries from other African countries have seen. Violent attacks and killings of these people in areas where the National Transitional Council took control “.
Amnesty International has also just reported on the disproportionate detention of black Africans in rebel-controlled Al-Zawiya of and the targeting of unarmed, migrant farm workers.
Reports continue to rise as it is being written, with other human rights groups finding evidence of the insurgents targeting Sub-Saharan African migrant workers. As president of the African Union, Jean Ping, recently stated. “NTC seems to confuse black peoplewith mercenaries. All blacks are mercenaries If you do that, it means (that) one third of the population of Libya, which is black , is also mercenaries. they are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them. ” (For more information, see the list of the last reports I have collected.)
The “African mercenary” myth continues to be one of the most vicious of all the myths, and the most racist. Even in recent days, newspapers such as the Boston Globe uncritically and unconditionally show photographs of black victims or black detaineeswith the immediate assertion that they must be mercenaries, despite the lack of evidence.
Instead, it is usually provided with casual assertions that Gaddafi is ” known to have “recruited Africans from other nations in the past, without even bothering to find out if those shown in the photos are black Libyans. The lynching of two black Libyans and sub-Saharan African migrant workers has been continuous and has not received any expression of concern, even nominal U.S. and NATO members, nor has aroused the interest of the so-called “International Criminal Court”.
It is no coincidence, and some that is justice for the victims, and that is all stop these heinous crimes that clearly constitute a case of ethnic cleansing. The media, only now, is becoming increasingly aware of the need to cover these crimes, if any overlooked for months.
May. Viagra-fueled rapes mass.
The reported crimes and human rights violations of the Gaddafi regime are awful necessary, it is not that one has to wonder why someone would make up stories like that of Gaddafi’s troops, with erections powered by Viagra, going on a rape spree.
Maybe it was sold, because it is the kind of story that ” captures the imagination of the public traumatized “. This article was taken so seriously that some people started writing to Pfizer to get it to stop selling Viagra to Libya, since its product was allegedly used as a weapon of war. People who otherwise should know better, set out deliberately to mislead international public opinion.
In a surprise to the Security Council of the UN Declaration U.S. Ambassador Susan Ricealso asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops it with Viagra to encourage mass rape.
She offeredno evidence to support THIS claim. In fact, U.S. military and intelligence sources flatly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are receiving Viagra and participation in systematic rape against women in rebel areas.” Rice is a liberal interventionist who was one of those to persuade Obama to intervene in Libya. She used this myth because it helped her make the case at the UN that there was no “moral equivalence” between Gaddafi abuses on the rights and insurgent .
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also stated that “Gaddafi’s forces on security and other groups in the region are trying to divide the people by using violence against women and rape as a weapon of war, and United States condemns this in the strongest possible terms. ” He added that it was “deeply concerned” by these reports of “large-scale violations.” (Ha, so far, said nothing at all about racist lynchings of the rebels .)
On June 10, Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading an inquiry into the rights of the United Nations on the situation in Libya, suggested that the reporting of Viagra and mass rape was part of a “massive hysteria “.
In fact, both sides of the war have made the same accusations against each other. Bassiouni also told the press of a case of “a woman who claimed to have sent 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse “.
However, his teams asked for those questionnaires, they never will-”was, but she goes around the world telling everybody about it … so now I have that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused, “Bassiouni said.
He also noted that “there appears to be credible that the woman was able to send 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not working “.
Not only we are not all victims, but we have not even met people who have met victims. Regarding boxes Viagra that Gaddafi is supposed to have had distributed, which were found intact near tanks that were burned completely. “
However, this did not stop some news manufacturers from trying to maintain the rape claims, in modified form.
The BBC came to add another layer of only a few days after Bassiouni humiliated the ICC and the media: the BBC now claimed that rape victims in Libya “honor killings” faced. This is news to the fewLibyans I know, who ever heard talk about honor killings in their country.
The academic literature on Libya turns into little or nothing on this phenomenon in Libya. Myth of honor crimes serves a useful purpose for keeping the mass rape claim on life support: it suggests that women no show and witness, for shame. Also just a few days after Bassiouni spoke, Libyan insurgents, in collaboration with CNN, made a last effort to save the rape allegations: a cell phone with a video of the violation it was presented ., claiming that it belonged to a soldier of the government of men appearing in the video are in civilian clothes. No evidence of Viagra. It is no date on the video and we have no idea who recorded it or where. Those with mobile phone stated that many other videos existed, but they were conveniently being destroyed to preserve the “honor” of the victims.
6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Having asserted, wrongly as we saw, that Libya before the impending “genocide” at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces, it became easier for Western powers to invoke 2005 UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect .
Meanwhile, it is not entirely clear at the time that the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 that the violence in Libya had even reached the levels seen in Egypt, Syria and Yemen.
The most common refrain against critics of the selectivity of this supposed “humanitarian interventionism” is that the fact that the West can not intervene everywhere does not mean it should not intervene in Libya.Maybe … but that still does not explain why Libya was the chosen destination. This is a critical point because some of the first reviews of theR2P expressed in the UN raised the issue of selectivity, of who decides and why some crises where civilians are targeted ( eg Gaza) are essentially ignored, while others receive maximum concern, and whether R2P served as the new fig leaf for hegemonic geopolitics.
The myth at work here is that foreign military intervention was guided by humanitarian concerns. For the myth, one has to willfully ignore at least three key realities.
One you have to ignore the new scramble for Africa, where Chinese interests are seen as competing with the West for access to resources and political influence, something thatAFRICOM wants to challenge .
Horace Campbell argued that ” U.S. involvement in the bombing of Libya is becoming a public relations ploy for AFRICOM “and an” opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention “. In addition, Gaddafi’s power and influence on the continent had also been increasing, through aid, investment, and a series of projects designed to reduce Africa’s dependence on the West and to challenge Western institutions multilateral by building African unity it represented a rival U.S. interests.
Thirdly, one has to also ignore the fear in Washington that the U.S. was losing control over the course of the ” Arab revolution “. How can stack up these realities, and match them against ambiguous and partial “humanitarian concerns”, then the conclusion that, yes, human rights is what mattered most, seems entirely implausible and unconvincing- especially with the atrocious record of NATO and the U.S. violations of human rights inAfghanistan, Iraq, and before that Kosovo [Serbia]. The humanitarian perspective is simply neither credible nor even minimally logical.
If R2P is seen as founded on moral hypocrisy and contradiction -now definitively revealed-it will become much more difficult in the future to cry wolf again and expect to get a respectful hearing. This is especially the case since little in the way of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation preceded the military intervention-while Obama is accused by some of having been slow to react, this was if anything a rush to war, in a rate that far surpassed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
We not only know of the African Union about how its efforts to establish a peaceful transition were impeded, but Dennis Kucinich also reveals that received reports that a peaceful solution is at hand, only to be ” scuttled by officials of the Department. “These are absolutely critical violations of the R2P doctrine, showing how those ideals could instead be used for a practice that involved a hasty march to war, and war aimed at regime change ( which is itself a violation of international law ).
That R2P served as a justifying myth that often achieved the opposite of its stated objectives, it is no longer a surprise. I’m talking not even here the role of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in bombing Libya and aiding the insurgents, even as a copy of the Saudi military intervention to crush the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, nor of cast ugly mantle in an intervention led by consumer tastes indisputable human rights who have committed war crimes with impunity in Kosovo[Serbia], Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am taking a narrower approach, such as the documented cases where NATO even not only willfully failed to protect civilians in Libya, but deliberately and consciously attackedin a manner that constitutes terrorism by most definitions officers used by Western governments.
