LOCKERBIE: WHY ‘THE SUN’ NEWSPAPER FRAMED GADDAFI


 

LOCKERBIE: WHY ‘THE SUN’ NEWSPAPER FRAMED GADDAFI

 

The last few weeks have seen the complete crumbling of the case against Libya’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi as the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing. Framed by the West, it is clear that the ‘evidence’ against Libya is now proven to be false and it is now Iran that is evidenced as the new suspect. Whoever did bring down the plane – it was not Gaddafi.

  But there remain serious claims that it was the CIA who actually planted the bomb. What we know for certain is that both the CIA and the British government knew Libya was not responsible and deliberately withheld information that would have seen the convicted Libyan, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, acquitted of the bombing.

  Both Western governments and the Western media used Lockerbie as a way of demonising Gaddafi – ensuring that the brain-washed people of Britain and America would not make too much fuss if the opportunity ever presented itself to go to war against Libya.

  As well as being a convenient scapegoat, this is why Gaddafi was framed for the Lockerbie bombing.

  In 2011, that opportunity to launch war on Libya arose – thanks to severe subversion of the North African state by the West. The Western media went into overdrive and it was not long before one British newspaper – ‘The Sun’ – carried a full front-page story: ‘Gaddafi Ordered Lockerbie Bombing’.

  This startling information came from none other than Abdul Jalil – a former Libyan Jamahiriyah Government minister who was facing an investigation by Gaddafi for corruption. Jalil had quickly switched sides and was keen to appease his Western backers.

  The article, published on February 24th 2011, carried no evidence to back up the claims – which are now, of course, utterly discredited.

  The piece was written by the journalist Tom Newton Dunn.

  The fact that Newton Dunn would put his name to such a piece of gutter ‘journalism’ was no surprise to me – as some years earlier I had personally exchanged a number of private and intense communications with him over the subject of the Iraq war.

  Due to my previous involvement with the British media, when I spent many years (under another name) exposing something to do with horses, I gained a considerable number of contacts in press and television. Newton Dunn was not, as far as I know, interested in my subject, but our paths crossed when he was a reporter for the British newspaper ‘The Daily Mirror’.

  Newton Dunn and I argued for some weeks over the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq. He supported the war – I did not. Despite my best efforts, Newton Dunn felt the West getting rid of Saddam – whom he would call a nasty dictator – was in the best interests of the Iraqis. He was not concerned with my argument that Iraq was now doomed and the West’s killing machine would be beyond anything Saddam could unleash.

  Since then, we now indeed see Iraq ruined and over a million dead – purely for oil. Somehow, I do not believe Newton Dunn has changed his mind…

  The Mirror was a newspaper fiercely opposed to the Iraq war from the very start. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that not long after I ceased all communications with him, Newton Dunn left the Mirror and joined The Sun.

  The Sun newspaper is a right-wing propaganda machine and a warmongering monster. It viciously promotes British state terrorism at every sick opportunity – as well as promoting Islamophobia and xenophobia. It is also cheap and childish in its style and desperate to appeal to every lowest common denominator that it thinks its jingoistic readers want to read.

  However, The Sun’s most infamous institution is that of its daily Page Three feature – a naked woman with large breasts.

  Despite being more than well endowed myself, I have never understood why so many young females in my country have an ambition to be a ‘Page Three Girl’ – thereby, losing their dignity, morality and decency in the process.

  Bizarrely, as well as writing about wars, Newton Dunn was also tasked, at the same time, with writing the accompanying text to the Page Three feature.

  Using military language (so I will too then), Newton Dunn lasciviously wrote about one girl and the size of her two forward-facing assets as – what he called – her “cannons”.

  Any credibility Newton Dunn might ever have had as a journalist had now reached its end…

  The Sun is owned by the ‘elite’ Jew, Rupert Murdoch – who personally telephoned the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ordered him to do the Iraq war.

  One of The Sun’s most infamous editors was Rebekah Brooks (at that time, Rebekah Wade). Brooks is currently on trial in the British courts on charges of phone hacking – including that of a murdered schoolgirl.

  Brooks is also a former editor of The Sun’s sister paper, ‘The News Of The World’ – now reinvented as ‘The Sun On Sunday’, after the phone hacking revelations caused The News Of The World to close down.

  Brooks is also the former chief executive of the Murdoch media empire known as ‘News International’. Murdoch owned The News Of The World and owns The Sun On Sunday.