A U.S. Apache helicopter in a repeat of the infamous crimes listed in the Collateral Murder video - gunned down civilians in the central square of Zawiya, killing the brother of the information minister among others. Taking a fairly wide of what constitutes “command and control facilities” concept targeting NATO civilian residential space resulting in the death of some of the members of the Gaddafi family, including three grandchildren .
As if to protect the myth of “protecting civilians” and the unconscionable contradiction of a “war for human rights“, the mainstream media often kept silent about civilian deaths caused by NATO bombings.
R2P has been invisible when it comes to civilians targeted by NATO.
As for the failure to protect civilians, so that’s actually a international crime, have numerous reports of NATO ships ignoring the distress calls of refugee boats in the Mediterranean fleeing Libya.
In fact, NATOWatch, at least 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya have died at sea since the war began. Were mostly sub-Saharan Africans , and they died in multiples of the death toll suffered by Benghazi during the protests. R2P was utterly absent for these people.
NATO has developed a peculiar terminological twist for Libya, designed to absolve the rebels of any role in the commission of crimes against civilians, and abdicating its responsibility to protect call.
Throughout the war, spokespersons for NATO and the governments of the U.S. and Europe always portrayed all actions of the Gaddafi forces as “threatening civilians,” even when in either defensive actions, or combat against armed opponents.
For example, this week the NATO spokesperson, Roland Lavoie , “appeared to struggle to explain how NATO strikes were protecting civilians at this stage in the conflict. Asked about NATO’s assertion that hit 22 armed vehicles near Sirte on Monday, was unable to say how the vehicles were threatening civilians, or whether they were in motion or parked. “
By protecting the rebels, to the same extent that spoke of protecting civilians, it is clear that NATO intended to see Gaddafi’s armed opponents as mere civilians.
Interestingly, in Afghanistan, where NATO and the U.S. fund, train and armed that Karzai regime in attacking “his own people” (as they do in Pakistan), the armed opponents are labeled “terrorists” or “insurgents”-even if most of them are civilians who have never served in an army of official recognition. They are insurgents inAfghanistan, and their deaths at the hands of NATO are listed separately counts of civilian casualties. By magic, in Libya, they are all “civilians”. In response to the announcement of the UN Security Councilvoting for military intervention, a volunteer translator for Western reporters in Tripoli made this key observation : “? Civilians holding guns, and want to protect it is a joke . We are civilians. What about us? “
NATO has been a shield for the insurgents in Libya to victimize unarmed civilians in areas they came to occupy. There was no hint of any “responsibility to protect” in these cases. NATO helped the rebels in the famine of Tripoli of supplies, subjecting its civilian population to a site that deprived those of water, food, medicine and fuel.
When Gaddafi was accused of doing this toMisrata, the international media were quick to cite this as a war crime.
Save Misrata, kill Tripoli -whatever you want to label as “logic” humanitarian is not an acceptable option. Leaving aside the documented crimes by the insurgents against black Libyans and African migrant workers, the insurgents were also found by Human Rights Watch to have engaged in “looting, arson, and abuse of civilians in [four] people recently captured in western Libya. “
In Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, revenge killings have been reported by The New York Times as late as May this year, and by Amnesty International in late June and the judgment of the Board of the National Transitional insurgents. Responsibility to Protect? was now sounds like something deserving wild mockery.
7. Gaddafi, the Devil.
Depending on your perspective, either Gaddafi is a heroic revolutionary, and thus the demonization by the West is extreme, or Gaddafi is a very bad man, in which case the demonization is unnecessary and absurd.
The myth is that the history of power Gaddafi was marked by atrocity, only that he is completely evil,without any redeeming qualities, and anyone accused of being a “follower of Gaddafi” must somehow feel more ashamed than those who openly support NATO.
This is binary absolutism at its worst, virtually any permission made regarding the possibility that some may not support Gaddafi, the insurgents, nor NATO. Everyone was to be forced into one of these fields, no exceptions allowed. The result was a phony debate, dominated by fanatics of either side. lost in the discussion, recognition of the obvious: however much Gaddafi had been “in bed” with the West in the last decade, his forces were now fighting NATO-driven take over of his country.
The other result was the impoverishment of historical consciousness, and the degradation of more complex appreciations of the full breadth of the Gaddafi record. This would help explain why some do not rush to condemn and disown the man (without having to resort to crude caricature children and their motivations).
While even Glenn Greenwald feels the need to properly insert, “No decent human being possibly harboring any sympathy for Gaddafi,” I have known decent human beings in Nicaragua, Trinidad, Dominica, and among the Mohawks in Montreal, I very much appreciate Gaddafi’s support -not to mention his support for various national liberation movements, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
There are many faces, and they are both true. Some refuse to “disown” Gaddafi, to “apologize” for his friendship towards them, no matter how distasteful, indecent, and embarrassing other “progressives” may find him. That has to be respected, instead of this nowfashionable bullying bumps and the gang that reduces a range of positions on a lesser charge: “you support a dictator” . Ironically, we support many dictators, with our own tax money, and they usually offer no apologies for this fact.
Speaking of the breadth of Gaddafi registration, which must resist the simplistic reduction revisionist, some might care to note that even now , the U.S. State Department website in Libya points to a Library of Congress Country Study on Libya that features some of the Gaddafi government many social welfare achievements in recent years in the areas of health care, public housing and the education. In addition, Libyans have the highest literacy rate in Africa (see UNDP, p 171.) And Libya is the only African country to “high” in the Human Development Index of UNDP. Even theBBC recognized these achievements:
” Women in Libya are free to work and to dress as they like, subject to family obligations. Life expectancy is in the seventies. And per capita income-while not as high as could be expected given Libya ‘s oil wealth and relatively small p -offering of 6.5 m is estimated at $ 12,000 (£ 9,000), according to the World Bank. Illiteracy has been almost wiped out because homelessness is a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi erawhere corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centers around the country. “
So if one supports health care, makes a medium compatible with dictatorship?Andif “the dictator” funds public housing and subsidizes incomes, which simply erasing facts from our memory?
8. Freedom Fighters of Angels.
The complement to the demonization of Gaddafi was the angelization of the “rebels” .My goal here is not to counter the myth through investment, and demonizing all of Gaddafi’s opponents, who have many serious and legitimate grievances, and in large numbers have clearly had more than they can bear. I am interested in place as“we” in the North Atlantic part of the equation, the construction of the ways that suit our intervention.
A standard way, repeated in different ways through a range of media and government spokesmen U.S. , can be seen in this New York Times ‘ depiction of the rebels as “secular-minded professionals-lawyers , academics, businesspeople-who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law. “
The list of professions familiar to the American middle class which respects them, is meant to inspire a shared sense of identification between readers and the Libyan opposition, especially when you consider that it is in the hand of Gaddafi, where the forces of darkness dwell: the main “professions” we find are torturer, terrorist, and African mercenary.
For many weeks it was almost impossible to get reporters embedded with the rebel National Transitional Council in Benghazi to begin to provide a description of what constitutes anti-Gaddafi movement, if it was one organization or many groups, what their agendas They were, and so on.
The subtle thread in the reports was that cast the rebellion as entirely spontaneous and indigenous - that may be true in part, and may also be an oversimplification.
Some feel a definite need to be on the side of “good, “especially as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan offer a sense as fair claim. Americans want the world to see them as doing good, it is, not only indispensable, but also irreproachable. You can wish for anything better than being seen as the forgiveness of their sins in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a special moment, where the bad guy can safely be the other once again. A world that is safe for America is a world that is unsafe for evil. Marching Band, cane handles, Anderson Cooper , confetti, we got it.
9. The victory for the Libyan people.
To say that the current turn in Libya represents a victory by the Libyan people in charting their own destiny, at best, an oversimplification that masks the range of interests involved from the beginning in the development and determining the course of events on the ground, and that ignores the fact that much of the war Gaddafi was able to rely on a solid base of popular support.
As early as February 25, just one week after the start of the first street protests, Nicolas Sarkozy had already determined that Gaddafi “must go”. On 28 February, David Cameron, began working on a proposal for a no-fly exclusion of these statements and decisions were made without any attempt at dialogue and diplomacy.
At March 30, The New York Times reported that for “several weeks” CIA operatives had been working inside Libya, which would mean they were there from mid-February, ie, when the protests began-they were joined then inside Libya “dozens of British specialforces officers and intelligence MI6. “
The New York Times also reported in the same article that “several weeks” before (again, in mid-February), President Obama Several “signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to the rebels Libyans“with the support of” other “has a number of possible” covert actions “.
USAID had alreadysent a team to Libya in early March. late March, Obama publicly stated that the goal was to overthrow Gaddafi. In terms awfully suspicious, ” said a senior U.S. administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would evolve‘organically, ‘like those in Tunisia and Egypt, without foreign intervention “sounding as t exactly what kind of statesmen ta makes when something begins in a way that is not “organic” and when comparing events in Libya, marked by a potential legitimacy deficit when compared to those in Tunisia and Egypt.
However, on March 14 the NTCAbdel Hafiz Goga said: “We are able to control all of Libya, but only after the no-fly zone is imposed we”-that is not yet the case even six months later.
In recent days it has also revealed that what the rebel leadership swore, “boots foreign field” oppose is actually a reality confirmed by NATO ” troops of special forces from Britain, France Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gaddafi regime. “
This, and other summaries only scratching the surface of the range of external support provided to the rebels. Myth is that nationalist, self-sufficient rebel, fueled entirely by popular support.
At the moment, war supporters are proclaiming the intervention a “success”. It should be noted that there was another case in which an air campaign, deployed to support local armed militia on the ground, with the help of U.S. covert military operations, also succeeded in deposing another regime, and even much faster. That case was Afghanistan. Success.
10. Defeat of “the left.”
As if reenacting the pattern of articles condemning “the left” that came in the wake of the Iran election protests in 2009 (see as examples Hamid Dabashi and Slavoj Žižek ), the war in Libya once again seemed to have submitted a chance to go to the left, as if this were top on the agenda, as if “the left” was the problem to be addressed.
There seems to be some confusion over roles and identities. There is no homogeneousleft, nor me ideological agreement among anti-imperialists (which includes conservatives and liberals, between anarchists and Marxists).
Nor was the “anti-imperialist left” in any position to make a real or damage on the ground, as in the case of the actual protagonists.
There was little chance that the anti-interventionists in influencing foreign policy, which took shape in Washington, before the serious critiques against intervention were published.
These points indicate that at least some of the reviews are moved by concerns that go beyond Libya, and they even have little to do with Libya ultimately. The most common accusation is that the anti-imperialist left is somehow coddling a dictator.
The argument is that this is based on a flawed analysis-in criticizing the position of Hugo Chávez, Wallerstein says Chávez’s analysis is deeply flawed, and offers this among the criticisms: “The second point missed by Hugo Chavez’s analysis is that there is not going any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya “(yes, read it again). In fact, many of the counterarguments deployed against the anti-interventionist eco left or all the top myths that were dismantled above, that get their breed almost entirely wrong geopolitical analysis, and that pursue politics focused on part on personality and events of the day. This also shows us the deep poverty of the policy assumptions primarily on simplistic and one-sided ideas of “human rights” and “protection”(see Richard Falk’s critique), and the success of the new military humanism in diverting the energies left.
And a question persists: if those opposed to intervention were faulted for providing a moral shield for “dictatorship” (as if imperialism was not itself one global dictatorship), what about those humanitarians who have supported increasing xenophobia and racism militants so many accounts engage in ethnic cleansing?
Does this mean that the pro-interventionist people racist? Even object racism? So far, I have heard only silence from those quarters.
The agenda on the forehead, beating masks anti-imperialist straw man an effort to curb dissent against an unnecessary war that has lasted and expanded human suffering; advanced the cause of war corporatists, transnational companies and neoliberals, destroyed the legitimacy of multilateral institutions that were once openly committed to peace in international relations; violated international law and human rights, witnessed the emergence of racist violence, to the imperial state to justify its continued expansion, violated national laws, and reduces the discourse of humanitarianism to a mere handful of slogans, reactionary impulses, and policy formulas that privilege war as a first option.
Actually, the left is the problem here?
Maximilian Forte is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada Professor. Their website can be found at http://openanthropology.org/ ~ ~ V like his previous articles on Libya and other facets of imperialism.
I believe we all have our reasonable questions whence it concerns the deaths of two prominent Lebanese originated individuals for which we have only bloody vague answers from either NATO led Corporate Axis of Mainstream Media propagandists to shift our stances against those they want us to loathe, or the so-called ‘answers’, one must come to realise, are commencing to yield more questions than answers, if anything at all. One must thenceforth come to the realisation that if we wish to find the truth, or theorise to at least approach close enough to the truth, we must search deeper, more deeply than we ever tended to do in the past.
Hitherto, whom do I believe murdered Rafik Hariri? Whom do I believe murdered Mousa Sadr? For one, the latter’s death being caused by Abu Nadl was disproved in numerous cases, however the plausible conceptualisation that Mossad may have been behind it, in collusion with these ‘former Qadhafi era officials’ that proudly ‘defected’ to join the new NATO controlled ‘National Transitional Council’ régime now controlling Libya;has materialised even more to me. Whilst for the other, it has become a ritualised ceremony to incessantly blame Syria for the death of Hariri, only to have a DGSE from my country decide to act upon his conscience to expose the truth on Russian television to prevent the NATO deep state infrastructure from following him.
However, why would Syria kill someone that worked closely alongside them? Why would Qadhafi harm someone that has close connections with Iran, his most powerful regional ally, his Comrades in Arms of the Résistance against the NATO neo-colonisation world order mobsters? These questions have no answer, because it’s obvious. There is NO bloody way in hell that these scenarios could even be plausible, whilst the deaths are likely to be part of a much more sinister plot designed to undermine the Middle Eastern resistance whilst splitting it along sectarian lines. Furthermore, as Patrick Seale from the Guardian (whence it used to be there to report nothing more than some sincere news) once pointed out,
“Israel’s ambition has long been to weaken Syria, sever its strategic alliance with Iran and destroy Hezbollah. Israel has great experience at “targeted assassinations” - not only in the Palestinian territories however across the Middle East. Over the years, it has sent hit teams to kill opponents in Beirut, Tunis, Malta, Amman in addition Damascus.Syria, Hezbollah and Iran have stood up against US as well as Israeli hegemony over the region. Syria continues to demand that Israel return the Golan Heights, seized in 1967.Damascus will not allow Lebanon to conclude a separate peace with Israel unless its own claim is also addressed.”