  Also on trial with Brooks – and for the same charges of both phone hacking at this newspaper and misconduct in public office – is another former editor of The News Of The World, Andy Coulson.

  Coulson became one of the personnel of British Prime Minister David Cameron – working for him as communications director. After the phone hacking scandal broke, Coulson was eventually forced to resign – much to Cameron’s reluctance. (I always say you can judge a man by his friends)…

  Rebekah Brooks is an ardent Murdoch lackey. The trial has recently seen the exposing of the text of secret emails sent to Brooks by Tony Blair – advising and helping her on how to deal with the situation she now finds herself in…

  Blair has recently been accused of having an affair with Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng. He, of course, strenuously denies this allegation. Whatever the truth, Deng was clearly obsessed with Blair – and Murdoch is now divorcing her.

  Brooks was married to the British soap actor Ross Kemp – himself, an ardent supporter of British state terrorists. During the relationship, she had an adulterous affair – with Andy Coulson. Kemp subsequently divorced her.

  Rebekah Brooks is now married to former racehorse trainer Charlie Brooks – a man who had been an invaluable contact of mine some years earlier. I found him to be one of few genuinely nice and decent people in his profession. He was extremely kind to me in all my dealings with him – and I still treasure today his detailed and honest hand-written notes to me on my lengthy ‘where are they now’ questionnaire I gave him about his horses.

  I later watched in sadness as he became involved with and then married Rebekah Wade – and now he stands dragged down to her level, accused of perverting the course of justice by helping his wife get rid of potentially incriminating evidence against her – including a missing laptop.

  Today, The Sun continues to misinform its readers – usually boys and men keen to get their daily fix of Page Three and with few brain cells to rub together between them – that the world must get rid of another ‘nasty dictator’, President Assad of Syria.

  What the likes of journalists and editors at The Sun will never tell their readers is the truth. In the case of Syria, just like Libya - readers will not be told that there is no real ‘civil war’ – for the vast number of foreigners fighting Assad are funded and sent there by the very same people that Newton Dunn and Brooks serve, or who pay their wages.

  Those people being the likes of Murdoch and Blair – and now David Cameron – and their New World Order, as espoused by the United States of America and ‘israel’ and their wars for oil or regional control.

  And to hell with how many people die for it…

(Author’s note: I would like to thank everyone who has read and enjoyed / empathised with my articles. Regulars will know that they have been primarily written under the name ‘The Girl Who Loves Khamis’. As of the recent book review I did here, my primary writing name will now be Lady Khamis. This is because it is more suitable as I become better known and respected for my work. I will NOT be dropping my TGWLK nickname though – as there is no truer statement!

  All this would not have been possible without my dear editor and friend, al-Fatah. Shukran jazeelan).

 

 

Lady Khamis  (‘thegirlwholoveskhamis’)

For libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org

About these ads

The ten countries that “hate” the United States


The ten countries that “hate” the United States

The ‘exporting democracy’ applying U.S. President Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, has caused the people of various countries adamantly disapprove of Washington politics.

Both the Obama Administration, like the image of the country in general, suffers from severe fluctuations both in the same U.S. territory, and in the international arena. While, despite the revelations of Edward Snowden , most U.S. allies still at his side, in the world there are several countries that “hate” Washington, the newspaper reported ‘ 24/7 Wall St ‘ .

1. Palestinian Territories Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 80% Four out of five Palestinians disapproved of U.S. policy, which is the worst perception of U.S. worldwide. The cause of this situation is the U.S. support for Israel in the framework of its conflict with Palestine . In addition, Hamas, the organization that governs the territory of the Gaza Strip since 2007, is considered by the U.S. and the EU as a “terrorist organization.”

2. Pakistan Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 73% Relations with Pakistan have been strained since 2001, when after the terrorist attacks of 11-S Washington became Pakistan in the field of search operations leader Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban, who then ruled the neighboring country. Already in 2009, 59% of the Pakistani people saw the U.S. as a bully and a larger than itself Al Qaeda threat. Latest Gallup polls reveal that this trend continues.

3. Lebanon Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 71% Like many countries disapprove of the American line, the Lebanon has a long history of conflict with Israel, which explains that Lebanese criticize Washington.

4. Yemen index disapproval of U.S. policies: 69% Over 100 Yemeni nationals held in Guantánamo have been in recent years. Relations between the two countries are so tense that the U.S. State Department advised its citizens to avoid travel to Yemen due to the extremely high security threat level.