Hence, if we take this point into consideration, as one example, Syria could not possibly be behind the death of someone that worked closely with Dimashq to keep Lebanon from making a separate via Israel, it’s the Premier that kept Lebanon completely aligned to Syria. Its therewith not only outrageous to claim Syria or even Hezbollah could ever be behind the death of Rafik Hariri, it is more likely either Phalangists as Seale points out, or even more bloody likelier, the operatives of Mossad whom seek to obliterate as well as divide the Resistance against NATO-Israel-Gulf Middle Eastern domination. Another important thing to remember is that Syria‘s largest reasonsfor being in Lebanon to commence with were to help Palestinian groups there, help Lebanese resistance groups such as Hezbollah, the Lebanese Communist Party, Amal, the Nasserist Organisations, against the Zionist entity Israel‘s government, corporate diasporas as well as its Deep State/Military-Industrialised-Complex.
Furthermore, it should be knownst that the moment Syria withdrew from Lebanon, meant the commencement of Israel‘s Zionist régime taking advantage of the situation to initiate numerous transgressions into Lebanon, especially incursions as well as invasions into South Lebanon whilst in addition to countless violations of Lebanese aerospace,something which Michel Sleiman has done nothing to ‘condemn‘, thenceforth further exposing to us his role as a puppet to Zionism, Capitalist-Imperialism in addition to Gulf Monarchism. It hitherto must affirmed that Israel wanted Syria out with all means necessary moreover only a fool could not see this truth. Whilst of course, quite naturally, whence-ever the truth comes close to being unravelled, the rubbish spouting neo-colonisation liars, they will find another way to white wash their crimes, to subdue the truth. Id est, in this case, the post-Syria Lebanon, now commanded by a government whose President, Michel Sleiman, is a flagrant puppet to the neo-colonialist hegemons, attempts to indict several members of Hezbollah for the Hariri death case, whilst Sleiman, Israhell, the Gulf régimes, Western Europe as well as Northern America both attempt to have Hezbollah labelled as a ‘terrorist organisation’.
Hezbollah rightfully counters this whence Comrade Imam Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, in an interview, re-affirmed the suspicions of what any aware, educated, geo-political TRUTH seeker individual might have thought. It’s quite so to the point. Indeed, Mossad, is quite the organisation of State Sponsored Terrorism, just as the CIA, the DGSE, MI6, MI5, or the Pakistani ISI could have ever been. All of whom are organisations that top the list in acts of subversive terror against nations across the globe, including false flags on themselveson themselves, such as the Boston Bombings, for the bloody matter, as an exempli gratia. Nonetheless, as one must recognise, these are not the mere sources of people commencing to awaken to these truths. We have one, two, three, four,five, moreover also six sources perfectly credible with what brings forth to be beheld before the world into materialisation, some truth on this matter.
Whence one sees the omnipotent capabilities of Western as well as Israeli intelligence services to infiltrating other countries to foment destabilisation or manufacture fabricated evidence, one could understandably see that this makes sense: Syria, Hezbollah, as well as Iran are completely utterly bloody innocent.None of them are responsible for the death of Rafik Hariri. Our NATO led coalition of Neo-Colonisation Dystopian World Order mobsters as well as their intelligence services are the ones responsible for his death.Furthermore, I may have addressed in due honour the case of Rafik Hariri in this article. However, we must hitherto proceed towards debunking another case.Whom is truly responsible for Imam Mousa Sadr’s ‘disappearance’ in 1978, as well as his alleged death? Moreover what are the controversies surrounding it?
Let me first commence with this. The official ‘defected’ ‘affidavit-sworn’ Libyan officials’ ‘testimony’, in addition to the extant supposed ‘evidence’ pertaining to the actus reus Comrade Qadhafi is supposedly accused of is, as I would put for the Hariri case, contradiction in adjective in itself in all aspects. There are numerous reasons for this. The ratio scripta which Qadhafi’s accusers use to justify their accusations, as well as the so-called modus operandi behind it, is that he had an ‘argument concerning theological matters’with Mousa Sadr, moreover in the ‘heat of the anger in this debate ordered his entourage to have Sadr arrested as well as killed’. This in itself does not make sense. Firstly,Qadhafi is not a sectarian leader, nor was he ever. If this were true, he would have brutalised his Shi’ite minority.Secondly, Qadhafi is allied with Iran’s Shi’ite ruled as well as Shi’ite majority country, whilst is one of the few Sunnah leaders of a Sunnah majority country ever to have done so (I apologise for using sectarian terms, however despite me loathing this bloody much, the context requires me to do so) in contemporary Middle Eastern history besides Algeria, Yemen at one time, Hamas (before it shifted to becoming a complete Qatari-Israeli puppet), Mauritania, Sudan, in addition to Western Sahara’s Polisario Front as well as the Palestinian PFLP.
Thirdly, this fact, combined with the additional fact of which some Libyan ‘defected’ traitorous officials, as with the case we now see in Syria, had some previously secretive connections as well as relations with Western as well as Israeli in addition to Gulf régimes intelligence services in which they colluded to overthrow Qadhafi, fabricateevidence amongstother things to discredit him whilst mobilise an entirely elaborate, exquisite, eloquent, over-the-top potent psyop (psychological operation) against the Libyan Jamahiriya to fomentinternal conflict as wellas to utilise tribalism interests to turncertain ethnic groups of Libya against thegreat Jamahiriya. Furthermore, the prison massacre of Abu Salim prisoners supposedly ‘political dissidents’ turned out to be al-CIA-da operatives of the LIFG as well as al-Qaeda, which, whilst the West in its publicised face (for public relations purposes)sanctioned as a set of “terrorist organisations” in addition to “sanctioning” them, whence in truth the West openly secretly gave these groups the arms they needed to perpetrate their terror.
Fourthly, it is quite so imperative to realise something else: the terrorist assaults allegedly committed by Qadhafi were furthermore in their own false flag operations waged by our own secret intelligence services in the West as well as those in Israel.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(all posts in this forum page, or most – 6)(7)(8)(9) Moreover, it must be recognised that Qadhafi may be a wonderful radicalised, revolutionary, benevolent, cunning, calculating, defiant anti-colonialist, as well as resilient Resistance leader against the neo-colonisation global mafia—all to me being exquisitely perfect qualities—however he is NO brutalising ‘régime leader’, he is NO ‘dictator’, nor is he a ‘murderer of his own people’as our deliberately hypocritical double-standardised oxymoronic Western, Israeli, Gulf, Ikhwan, South Korean, Taiwanese (remember the KMT’s past White Terrors), Jordanian politicians, in addition to their corporate diaspora as well as military-industrialised-complex deep state sponsors; moreover also the countless other puppet régimes as well as organisations working for them worldwide; would have us believeQadhafi is.
Indeed, how could the Yankee régime, (whose mass murders of 76 million indigenous peoples, deaths of 1,5 million Filipinos during their régime’s colonisation process, deaths of over 3-8 million Indo-Chinese (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, ethnic Chinese) inhabitants of the region, deaths of 1-3 (if not tens of millions) of Indonesians under Suharto (whom the Yanks, the Dutch, the British helped remain in power for ‘Anti-Communist’ purposes), deaths of 1 million Somalis, deaths of 1,5 million Palestinians at the hand of their Zionist ally Israel, deaths of 1-4 million Iraqi civilians from Saddam’s demise to now, deaths of tens of millions by the White Terrors of Chiang Kai Shek as well as the last Tsar of the Russian Empire (both given tonnes of help by the Yanks as well as their ‘allies’, all of whom even invaded the USSR to help the Tsarist régime commit even more atrocities against its lower class populations across the lands, moreover, in forgotten history, Poland-Lithuania’s sacking of Moscow, the Georgian-Cossack led invasions of the USSR; amongst other things that eventually forced Lenin to maintain the Russian Empire’s borders to prevent a repetition of those events)…
… The deaths of 4 million Korean civilians (1,5 million South Koreans murdered by Rhee Sygman as well as Yankee forces; in addition to the 2,5 million North Koreans bombed, massacred on the ground, bio-chemical victimised, violated, pillaged, plundered, gased, napalmed, strategically over-the-top carpet bombed (18 of 22 cities pulverised to the ground) by Yankee, South Korean, as well as other ‘UN’ troops whom committed these punitive atrocities against the Korean people); the deaths of 1-3 million Afghans in the al-CIA-da quagmire that NATO unleashed upon Afghanistan in addition to the initial al-CIA-da terrorist attacks on the Soviet border that NATO white washed from history (which killed hundreds of Soviet border inhabitants) which penultimately was the true reason for the Soviet landing into Afghanistan; the Pol Pot false-’Communist’ government sponsored especially by Thatcher as well as the Yankees whose purpose was to plunder Cambodia so well that it would be a psyops stunt to discredit Communism before world eyes; the dirty wars of right-wing fascistic NATO sponsored régimes murdering a total of hundreds of thousands of people throughout Latin America; whilst up to 4 million deaths (including 220 000 deaths in the civil war mostly fomented by the CIA’s death squads)that continued in Guatemala; the 500 000 Angolans brutalised by Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA forces that NATO sponsored against the Communist-aligned government of Angola; amongst tonnes of other crimes NATO’s Western members have fomented, including the Taiping Crisis before NATO was ever formed; where Christian extremistsas well as ensuing chaos that Western governments (especially Yanks, Britain, France) fomented caused 100 million Chinese deaths overall (disproportionately civilians));or the rest of NATO as well as the international puppets of mass murder as well as death could even dare to make us believe that they are knights in shining ‘humanitarian’ armour that believe that they are in the ‘moral right’ whilst Qadhafi, is in the ‘moral wrong’, whence in fact it is quite the opposite?
Furthermore, knowing Qadhafi’s personality pretty well from my research, how could he be responsible for all that he supposedly alleged of being responsible for? As for Mousa Sadr, numerous controversies surround his whereabouts. For the most part, some claim he was killed by Qadhafi himself, others claim he ordered his security forces to first arrest him thence execute him later, others yet claim he was murdered by Abu Nidal at Qadhafi’s nod, others yet (especially his family, by far the sole bloody credible source we could have that is concrete) claim he is still alive in Libya or somewhere else whilst sightings of his existence have been reported; others yet claim he left Libya in 1978 on a flight to Italy, others yet claim even more bloody outrageous madness. Several things are certain however.
One must come to the realisation that Lebanon’s Sleiman headed coalition government has shown a majority of un-interest in pursuing the case(whilst others rightfully claim they (Sleiman administration) were pressured into not pursuing it until the right time to do so came,id est the time for the West to neo-colonise Libya as well as foment anti-Hezbollah, anti-Syria, anti-Iran sentiments). Indeed, only Hezbollah, the LCP, the Amal movement ever decided to conduct smaller independent investigations. Moreover, some allege that Imam Sadr had connections with the SAVAK as well as Israel’s Mossad;others (the NTC régime of mass murderers, evidence-against-Qadhafi-manufacturers, as well as flagrant PROVEN liars NATO helped bring to power in 2011) claim that Sadr was detained in Abu Salim as well as ’23 000 other individuals that ‘disappeared’ across Libya’, moreover some even allege to have ‘found the body of Sadr’ after the Battle of Tripoli, whilst this lie was long disproved, as well as the aforementioned Abu Salim allegations.
All completely utterly, bloody fabricated rubbish by those whom wanted to neo-colonise Libya with the inside help of traitorous Qadhafi era officials that would proudly betray him for a wealthy reward from the West (its even the case for most ‘high ranking Syrian officials’ that did not have old prior contacts with the West that admitted they were bribed to ‘defect’ to the FSA rats). In addition, according to this pro-West mouthpiece mainstream media in Lebanon called ‘Naharnet’, the passports of Sadr as well as his companions were found in a hotel in Rome in 2004, furthermore raising questions on the entire matter. Kuwait’s régime, puppeted by Capitalist-Imperialist NATO as well as Zionist Israel, attempted to shift the blame from Qadhafi to saying that the Palestinians were responsible, whilst later one saying that Qadhafi ordered the Palestinians to do it? With all these contradicting reportson Imam Sadr’s death, one could only be mind boggled whilst utter in complete, utter bewilderment, Dafuq? Indeed so Comrades, this is the conflagration of rubbish, contradictions, lies, white washing that mainstream media aligned to NATO across the world have been spouting surrounding Mousa Sadr’s death, alive, detained, etcetera status.
Nonetheless, all of this propaganda as well as contradicting asides, whom stands to bloody benefit from this dishonourable spacegoating (scapegoating, I apologise for deliberately twisting the word for laughs) Qadhafi on some days, Palestinians on others, or even Iran or Syria by mind f*cked ‘Safavidist conspiracy’ theorists NATO has worked extremely hard to organise? Do we not see that this death could have been an inside task from the very people that bloody ‘defected’ from Qadhafi’s government to the NTC rats? Could it be that Senussi as well as others had secretive ties with NATO, just as Rifaat Al-Assad, Mustafa Tlass in Syria had secret ties with NATO as well as Israel against the Syrian revolutionary Résistance government to create manners with which to discredit them?
Furthermore, considering Mossad has such impeccable country-penetrating infiltration methods, is it possible that they succeeded in getting into Libya with perfect timing, plotting to kill Mousa Sadr once he leftQadhafi, eliminating him before he ever left the country, whilst commence the white washing, spacegoating tirade against Libya amongst others blamed for Sadr’s death? Yes, I promised I would answer the questions of both murder cases, moreover whilst I answered one, the other is even more eccentric, queer, enigmatic, eloquently mysterious than I thought, except… after spending some additional time researching even as I wrote this article, I found answers that I did not find in the weeks I spent secretly conducting my investigations. Its quite inherent that those responsible forMousa Sadr’s death would only be people willing to benefit from even sectarianisation of the Middle East for their vile neo-colonisation, avaricious, sadistic agendas. Whom else, other than Israhell, the Gulf monarchs, the Jordanian King, the NATO régimes; the Pakistani ISI, as well as South Korea, all of whom have their vested interests in fomenting a division of the Middle East?
It is not a coincidence that the 1982 Lebanon War commenced at least four years after this episode in history? Whilst furthermore Sadr was a uniting voice in Lebanon, as well as an advocate for respect as well as harmony between the country’s multiple religious sects. It has been said that had he lived, Lebanon would have avoided the bloodiest parts of its Civil War (1975-1990). Even today, the mention of Sadr provokes a strong reaction among Lebanese. In the measure passed by the Capitalist-Imperialist, Zionist, Gulf Monarchs controlled United Nations Security Council regarding Libya,Lebanon was one of the few Arab countries that supported Western intervention. This is still a raw wound for many in Lebanon.As well as it is perhaps coinciding with the aforementioned of what I said.