5. Iraq Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 67% The long history of conflict between the U.S. and Iraq -from the 1991 Gulf War until the Iraq War (2003 – 2011) – which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including civilians, has contributed significantly to the negative reviews about Washington. For U.S. citizens “Travel the country is extremely dangerous due to civil unrest and the threat of kidnappings and terrorist attacks.”

6. Egypt index disapproval of U.S. policies: 57% A list of countries “not recommended for travel”, the U.S. State Department has also added to Egypt, “because of the instability and violence across the country.”

7. Slovenia Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 57% Although the U.S. State Department states that the two countries have a strong relationship, more than half of the citizens of Slovenia criticize Washington’s policies. It is noteworthy that among the nations with the highest disapproval ratings of U.S., Slovenia is one who is a member of NATO .

8. Iran Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 56% Tehran has long been at odds with Washington, and more recently by the Iranian nuclear program. The two countries have no diplomatic relations since 1980. Additionally, political analysts have established that the EU sanctions and the U.S., which caused some of the economic problems of the country and had serious consequences for much of the population, led to more resentment towards the U.S.

9. Tunisia Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 54% Although the U.S. provided $ 400 million in financial aid to “establish democracy” in the country since 2011, more than half of the population disapproves of Washington politics. The animosity toward the North American country in Tunisia culminated in the sacking of the U.S. Embassy in the capital in 2012. Recent polls confirm the same trend among Tunisians .

10 . Libya Index disapproval of U.S. policies: 94% The U.S. regrets that the people of Libya to go unpunished by the destruction and genocide against Great Jamahiriya more than 240,000 dead, 2 million exiles and over 30,000 political prisoners and denounced to have disappeared over 220 tons of gold and more than 280 billion dollars from the coffers of the Libyan people.

source:actualidad.rt.com

Washington Fights Fire With Fire in Libya How Not to End Violence in a War-Torn Land


Washington Fights Fire With Fire in Libya
How Not to End Violence in a War-Torn Land

By Nick Turse

Is the U.S. secretly training Libyan militiamen in the Canary Islands? And if not, are they planning to?

That’s what I asked a spokesman for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). “I am surprised by your mentioning the Canary Islands,” he responded by email.  “I have not heard this before, and wonder where you heard this.”

As it happens, mention of this shadowy mission on the Spanish archipelago off the northwest coast of Africa was revealed in an official briefing prepared for AFRICOM chief General David Rodriguez in the fall of 2013.  In the months since, the plan may have been permanently shelved in favor of a training mission carried out entirely in Bulgaria.  The document nonetheless highlights the U.S. military’s penchant for simple solutions to complex problems — with a well-documented potential for blowback in Africa and beyond.  It also raises serious questions about the recurring methods employed by the U.S. to stop the violence its actions helped spark in the first place.   

Ever since the U.S. helped oust dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with air and missile strikes against regime targets and major logistical and surveillance support to coalition partners, Libya has been sliding into increasing chaos.  Militias, some of them jihadist, have sprung up across the country, carving out fiefdoms while carrying out increasing numbers of assassinations and other types of attacks.  The solution seized upon by the U.S. and its allies in response to the devolving situation there: introduce yet another armed group into a country already rife with them.

 The Rise of the Militias

After Gaddafi’s fall in 2011a wide range of militias came to dominate Libya’s largest cities, filling a security vacuum left by the collapse of the old regime and providing a challenge to the new central government.  In Benghazi alone, an array of these armed groups arose.  And on September 11, 2012, that city, considered the cradle of the Libyan revolution, experienced attacks by members of the anti-Western Ansar al-Sharia, as well as other militias on the American mission and a nearby CIA facility.  During those assaults, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, local armed groups called on for help or which might have intervened to save lives reportedly stood aside. *****(What the author does not say that all these groups also the anti-western Ansar al-Sharia WERE TRAINED AND FINANCED BY THE UNITED STATES as a BLACKOPS AND CONTINUE TO BE FINANCED WHICH is confirmed by the today’s US Ambassador Deborah K. Jones in Libya holding the hand of one of the most extreme Muslim terrorists.   So please read the article with a pinch of salt)

Over the year that followed, the influence of the militias only continued to grow nationwide, as did the chaos that accompanied them.  In late 2013, following deadly attacks on civilians, some of these forces were chased from Libyan cities by protesters and armed bands, ceding power to what the New York Times called “an even more fractious collection of armed groups, including militias representing tribal and clan allegiances that tear at the tenuous [Libyan] sense of common citizenship.”  With the situation deteriorating, the humanitarian group Human Rights Watch documented dozens of assassinations of judges, prosecutors, and members of the state’s already weakened security forces by unidentified assailants.  *****(also the author does not mention intentionally that the Green Resistance is taking power (militias representing tribal and clan allegiances) which has been taking by storm all the cities of Libya. The only cities still trapped under the RATVERMENTS/NATO/US GOVERNMENT are Tripoli and Misurata… This of course worries the United States because when the Green Resistance arrives outside their door (US/UK/FRANCE foreign administration) they will be charged with WAR CRIMES DONE TO HUMANITY AND TO LIBYA.) 