Is it possible that NATO,willing to restore the old Idris era Libyan puppet régime to power, or something of sorts, has arranged for the death of Mousa Sadr via infiltrators in Libya a while after his meet with Comrade Qadhafi; in order to use this death at a later time to convince Lebanon to join the intervention in Libya, whilst support it at its fullest. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this Sadr case file would be used, as well as bloody dishonourable intensive pressure against Iran by Western, Israeli leaders; combined with omnipotent sectarian threats coming from the NTC rats as well as the Gulf monarchs, forced Iran to switch its support from Comrade Qadhafi to the NTC rats. Iran was under tonnes of pressure during 2011 to end its support for the Green Résistance, for Green Libya, for the Glorious Jamahiriya by the Neo-Colonisation Axis of Mobsters.
Iran, surrounded by these intensive threats as well as pressures, yielded to pressure whilst its media as well as government turned on Qadhafi. Nevertheless, Iran is innocent, moreover this little factor here is being used by numerous persons wanting to turn pro-Qadhafis against Iran to support a neo-colonialist invasion there;completely utterly attempting to white wash the fact of which a NATO led pressuring against Iran had been organised prior. Thenceforth, whom was responsible for Mousa Sadr’s death? Whom was to benefit from his death? NATO, Israel, Sleiman, the Gulf Monarchs, as well as the ‘National Transitional Council’ contra death squads were the ones to penultimately benefit from this. For one, Shimon Peres, as well as other Zionist leaders, as I have read from numerous articles in addition to Israeli government documents, have been known to fear Comrade Imam Mousa Sadr due to his charisma as well as his potential capabilities in being a unifying leader for Lebanese, for Arabs at large, for Palestinian Resistance organisations as well as for perhaps even worse, the potential to Reunite Islam completely.
This the Zionists do so bloody fear. Whilst, another fact which must be noted concerning Comrade Qadhafi, is that he supported the 1979 Iranian Revolution whilst even went onwards to mobilising his country to support Iran against Saddam‘s NATO, Israel, Gulf monarchs directed invasion of Iran. It must be furthermore remembered that during Qadhafi‘s time, most abductions turned out to be committed by Libyan based al-CIA-da destabilisation, Balkanisation, takfiri NATO backed death squad, far right, contra mercenaries whilst so-called ‘executions‘ eithernever even occurred, or, for those that did, were organised by traitorous Libya officialswith previously secretive relations with the neo-colonisers, id est the same officials that would ‘defect‘ later on whilst NATO led corporate mainstream mediaas well as these vile traitors would white wash the truth of Mousa Sadr amongst other cases whilst spacegoat all the blame upon the innocent glorious Comrade Qadhafi.
In addition to this, NATO led psyops materialising as well as manufacturing false evidence against the Jamahiriya to discredit the Qadhafi utopia for the justification of a neo-colonising invasion of Libya continued even after the war ended in 2011. Why would Qadhafi have Sadr killed? They had much in common. They both professed Islam and socialism, they were natural allies. Whilst it must be remembered, that besides the government officials colluding against Qadhafi alongside NATO (to which Qadhafi had reacted only with apathy as well as silence, fully confident that none of these things could occur in his country) with the help of a ruthless Anglo-American known as Edward Wilson whom was hired to help train these elements of the security apparatus that would in the future be utilised to discredit as wellas spacegoat Qadhafi whilst furthermore white washing everything else (or so they bloody thought).
It must furthermore be noted that the ‘Arab Spring‘ spreading into Algeria, Libya as well as Syria were part of a profound Operation of destabilisation fomented by the CIA, MI5, MI6, our DGSE, Mossad, Turkey‘s MÌT, Pakistan‘s ISI, as well as Saudi Arabia‘s GIP, the Ikhwan ruled Mukhabarat, in addition to Qatar‘s State Security (QSS). I thenceforward finalised my investigation here. Who is responsible for Rafik Hariri, Imam Mousa Sadr, as well as Yaccoub‘s deaths? The same neo-colonialists now shredding Syria apart whilst attempting to get to Iran next. In conclusion, we must be careful not to allow the neo-colonisation mobsters to split the Middle East either along sectarian or ethnic lines or, make the worldbuy the rubbish that NATO led mainstream media spouts concerning certain leaders to procure public opinion in favour of their transgressive wars.
Lastly, I believe the Middle East needs a new Imam Mousa Sadr, one that the West led neo-colonialists bloody fear, as well as a charismatic, compromising figure that could help reunite Sunnis, Shi’its, Alawis, Maronite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Jews, etcetera together to form a powerful Résistance front against the NATO led neo-colonisation mobsters to finally help achieve peace in this messed up world. As for the truth concerning Mousa Sadr as well as Rafik Hariri, the truth is bloody simple: the alleged people responsible are not responsible, their deaths were arranged by NATO led neo-colonisation mobsters as well as their vile Axis of morbid intelligence service conceptualisations, the same intelligence services that have been responsible for tonnes of Cold Waras well as even omnipresent transgressions world wide, including as an infamous example, attempting to assassinate Comrade Fidel Castro over-the-top, precisely 638 times.
It is our duty to find the individual persons responsible within the neo-colonialist intelligence services, as well as government officials responsible, whilst take them to justice whence-ever a conclusive, finalised, sweeping close to these case files occur. We have a generalised idea of those responsible, now its a matter of finding the individual persons indeed it is. Moreover perhaps, only perhaps, once I revolutionise my country France, as well as do so for Japan, I shall open such an investigation, including into our own country’s DGSE, to hold the individuals accountable for this mess guilty as well as have them brought to the just wrath of international, non-NATO ‘international community’, REAL ‘International Community’, justice.
Internet Sources concerning Qadhafi being innocent on numerous things; sources concerning Mousa Sadr, as well as some of the remaining sources on NATO led Pressure on Iran concerning Libya:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18 – Iran being pro-Qadhafi in early March 2011) (19 - Iran provides secret support to Comrade; however do note that the ‘nuclear reasons’ for it as this article cites are nothing more than NATO rubbish) (20 - An Iranian article of truth fully support Comrade Qadhafi’s Resistance) (21 - Al Arabiya article being one of the last few articles of anti-Iran NATO led mainstream media online that were not deleted nor white washed that bring perspective that Iran was a secretly staunch allyof Qadhafi until his death; whilst the large majority of other contents in said article on other matters fomenting anti-Iran, anti-Qadhafi statements are rubbish) – add more later
Other reads: (1 - Telegraph propaganda article back in 2004 that was intended as a #BlameIran conceptualisation in addition to an anti-Libya article in an attempt to divide both allies using psyops)
Other interesting reads pertaining for NATO fomenting sectarianism as well as scientific assassinations: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
As a new era in history has begun to dawn on humanity, new doors are being opened in both opportunities and also in the realms of potential threats and conflagrations. This reality has been noted most clearly in the developing affairs of Africa, a continent that is on the verge of transformation through both technology and evolving international interactions. In the face of potential progress driven by Africa’s lucrative natural resources and economic potential, an ominous threat looms above Africa, the threat of the neo-imperialist, globalist agenda which has scarred the face of humanity with its continual drive of global hegemony. This “globalist agenda” is a militarized corporatism in a neo-imperialist systemoperating from all sides of the western political spectrum and representing the corporate elite of Wall Street and London; no clearer was the nefarious nature of these interests shown than in the subversion of Libya two years ago in 2011.
Before delving into the demise of Libya, it is necessary to understand neo-imperialisms’ ambitions for Africa; its goal is the subjection of Africa into its orbit in order to serve as a critical lynchpin in the establishment of a unipolar world order (including ousting potential Chinese competition). The unipolar world order is the creating of a single center of global economic, political, and military power coupled with the control of international trade and the distribution of resources as is admittedly the agenda noted by Dr. Carroll Quigley in his “Tragedy and Hope” among various other publications from western corporate-financier think tanks ranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Brookings Institute. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also spoken of hegemonic ambitions on the part of the west to establish a unipolar order at a 2007 Munich conference.
As Libya again takes prominence again in the media with the increasing unrest even provoking a mobilization of U.S. Marines from Spain to Italy, across from Libya, hinting a potential military involvement in the already decimated state, it is important to review the foundational history of the current Libyan dilemma before the “disinfo” echo chamber of the mainstream media begins a new full-throttle propaganda blitz.The increasing urgency for this review is news headlines even alleging a“new war” in Libya because of militia rivalries.
Libya has recently been ravished by increasing internal strife and ethno-tribal divisions that was the continuation of NATO’s systematic destruction of the nation-state in 2011. In Dr. Webster Tarpley’s “Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen”, it was explained that four primary factors contributed to the Libyan “revolution” in 2011 with the primary one being racist and monarchist elements among the eastern Libyan Harabi and Obeidat tribes found in the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor who had historically resented Gaddafi for toppling the western-backed King Idris which hailed from that region.This would explain why many of the protestors in eastern Libya were photographedcarrying pictures of King Idris. That is not to say that all participants in the opposition were negative elements but it cannot be denied that negative elements had been pervasive as pawns of the western subversion and even culminated in the wide presence of Al Qaeda flags in Benghazi, even atop the Benghazi courthouse, reflecting the prominent role of radical Islamist militias that will be discussed below. It is not to be forgotten that insurrectionary activity is not new in this region as Gaddafi had witnessed continuous waves of strife and militarized opposition, often propped up by the west for geopolitical purposes, and this was reflected during an Islamist insurgency in the 1990s, often with racial overtones. Tony Cartalucci in “Libya at Any Cost” documented the censored history of unrest in Libya driven by western interests:
2003: Upon Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD programs, Libya’s collaboration with MI6 & the CIAto identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group. Ironically this information would give Western nations an entire army to rebuild and turn against Qaddafi in 2011.
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO’s Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiatedaccusations Qaddafi is strafing “unarmed protesters” with warplanes.
2011: Late April; Documented evidence is revealed that Libya’s rebels are conducting a barbaric campaign, employing extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate military force, child-soldiers, landmines, and torture. New York Times blames a lack of support.
This tribally-based resentment that categorized much of the violence in 2011 contributed to racially-driven atrocities committed against Libyan blacks that make up a third of the Libyan population and inhabit the western regions including the Fezzan tribes of the Libyan southwest. Dr. Webster Tarpley also documented the prominent role of Al Qaeda mercenaries in the Libyan conflict whose nest in eastern Libya had been a world-leading nurturing ground for extremism according to the US Military Academy at West Point’s “Combating Terrorism Center” (CTC) 2007 reports on foreign fighters in Iraq. The key rebel city of Darna, for example, was commandeered by a rebel terrorist triumviratefeaturing Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, formerly of the Al Qaeda-tied “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” (LIFG), who fought against NATO forces in Afghanistan. At his side were Sufian bin-Kumu, Osama bin Laden’s former chauffeur and an inmate at Guantánamo Bay for six years, as well as al-Barrani who is also a devoted member of LIFG.
Tarpley does an excellent job in demonstrating how such figures were not atypical but were the norm in a region that was the world’s “terrorist capital” according to the CTC. It is also disturbing to note the desperate attempts at damage control by the CTC in the wake of NATO’s disastrous intervention where previously documented facts were purposefully obscured and spun to cover NATO’s illegitimacy. Tarpley also documented the role of western assets such as the Libyan National Salvation Front as well as the French-assisted defection of top-Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari in 2010 who would later collaborate with the west in fomenting military mutinies against Gaddafi in northeast Libya.
Being the only African nation to rank as “high” on the Human Development Index and boasting a highly developed infrastructure, Libya under Gaddafi has become the globalists’ geopolitical gateway into Africa. To the detriment of all free humanity, this gateway has been trampled down by the illegal NATO war on Libya which revolved around verified propaganda regarding Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi’s alleged atrocities, a misrepresentation of the Libyan rebels, and a complete media blackout regarding geopolitical forces at play. These claims would culminate in international myths spun around Gaddafi who was claimed to be bombing his people, hiring African mercenaries, and staging mass rapes to terrorize opposition as the official dogmas justifying NATO’s aggression.
Integral to the narrative justifying NATO’s intervention revolved around painting Gaddafi as a brutal tyranny launching a bloody crackdown against a “peaceful” movement with a host other atrocities ranging from hiring African mercenaries, using the air force against protestors, staging mass rapes, and threatening “genocide” against Benghazi. The NATO narrative of the revolution being the noble Libyan masses rising up against Gaddafi and his mercenaries was painted most clearly in the early March 14, 2011 Reuters article titled, “Libyan jets bomb rebels, France pushes for no-fly zone.” In this typical mainstream media report, rhetorical justification is given for the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine in sanctioning a no-fly zone in Libya based on the tired narrative of Gaddafi using air power to brutally suppress what is seen as an indigenous uprising, seeming to be heading down the pathos becoming a “tragedy for Libya.” A warning for an upcoming bloodbath against Gaddafi was sounded. Interestingly, even the “Independent” would later publish an article debunkingthis, pointing out the unreliability and factually-depraved basis for this propaganda among other accusations levied against Gaddafi. This baseless propaganda, already having poisoned western perception of what happened in Libya, would later be supplemented with reports involving the role of alleged mercenaries and mass rapes to whip up justification for intervention.
In reality, such a narrative was factually bankrupt as masterfully documented by Maximillain Forte in his “Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya” which directly nails the illegitimacy of the NATO campaign. While Gaddafi is certainly no saint and while many groups did have legitimate grievances against him, he nonetheless had a solid support base in Libyawhile the rebels were overall lacking legitimacy and were being driven by Islamist radicals, exiled politicians with globalist ties, and decades of ethnically-based tension. Gaddafi had invested heavily into the infrastructure and the social structure of his country, bringing the country to nearly eradicating illiteracy and also combating homelessness which had previously been a constant problem.Women rights were also championed as women in Libya were allowed to study and work where they desired as even BBC noted.
While Gaddafi had invested in infrastructure, the globalists sought to offset this by asserting their presence in Libya through both the destruction of its infrastructure and seeking to bring Libya into their economic orbit. There was a concerted effort to undermineGaddafi’s agenda of building a united, strong, and self-sufficient African community and strengthening African multilateral institutions. Furthermore, Libya provided a gateway into Africa for the Pentagon’s “AFRICOM” to undermine and oust Chinese economic interests on the African continent which were a major challenge for western corporate interests’ access to resources and economic hegemony. Another key point was Gaddafi’s goal of creating a single, gold-based, African currency called the “gold dinar”with which he planned to trade African oil for. This would have conflicted directly with western corporate and banking interests and their international fiat monetary system upon which the IMF and their “casino economy” is built. Countries’ purchasing power would be determined by the amount of goldthey had as opposed to fiat paper currency that made no substantial backing.