The American solution to all of this violence: more armed men.

Fighting Fire with Fire

In November 2013, U.S. Special Operations Command chief Admiral William McRaven told an audience at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library that the United States would aid Libya by training 5,000 to 7,000 conventional troops as well as counterterrorism forces there.  “As we go forward to try and find a good way to build up the Libyan security forces so they are not run by militias, we are going to have to assume some risks,” he said.

Not long after, the Washington Post reported a request by recently ousted Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan that the U.S. train his country’s security forces.  In January, the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment abroad, formally notified Congress of a Libyan request for a $600 million training package.  Its goal: to create a 6,000 to 8,000-man “general purpose force,” or GPF.

The deal would, according to an official statement, involve “services for up to 8 years for training, facilities sustainment and improvements, personnel training and training equipment, 637 M4A4 carbines and small arms ammunition, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE), and other related elements of logistical and program support.” 

In addition to the GPF effort, thousands of Libya troops are to be trained by the militaries of MoroccoTurkey, the United Kingdom, and Italy.  The Libyan Army also hopes to graduate 10,000 new troops at home annually. ***(The author forgets that these numbers are not feasible as we were 6.5 million as a nation, we have 500 thousands deaths in the last 3 years, so now we are 6 million we have 2 million in exile so now we are up to 4 million we have 1 million homeless which are mostly elderly women and men so we arrive to 3 million that is our population right now, it reminds me of the mid seventies when we were just a little over 3 million population so please Sir explain to me how are we going to have 10 thousand new troops annually with what???)

While Admiral McRaven has emphasized the importance of building up “the Libyan security forces so they are not run by militias,” many recruits for the GPF will, in fact, be drawn from these very groups.  It has also been widely reported that the new force will be trained at Novo Selo, a recently refurbished facility in Bulgaria.

The U.S. has said little else of substance on the future force.  “We are coordinating this training mission closely with our European partners and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya, who have also offered substantial security sector assistance to the Government of Libya,” a State Department official told TomDispatch by email.  “We expect this training will begin in 2014 in Bulgaria and continue over a number of years.”

There have been no reports or confirmation of the plan to also train Libyan militiamen at a facility in Spain’s Canary Islands mentioned along with Novo Selo in that Fall 2013 briefing document prepared for AFRICOM chief Rodriguez, which was obtained by TomDispatch.

Official briefing slide mentioning a U.S. military training effort in the Canary Islands.

 

Officials at the State Department say that they know nothing about this part of the program.  “I’m still looking into this, but my colleagues are not familiar with a Canary Islands component to this issue,” I was told by a State Department press officer.   AFRICOM spokesman Benjamin Benson said much the same.  “[W]e have no information regarding training of Libyan troops to be provided in the Canary Islands,” he emailed me.  After I sent him the briefing slide that mentioned the mission, however, he had a different response.  The Canary Islands training mission was, he wrote, part of an “initial concept” never actually shared with General Rodriguez, but instead “briefed to a few senior leaders in the Pentagon.”

“The information has been changed, numerous times, since the slide was drafted, and is expected to change further before any training commences,” he added, and warned me against relying on it.  He did not, however, rule out the possibility that further changes might revive the Canary Islands option and demurred from answering further questions on the subject.  A separate U.S. Army Africa document does mention that “recon” of a second training site was slated to begin last December. 

Neither the State Department nor AFRICOM explained why plans to conduct training in the Canary Islands were shelved or when that decision was made or by whom.  Benson also failed to facilitate interviews with personnel involved in the Libyan GPF training effort or with top AFRICOM commanders.  “Given the continuing developing nature of this effort, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time, and we have not been giving interviews on the topic,” he told me.  Multiple requests to the Libyan government for information on the locations of training sites also went unanswered.   

Training Day

Wherever the training takes place, the U.S. has developed a four-phase process to “build a complete Libya security sector.” The Army’s 1st Infantry Division will serve as the “mission command element for the Libyan GPF training effort” as part of a State Department-led collaboration with the Department of Defense, according to official documents obtained by TomDispatch. 

Agreements with partner nations are to be finalized and Libyans selected for leadership positions as part of an initial stage of the process.  Then the U.S. military will begin training not only the GPF troops, but a border security force and specialized counter-terror troops.  (Recently, AFRICOM Commander David Rodriguez told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. was also helping to build up what he termed Libyan “Special Operations Forces.”)  A third phase of the program will involve developing the capacities of the Libyan ministries of justice, defense, and the interior, and strengthening Libya’s homegrown security training apparatus, before pulling back during a fourth phase that will focus on monitoring and sustaining the forces the U.S. and its allies have trained.  

 

U.S. Army Africa document details four-phase plan for U.S. training of Libyan forces.

Despite reports that training at Novo Selo will begin this spring, a State Department official told TomDispatch that detailed plans are still being finalized.  After inspecting a briefing slide titled “Libya Security Sector Phasing,” AFRICOM’S Benson told me, “I do not see us in any phase as indicated on the slide… the planning and coordination is still ongoing.”  Since then, Lolita Baldor of the Associated Press reported that, according to an unnamed Army official, a small team of U.S. soldiers has now headed for Libya to make preparations for the Bulgarian portion of the training. 

A timeline produced by U.S. Army Africa as part of a December 2013 briefing indicates that the Novo Selo site would be ready for trainers sometime last month.  After communications systems and security sensors are set up, that training range will be ready to accept its first Libyan recruits.  The timeline suggests that this could occur by early May. 

While this may have been an early version of the schedule, there’s little doubt the program will begin soon.  Baldor notes that formal Libyan approval for the training may come this month, although AFRICOM Commander David Rodriguez pointed out at a Pentagon press briefing that the Libyan government still has to ante up the funds for the program, and a Libyan official confirmed to TomDispatch that the training had yet to commence.

U.S. Army Africa timeline of U.S. training of Libyan “General Purpose Force”.

Experts have, however, already expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the program.  In late 2013, for instance, Benjamin Nickels, the academic chair for transnational threats and counterterrorism at the Department of Defense’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies, raised a number of problematic issues. These included the challenge of screening and vetting applicants from existing Libyan militias, the difficulty of incorporating various regional and tribal groups into such a force without politicizing the trainee pool; and the daunting task of then devising a way to integrate the GPF into Libya’s existing military in a situation already verging on the chaotic. 

For all their seriousness,” wrote Nickels, “these implementation difficulties pale in comparison to more serious pitfalls haunting the GPF at a conceptual level. So far, plans for the GPF appear virtually unrelated to projects of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) and security sector reform (SSR) that are vital to Libya’s future.”  

Berny Sebe, an expert on North and West Africa at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, noted that, while incorporating militiamen into a “mainstream security system” could help diminish the power of existing militias, it posed serious dangers as well.  “The drawback is, of course, that it can infiltrate factious elements into the very heart of the Libyan state apparatus, which could further undermine its power,” he told TomDispatch by email.  “The use of force is unavoidable to enforce the rule of law, which is regularly under threat in Libya.  However, all efforts placed in the development of a security force should go hand in hand with a clear political vision.  Failure to do so might solve the problem temporarily, but will not bring long-term peace and stability.”

In November 2013, Frederic Wehrey, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an expert on Libyapointed out that the project seemed reasonable in the abstract, but that reality might be another matter entirely: “[T]he force’s composition, the details of its training, the extent to which Libyan civilians will oversee it, and its ability to deal with the range of threats that the country faces are all unclear.” He suggested that an underreported 2013 mission to train one Libyan unit that ended in abject failure should be viewed as a cautionary tale.

Last summer, a small contingent of U.S. Special Operations Forces set up a training camp outside of Libya’s capital, Tripoli, for an elite 100-man Libyan counter-terror force whose recruits were personally chosen by former Prime Minister Ali Zeidan.  While the Americans were holed up in their nighttime safe house, unidentified militia or “terrorist” forces twice raided the camp, guarded by the Libyan military, and looted large quantities of high-tech American equipment.  Their haul included hundreds of weapons, Glock pistols and M4 rifles among them, as well as night-vision devices and specialized lasers that can only be seen with such equipment.  As a result, the training effort was shut down and the abandoned camp was reportedly taken over by a militia.

This represented only the latest in a series of troubled U.S. assistance and training efforts in the Greater Middle East and Africa. These include scandal-plagued endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a program that produced an officer who led the coup that overthrew Mali’s elected government, and an eight-month training effort in the Democratic Republic of Congo by U.S. Special Operations forces that yielded an elite commando battalion that took part in mass rapes and other atrocities, according to a United Nations report.  And these are just the tip of the iceberg among many other sordid examples from around the world.

The Answer?

The U.S. may never train a single Libyan militiaman in the Canary Islands, but the plan to create yet one more armed group to inject into Libya’s already fractious sea of competing militias is going forward — and is fraught with peril.

For more than half a year,militia controlled the three largest ports in Libya.  Other militiamen have killed unarmed protesters.  Some have emptied whole towns of their residents.  Others work with criminal gangs, smuggling drugs, carrying out kidnappings for ransom, and engaging in human trafficking.  Still others have carried out arbitrary arrests, conducted torture, and been responsible for deaths in detention.  Armed men have also murdered foreigners, targeted Christian migrants, and fought pro-government forces.  Many have attacked other nascent state institutions.  Last month, for instance, militiamen stormed the country’s national assembly, forcing its relocation to a hotel.  (That assault was apparently triggered by a separate unidentified group, which attacked an anti-parliament sit-in, kidnapping some of the protesters.)   

Some militias have quasi-official status or are beholden to individual parliamentarians.  Others are paid by and support the rickety Libyan government.  That government is also reportedly engaging in widespread abuses, including detentions without due process and prosecutions to stifle free speech, while failing to repeal Gaddafi-era laws that, as Human Rights Watch has noted, “prescribe corporal punishment, including lashing for extramarital intercourse and slander, and amputation of limbs.”    

Most experts agree that Libya needs assistance in strengthening its central government and the rule of law.  “Unless the international community focuses on the need for urgent assistance to the justice and security systems, Libya risks the collapse of its already weak state institutions and further deterioration of human rights in the country,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said recently.  How to go about this remains, however, at best unclear.

“Our Defense Department colleagues plan to train 5,000 to 8,000 general purpose forces,” Anne Patterson, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs,told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, noting that the U.S. would “conduct an unprecedented vetting and screening of trainees that participate in the program.”  But Admiral William McRaven, her “Defense Department colleague,” has already admitted that some of the troops to be trained will likely not have “the most clean record.” 

In the wake of failed full-scale conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has embraced a light-footprint model of warfare, emphasizing drone technology, Special Operations forces, and above all the training of proxy troops to fight battles for America’s national security interests from Mali to Syria – and soon enough, Libya as well. 

There are, of course, no easy answers.  As Berny Sebe notes, the United States “is among the few countries in the world which have the resources necessary to undertake such a gigantic task as training the new security force of a country on the brink of civil war like Libya.”  Yet the U.S. has repeatedly suffered from poor intelligence, an inability to deal effectively with the local and regional dynamics involved in operations in the Middle East and North Africa, and massive doses of wishful thinking and poor planning.  “It is indeed a dangerous decision,” Sebe observes, “which may add further confusion to an already volatile situation.”

A failure to imagine the consequences of the last major U.S. intervention in Libya has, perhaps irreparably, fractured the country and sent it into a spiral of violence leading to the deaths of Americans, among others, while helping to destabilize neighboring nations, enhance the reach of local terror groups, and aid in the proliferation of weapons that have fueled existing regional conflicts.  Even Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs Amanda Dory admitted at a recent Pentagon press briefing that the fallout from ousting Gaddafi has been “worse than would have been anticipated at the time.”  Perhaps it should be sobering as well that the initial smaller scale effort to help strengthen Libyan security forces was an abject failure that ended up enhancing, not diminishing, the power of the militias.

There may be no nation that can get things entirely right when it comes to Libya but one nation has shown an unnerving ability to get things wrong.  Whether outside of Tripoli, in Bulgaria, the Canary Islands, or elsewhere, should that country really be the one in charge of the delicate process of building a cohesive security force to combat violent, fractious armed groups?  Should it really be creating a separate force, trained far from home by foreigners, and drawn from the very militias that have destabilized Libya in the first place?

source: tomdispatch.com

 

A Military Coup Will Remove Obama


A Military Coup Will Remove Obama

 

President Obama’s presidency has a definitive shelf life. His backpedaling in the Middle East is of major concern to the military establishment but also to special interest groups such as the Carlyle Group. Obama is threatening to let Iraq and Afghanistan follow in the footsteps of Vietnam. Further, Obama’s refusal to attack Syria and Iran threatens the viability of the Petrodollar. This two-part series will examine the forces which are lining up against this President and how five simultaneous political scandals are being held over his head to gain compliance from several powerful special interest groups.

The Aftermath of Benghazi

benghazi obama leaves em behind

Obama’s presidency may not survive until 2016. He has the most dramatic set of political scandals in the history of the Oval Office. The only question remaining for this president is will he leave office as a result of the scandals or the result of a direct military coup? Obama has already survived one military coup attempt, but it is difficult to believe that there aren’t more military coups waiting in the wings for the right moment to strike.

The First Military Coup

In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration.

The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup.  What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.

Can you imagine the reaction of Stevens, his security team, and two senior command officers if Stevens had indeed been rescued? The gun-running stories of the CIA to Al-Qaeda would have turned the general populace on its ear. This would have been Obama’s Watergate moment. Of course, Stevens had to be murdered to cover up Obama’s complicity in gun-running to Al-Qaeda. Remember, it was Hillary Clinton, on behalf of Obama, who refused to beef up security for Ambassador Stevens at his request. With all that the Benghazi event represents, the sheep of America would’ve been awakened if Stevens had survived to talk. With the inability of the Obama administration to squelch the cries of conspiracy in the aftermath of Benghazi, Hillary, in an effort to preserve her 2016 election hopes, could not jump off the Obama ship fast enough. And even Napolitano has jumped ship and look for more defections in the weeks ahead. Obama is in real trouble. Spying on reporters and using the IRS to harass political enemies is damning, but Benghazi is career ending.

A Review of Benghazi

Let’s review what we have learned about what transpired at Benghazi. The Benghazi consulate, which was no more than a CIA safe house, came under attack by Al Qaeda forces and the attack lasted several hours. We now know that CIA forces were right down the street at the time of the attack that murdered Stevens Al Qaeda attackers, as they attempted to flee the murder scene, were subsequently murdered by the CIA forces, who could have been used to rescue Stevens. This was a desperate attempt to conceal Obama’s gun running operations. We also know that several key personnel at Benghazi have been forced to sign nondisclosure agreements about what they know. What did they know?

The Truth Is Hiding In Plain Sight

What is known, and what was reported in the New York Times, is that this administration ran guns to Al Qaeda in a Middle East version offast and furious. We’ve also learned that Ambassador Stevens was the conduit between the establishment and Al Qaeda receiving weapons, which they used to overthrow the Libyan government. 
The murder of Stevens and his team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya, obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists who this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more.

Arming Al-Qaeda In Syria

It is now common knowledge that this administration was also running guns to Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow Assad of Syria. However, news of their gunrunning was beginning to leak and the source of the gunrunning had to be eliminated. That source was Ambassador Chris Stevens and the sensitive information that he held, unfortunately for Stevens, came only a couple of months prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is quite apparent that this administration felt that the evidence of their gunrunning trail must be totally obliterated and the only way to accomplish that was to arm Al Qaeda forces to assassinate Ambassador Stevens. These are not shocking revelations and I believe it’s likely that Congress knew the truth is far back as December of 2012. However, the congressional investigation did not succeed in their attempts at getting to the bottom of the Stevens murder. For more than a month Hillary Clinton refused to show up and testify. Other establishment figures were less than cooperative with regard to the congressional investigation. However, there is a clear and distinctive pattern of high command military awareness of this establishment’s murderous and treacherous actions which culminated in the death, the preventable death of Stevens and his bodyguard contingency.

The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.
Before we get into why Hamm and Gayoutte were sacked on the same day, please allow me to first say that Obama’s action of sacking two high ranking officers is so unprecedented, so reckless, that it is difficult to comprehend.  Please allow me to offer a sports analogy in order to explain the magnitude of this action. Imagine that your favorite football team was on the eve of playing in the Super Bowl and the owner of your team fired both the head coach and the quarterback the night before the big game. Wouldn’t this throw your team into a state of disarray? Of course it would, and subsequently your team would face annihilation. This is exactly the case with our forces in the Middle East after the firing of these two military leaders at this critical point in time. The deposing and subsequent arrest of the AFRICOM commanding officer, and the firing of a Carrier task force commander was an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and left a dangerous leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk. And it is important to note that these firings took place at a time when it appeared that war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia was on the immediate horizon.

Admiral Gayouette

Admiral Gayouette

The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, that their replacements require approval from the Senate. Why would Obama engage in such a reckless act when the country was so close to war? Very simply, both men were jointly attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, despite being told to stand down by Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta who was acting under Obama’s orders.
As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was reallyCIA safe house, was under attack. When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he still continued with his plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.”  What is so significant about the sacking of these two military officers is that they were from two completely different command structures in two different branches of the military. This speaks clearly to an overall military mindset with regard to how they view Obama.
It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four murdered Americans, American forces could have stopped the mortar fire that eventually killed Ambassador Stevens. However, Panetta and Obama blocked any rescue attempt. In legal parlance, Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason. I feel like I am watching an episode of the former popular television show, 24, as we are presently engaged in a plot that scarcely anyone would have believed if it had aired on television and not occurred in real life.

Others Have Taken Note and Spoken Out

Even though the corporate controlled media refuses to provide detailed coverage of the events in Benghazi, Representative Buck McKeon wrote a letter to Obama in which he boldly stated  ”As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command (author’s note: General Hamm) and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.” 
There is also proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.
There’s further evidence that US agents in Libya were at least aware of weapons and militants moving across the border. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA and brokered arms deals with Al-Qaeda and their affiliate rebels in both Libya and Syria. Can anyone imagine the political fallout to this President if word of this had ever leaked out? Stevens was the link between the CIA and Al-Qaeda. With Stevens out of the way, the trail could grow cold and the American public would be none the wiser. This is why a rescue attempt was not permitted and this explains why two senior level officials were sacked for trying to do so. However, it is becoming increasingly clear this mutiny represents a military mindset and has the backing of the Carlyle Group. This connection will be explored in part two.

Obama’s Tumultuous Relationship with the Military

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders.  The first sign of a major rift between the American military and Obama became evident when the supreme commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, was fired by Obama for derogatory comments made by the general about the president. Interestingly, the reporter who published a story which led to McChrystal’s firing was none other than recently murdered reporter Michael Hastings. 
First McChrystal, then Hamm and Gayoutte were fired by Obama. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that the military is becoming more emboldened in their rebellion against this rogue President.

  CIA Director David Patraeus Is Sacked

Patraeus was the former commander in Iraq and in Afghanistan after McChrystal was fired by Obama. He was rewarded when he was appointed to be the CIA director. An extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell brought down his reign as CIA director in November of 2012, just following the election.
There is the reason given to explain an event and there is the real reason behind the event. Sixty percent of all married men cheat on their spouses. The more money they make and the more power a man possesses, the more opportunity for cheating.

I have swamp land for sale, in Florida, for anyone to purchase if they are naive enough to believe that David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resigned solely based upon having an extramarital affair with the biographer-turned-mistress, Paula Broadwell. How did the affair compromise Petraeus’ position as CIA director? The FBI, who vetted Patraeus for the CIA director position, concluded that it did not.

Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:

  • Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.

  • Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.

  • Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.

  • General Allen, on November 13, 2012.

Other casualties of military leadership during this time frame includes General Keene and General Odierno. Further, the second in commander of Central Command, General Mattis, And who could forget about General Mckiernan? In total, Obama has sacked nearly 20 generals during his tenure as president.

Conclusion

Not wanting the Middle East to become America’s next Vietnam, the military wants Obama gone. And now the military has a strong partner, the Carlyle Group whose connections ripple through the American power structure. These connections and the other reasons why the Obama administration may not be standing by the end of year will be presented in part two.

this is by DAVE HODGES FROM ‘THE COMMON SENSE SHOW’

 

Today’s interview “Inside the Libyan Revolution w/ Al Fatah,” Mar 22, 2014


 Today’s interview “Inside the Libyan Revolution w/ Al Fatah, by Susan Lindauer” Mar 22, 2014

 Today the Covert Report goes inside Libya’s Revolution two years after the murder of Qaddafi. My special insider source, “Al-Fatah” shares her insights on reports of piracy on the high-seas and the overthrow of the NATO puppet Prime Minister El Zeidan in Tripoli. Al-Fatah is a courageous Libyan woman, who joins us once again from an undisclosed location, since every interview threatens her family living in Tripoli. What you hear today is the raw, uncut story of contemporary Libya & its ongoing fight for liberation from NATO control– uncensored and LIVE!

Susan Lindauer is an American journalist and antiwar activist. She was charged with “acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government” after being accused of spying for the Iraqis in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Pressing the link down below you can listen the interview

truthfrequencyradio.com

 

Tom