Regarding the specific claims of Gaddafi’s atrocities as parroted by the mainstream media, Forte gives many insights that help dismantle the mythsbehind the “humanitarian” war. For example, the claims of air strikes by Gaddafi are noted to have been a fabrication peddled by the BBC and Al Jazeera. The claims were completely unfounded and based on fake claims. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen would admit during a Pentagon press conference that they had seen no confirmation of such reports. David Kirpatrick of the New York Times would be cited by Forte as admitting that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistentbattlefield victories…and making vastly inflated claims about his [Gaddafi’s] behavior”.
The claims of African mercenaries, integral to portraying Gaddafi as being on one side against Libya as a whole, were perhaps the most atrocious and racist of the myths, sprung from the rebels’ own tribal animosities towardsindigenous Africans in Libya and migrant African workers that were common throughout the country. Human Rights Watch would claim that it found no evidence at all of African mercenaries in eastern Libyawhere the rebellion and fighting were centered and even noted that Gaddafi had attempted to end discrimination against these people, contradicting, as Forte noted, the rabid claims made throughout the mainstream press including Time Magazine, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The Los Angeles Times also found no evidence of such mercenarieswith the New York Times even pointing out the “racist overtones” involved in the conflict and the disinformation they helped spread. Amnesty International would later confirm that “mercenaries” put on display by the rebels had been undocumented African migrant workers and notedthings like rampant discrimination and disproportionate detention of black Libyans in Az-Zawiya. Mainstream media and Al Jazeera would attempt to cover its crimes by pointing out, though briefly, the reality that Africans in Libya were being subjected to lootings, abduction, and killing by the rebels. All of this, of course, in light of the fact that Africans were an integral part of Libyan society, making up 33% of the population. A severe crime never to be forgotten is the ethnic cleansing of the beautiful black Libyan town of Tawargha, previously inhabited by 35,000 people, expelled by racist militants calling themselves, “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”Another crime was the systemic slaughter of blacks in western Libya by the eastern rebels advancing on Tripoli (see here as well).
Another hysteria peddled by the media revolved around Gaddafi’s alleged planning of mass rapes, often blamed on nonexistent “mercenaries, which was then used by the media to help garner sympathy to the rebels. The source for these claims, also adequately exposedby Forte, began with Al Jazeera, a propaganda outlet for the Wall Street-London backed Qatari regime,claiming that Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops and ordered them to use rape against those who opposed him. These claims were then redistributed throughout the media and found their way to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo would later fraudulently claim that Gaddafi had ordered the rape of hundreds of women and that Gaddafi had personally ordered Viagra to be distributed. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton would also make these allegations (see Forte’s article).
In reality, a UN rights inquiry in Libya headed by Cherif Bassiouni would find these claims a baseless “mass hysteria.” Bassiouni told of a woman to “claimed to have sent out over 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse.” Bassiouni would ask to see these questionnaires, but never receive them, casting doubt on the narrative. It was pointed out that it seems improbable that 70,000 questionnaires were sent out in March considering the fact that the postal service wasn’t working. Bassiouni whose team would uncover only 4 cases of sexual abuse in their study. The boxes of Viagra that Gaddafi supposedly distributed were found fully intact right next to burnt-out tanks, indicating staged propaganda (Forte). Further confirming this is Amnesty International and who further shamed the imperialist establishment and thoroughly shattered this lie. According to the “Independent”, “Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising, says that “we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped”.
The most disingenuous claim peddled by the media to justify the Libyan war was the “save Benghazi” crusade. While it is true that Gaddafi had employed “overblown” rhetoric threatening to fight from house to house and “squash the cockroaches”, the media emphasizing these claims admits the radical-extremists nature of the hordes fighting among the rebels. The same media would also disregard Gaddafi’s “overblown” rhetoric when it was convenient to do so but attached to the Benghazi narrative as it seemingly gave justification for NATO to intervene. There is no evidence that Gaddafi had genocide planned as he only made the charges to the armed groups causing upheaval in the east of the countryand even offered them amnesty and an open passage into Egypt across the border to avoid bloodshed. Professor Alan J. Kupermanexposed the propaganda talking-points of this argument, citing as evidence for the fact that Gaddafi had no genocide planned the reality that he did not perpetuate it in areas that he had captured fully or partially from the rebels including Zawiya, Mistrata, and Ajdabiya.
The very actions of NATO itself would discredit the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine employed to justify NATO’s intervention as NATO would be directly responsible for the deaths of countless civilians.NATO would gun downcivilians in the central square of Zawiya and “taking a fairly liberal definition of command and control” facilities by targeting a residential district, killing some of Gaddafi’s family members and three of his grandchildren. NATO was also responsible for targeting Libya’s state television, killing three civilian journalistsand earning condemnation by international journalist federations (see Forte’s article).
NATO oversaw the death of 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya by sea, mostly sub-Saharan Africans, the same people who were baselessly demonized as mercenaries. NATO would ignore their distress calls even though refugees would make contact with vessels belongingto NATO members. NATO also would launch numerous unjustifiable strikes against Libya furthering the damage toll. Above all, NATO was giving cover to rebels who were perpetuating verifiable genocide against cities, such as Sirte,with NATO backing and airstrikesto order, cutting off electricity, food, and water and using bombardment against civilians. Under this blueprint of destruction, scores of people would die in multiples of what was happening initially in Benghazi against armed rebel gangs which Gaddafi was fighting making a mockery out of the pre-text used to justify their globalist, faux-humanitarian war in the first place (Forte).
NATO and the globalist war on Libya was one bankrupt of any moral grounding or political justification. It was a war born of compromised interests that sought not the liberation of an oppressed people but rather the pillages of Libya which would later serve as a gateway into the heart of Africa. While the globalists attempt to sell their wars as moral and for the betterment of the world, they are at heart driven only by a desire to spread hegemony and consolidate control, with the ultimate goal being global hegemony. Any attempt to invoke a moral cover should be shunned in light of the barrage of fake atrocities attributed to Gaddafi and complementing crimes by NATO,best captured in the lies regarding Gaddafi massacring his people, hiring mercenaries, and staging mass rapes among other echo chamber distortions. Only when we tear down the media’s curtain of deception can we better understand the events at play and position ourselves intellectually to combat globalist imperialismwhich seeks to subvert us all.
Before and Now
Matthew Vandyke say’s that his a journalist but in reality he was fighting with rebels its said that he has connections with CIA
Matthew Vandyke the journalist really?! So now we can say that the ratverments had paid Mercenaries and not the Qaddafi regime
NATO BOMBED A VILLA IN SOURMAN THIS IS THE OUTCOME OF THE BOMBING THE WHOLE FAMILY DIED EXCEPT THE FATHER
End Times Bible Prophecy and News, End Times Deception, Societal Collapse, Apostasy, False Teachers, Mass Hysteria, Demonic Attacks, War, Rumors of War, Famine, Pestilence, Salvation in Jesus Christ, NWO, Earthquakes, UFOs, Earth Changes, False Christs, All Roads Lead to Rome, New World Order, Conspiracies, Nephilim, Giants, GMO Frankenfood
Turning and turning in the widening gyre | The falcon cannot hear the falconer | Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold | Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world | The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere | The ceremony of innocence is drowned | The best lack all conviction, while the worst | Are full of passionate intensity. -- W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming