THIS IS HOW OCCUPIED TRIPOLI LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU NATO, THANK YOU F.UK.U.S. AND THE UN FOR BRINGING DEMOCRACY IN LIBYA


THIS IS HOW OCCUPIED TRIPOLI LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU NATO, THANK YOU F.UK.U.S. AND THE UN FOR BRINGING DEMOCRACY IN LIBYA

 

I am wondering and always wanting to ask the question to the dual Libyans citizens was it worth it selling us out to the colonizers? Is this the democracy they dreamed for Libya? I know these questions will never be answered.

Lets not forget the tragedy of the  migrants who drowned at the Mediterranean coast what the news do not tell you is that in this forsaken ship on board where also jihadists who were fleeing Libya.

Let me remind you who we were!

and here is the famous speech in the UN which now it’s deleted from the UN I wonder why?

and here is this that you should watch

The Real Story – Libya Before & After – 1

Part – 2

Part – 3

Maybe by watching these videos you will wake up and realize that what has happened to Libya will happen to you very soon.

Libya & Gaddafi – The Truth you are not supposed to know

Libya: Tripoli before and after the NATO invasion – war crimes

What Does Libya After Gaddafi Look Like?

 

HILLARY CLINTON’S LATEST SCANDAL ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG


HILLARY CLINTON’S LATEST SCANDAL ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG

hillary stevens2e0c9bb1c7c99150d1f951f62e0f878bBy NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern

Wow Hillary picking her nose! Didn’t they tell her that when picking your nose you will find no oil!!!!

In an exclusive news report, this reporter described another suspicious link in a chain of events following the Benghazi massacre that cost the lives of four Americans including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. However, with the latest Hillary Clinton firestorm regarding an authorized – possibly illegal – use of a non-State Department email system including a privately installed Internet server, that Examiner story may be part of the latest in a long line of Hillary Clinton’s deceptions.

While still serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff were involved in “hanky panky” as part of damage control for their boss prior to her appearance before lawmakers investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2012. They were instructed to set aside any documents that would hurt Clinton politically and not turn them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) that was investigating the alleged missteps by the Obama administration especially those by the State Department, according a report on Monday by former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

While Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill were hobnobbing with Democrats in Iowa, a former Clinton assistant, Ray Maxwell revealed to reporters that State Department cronies beholding to Secretary Clinton were instructed to sift through documents in a “secret” operation conducted in the headquarters’ basement. The goal was to exclude anything that might point to Clinton’s mismanagement of embassy security especially in nations that were involved in conflicts with radical Muslims such as Egypt, Iraq and Libya.

During Clinton’s tenure, Maxwell was a high-ranking deputy in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which was ordered to collect any and all documents regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack.

According to Maxwell, Hillary Clinton’s top assistant was allegedly present during the after-hours document review. But Maxwell wasn’t assigned to help in the hanky panky occurring in the Sunday document caper, he said. Maxwell’s description of what he saw — boxes full of government documents — reminds many observers of Hillary Clinton’s days as a First Lady during the Whitewater investigation. That incident in 1996 created a controversy that was quickly dismissed by the news media that all but covered up the story.

Did Hillary Clinton aides withhold damaging Benghazi documents? During a Monday morning appearance on Fox News Channel, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, identified the Hillary Clinton confidants who were allegedly present during the basement hanky panky. He named Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, who was President Bill Clinton’s attorney during his impeachment ordeal. Rep. Chaffetz also named Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who actually worked for both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

According to documents obtained by former Justice Department prosecutor Larry Klayman, Secretary Clinton and her closest staff members were the likely source of the security leaks to New York Times reporter David Sanger. Klayman also said the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show that those leaks were coordinated with the Obama White House’s national security team, which included Susan “Benghazi” Rice and Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett.

“What should outrage Americans is the fact that not only is there a concerted effort to minimize the seriousness of Clinton’s email scandal, but this woman is running a campaign to become the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military forces, intelligence agencies and law enforcement departments,” said former Marine intelligence operative and police detective Michael Snopes. “If a CIA or FBI operative ever did half of what Hillary has been accused of, they would be suspended pending an intense investigation and probably fired or worse – they’d be locked up in prison,” Snopes added.

The media feeding frenzy over the alleged unlawful use by Hillary Clinton of a non-government email system is having an impact on other allegations against the presidential wannabe. On Tuesday, a former Department of Justice prosecuting attorney said that he believes then-Secretary of State Clintonprobably using her unofficial and illegal email system — was complicit in the leaking of classified intelligence regarding military operation plans formulated by Prime Minister Banjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In a Washington Post front page news story on March 2, 2015, reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel’s plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli’s war plans, since President Barack Obama and his staff — including his top advisor Valerie Jarrett, herself born in Iran — believed Israel was willing and had the technical and strategic expertise to launch a preemptive sneak attack on Iran in order to eliminate their nuclear threat.

Ms. Gearan wrote: “Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday.” She also wrote: “It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent.”

 

US-Saudi Blitz in Yemen: Naked Aggression, Absolute Desperation


US-Saudi Blitz in Yemen: Naked Aggression, Absolute Desperation

(Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The “proxy war” model the US has been employing throughout the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even in parts of Asia appears to have failed yet again, this time in the Persian Gulf state of Yemen.

Overcoming the US-Saudi backed regime in Yemen, and a coalition of sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda and its rebrand, the “Islamic State,” pro-Iranian Yemeni Houthi militias have turned the tide against American “soft power” and has necessitated a more direct military intervention. While US military forces themselves are not involved allegedly, Saudi warplanes and a possible ground force are.

Though Saudi Arabia claims “10 countries” have joined its coalition to intervene in Yemen, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq hid behind a “coalition,” it is overwhelmingly a Saudi operation with “coalition partners” added in a vain attempt to generate diplomatic legitimacy.

The New York Times, even in the title of its report, “Saudi Arabia Begins Air Assault in Yemen,” seems not to notice these “10” other countries. It reports:

Saudi Arabia announced on Wednesday night that it had launched a military campaign in Yemen, the beginning of what a Saudi official said was an offensive to restore a Yemeni government that had collapsed after rebel forces took control of large swaths of the country. 

The air campaign began as the internal conflict in Yemen showed signs of degenerating into a proxy war between regional powers. The Saudi announcement came during a rare news conference in Washington by Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

Proxy War Against Iran 

Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in.

Iran’s interest in Yemen serves as a direct result of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” and attempts to overturn the political order of North Africa and the Middle East to create a unified sectarian front against Iran for the purpose of a direct conflict with Tehran. The war raging in Syria is one part of this greater geopolitical conspiracy, aimed at overturning one of Iran’s most important regional allies, cutting the bridge between it and another important ally, Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And while Iran’s interest in Yemen is currently portrayed as yet another example of Iranian aggression, indicative of its inability to live in peace with its neighbors, US policymakers themselves have long ago already noted that Iran’s influence throughout the region, including backing armed groups, serves a solely defensive purpose, acknowledging the West and its regional allies’ attempts to encircle, subvert, and overturn Iran’s current political order.

The US-based RAND Corporation, which describes itself as “a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis,” produced a report in 2009 for the US Air Force titled, “Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East,” examining the structure and posture of Iran’s military, including its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and weapons both present, and possible future, it seeks to secure its borders and interests with against external aggression.

The report admits that:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

Whatever imperative Saudi Arabia is attempting to cite in justifying its military aggression against Yemen, and whatever support the US is trying to give the Saudi regime rhetorically, diplomatically, or militarily, the legitimacy of this military operation crumbles before the words of the West’s own policymakers who admit Iran and its allies are simply reacting to a concerted campaign of encirclement, economic sanctions, covert military aggression, political subversion, and even terrorism aimed at establishing Western hegemony across the region at the expense of Iranian sovereignty.

Saudi Arabia’s Imperative Lacks Legitimacy 

The unelected hereditary regime ruling over Saudi Arabia, a nation notorious for egregious human rights abuses, and a land utterly devoid of even a semblance of what is referred to as “human rights,” is now posing as arbiter of which government in neighboring Yemen is “legitimate” and which is not, to the extent of which it is prepared to use military force to restore the former over the latter.

The United States providing support for the Saudi regime is designed to lend legitimacy to what would otherwise be a difficult narrative to sell. However, the United States itself has suffered from an increasing deficit in its own legitimacy and moral authority.

Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed.

In reality, Saudi Arabia’s and the United States’ rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess.

Saudi Arabia’s Dangerous Gamble 

The aerial assault on Yemen is meant to impress upon onlookers Saudi military might. A ground contingent might also attempt to quickly sweep in and panic Houthi fighters into folding. Barring a quick victory built on psychologically overwhelming Houthi fighters, Saudi Arabia risks enveloping itself in a conflict that could easily escape out from under the military machine the US has built for it.

It is too early to tell how the military operation will play out and how far the Saudis and their US sponsors will go to reassert themselves over Yemen. However, that the Houthis have outmatched combined US-Saudi proxy forces right on Riyadh’s doorstep indicates an operational capacity that may not only survive the current Saudi assault, but be strengthened by it.

Reports that Houthi fighters have employed captured Yemeni warplanes further bolsters this notion – revealing tactical, operational, and strategic sophistication that may well know how to weather whatever the Saudis have to throw at it, and come back stronger.

What may result is a conflict that spills over Yemen’s borders and into Saudi Arabia proper. Whatever dark secrets the Western media’s decades of self-censorship regarding the true sociopolitical nature of Saudi Arabia will become apparent when the people of the Arabian peninsula must choose to risk their lives fighting for a Western client regime, or take a piece of the peninsula for themselves.

Additionally, a transfer of resources and fighters arrayed under the flag of the so-called “Islamic State” and Al Qaeda from Syria to the Arabian Peninsula will further indicate that the US and its regional allies have been behind the chaos and atrocities carried out in the Levant for the past 4 years. Such revelations will only further undermine the moral imperative of the West and its regional allies, which in turn will further sabotage their efforts to rally support for an increasingly desperate battle they themselves conspired to start.

America’s Shrinking Legitimacy 

It was just earlier this month when the United States reminded the world of Russia’s “invasion” of Crimea. Despite having destabilized Ukraine with a violent, armed insurrection in Kiev, for the purpose of expanding NATO deeper into Eastern Europe and further encircling Russia, the West insisted that Russia had and  still has no mandate to intervene in any way in neighboring Ukraine. Ukraine’s affairs, the United States insists, are the Ukrainians’ to determine. Clearly, the US meant this only in as far as Ukrainians determined things in ways that suited US interests.

This is ever more evident now in Yemen, where the Yemeni people are not being allowed to determine their own affairs. Everything up to and including military invasion has been reserved specifically to ensure that the people of Yemen do not determine things for themselves, clearly, because it does not suit US interests.

Such naked hypocrisy will be duly noted by the global public and across diplomatic circles. The West’s inability to maintain a cohesive narrative is a growing sign of weakness. Shareholders in the global enterprise the West is engaged in may see such weakness as a cause to divest – or at the very least – a cause to diversify toward other enterprises. Such enterprises may include Russia and China’s mulipolar world. The vanishing of Western global hegemony will be done in destructive conflict waged in desperation and spite.

Today, that desperation and spite befalls Yemen.

 

UNSMIL Urges End to Violence in Libya, Calls for Release of Brothers of HoR Member Abu Bakr Said


UNSMIL Urges End to Violence in Libya, Calls for Release of Brothers of HoR Member Abu Bakr Said

MakeThumbnail.aspx

I am amazed at the United Nations Support Mission in Libya worrying for the escalation and terrorist acts done to the Libyan civilians while on the other hand does not lift the ban for arms to be given to the Libyan army to fight the NATO TERRORISTS WHICH WERE LEFT BEHIND AFTER THE ILLEGAL WAR FROM NATO AND ITS ALLIES.

Not only does the UNSMIL lies about assisting HoR but also funds and protects the terrorists who are installed in Libya. The eight people who were murdered in Tarhuna was done by Libya Dawn/Fajr which Bernadino Leon and his gang members protect, and when we say they are sitting and discussing in Morocco bear in mind that none of the HoR are present so what kind of PEACE discussions are they doing? What kind of bullshit peace talks are they preaching? When the international recognized government is not sitting in these meetings? The UN Leon together with Ambassador Jones, Arron and the French ambassador have already decided that the Muslim Brotherhood with its militias – who holds Tripoli captive should be the ONLY ONE government and to hell with the Libyan people who voted otherwise DEMOCRATICALLY the government in Tobruk.

So the plan is that Fajr otherwise known Libyan Dawn should murder every political opponent or kidnap them so that HoR will give in – in the demands of F.UK.US/NATO AND THE UN which is to instal the NEW CALIPHATE IN LIBYA.

So these crocodile tears and worries are just a front for the international community believing that they are doing something to save Libya from its own worst enemy.  I am wondering how these people sleep at night knowing that they have blood on their hands… Please do not be fooled by the article below, they do not want PEACE in Libya on the contrary they want a continuation of these small wars so that in a few years when the Libyan people will be tired of insecurity, famine, they will gladly accept the division of our country….

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) is gravely concerned about the continuing violence across Libya and calls for its immediate end. The fighting, bombings and abductions not only increase the suffering of the people but also harm the positive and constructive spirit displayed by the participants to the Libyan political dialogue round taking place in Morocco.

In the last few days, eight members of a family were killed in an attack in Tarhuna. On Tuesday 24 March 2015, a suicide bombing killed eight in Benghazi. On Wednesday 25 March 2015, five people were killed in a suicide bombing in Sirte. These suicide attacks show the expanding arm of terrorism that is targeting all sides and that all Libyans stand against.

In addition, the fighting continues in Obari in the south, threatening the social fabric of the city.
The Mission calls on the conflicting parties in Obari to cease the hostilities, and warns that attacks against civilians and violation of human rights are acts punishable under international law and perpetrators will be held accountable.

In Tripoli, two brothers of a member of the House of Representatives for Tarhuna, Abu Bakr Ahmed Said, were abducted by an armed group. The Mission condemns the abduction and calls on the security authorities on the ground and all the influential actors in Tripoli to do their utmost to ensure that they are unharmed and that they are released immediately.

UNSMIL stresses that the abduction for the purpose of putting pressure on the member of the parliament is an unacceptable act that could have negative effect on the political dialogue as Libyans try to find ways to end the conflict in their country.

UNSMIL calls on all Libyan actors to work towards de-escalation to give peace a chance.

 

THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups


THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups

So as you can see the United States is famous for backing coups or changing sovereign governments when ever it suits their purposes….. by denying it, it only makes you laugh so hard that tears come to your face, with their audacity that reporters and anonymous readers would believe such a blatant lie. Here is a small preview of the above table which I got it from this article and I suggest you read the whole article maybe some people will wake up from their lethargic sleep and do something

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that “people like us” could not commit atrocities against civilians.

  • German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

  • British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

  • Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

  • Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

  • Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

  • U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’ toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

and here is the rest of the article with the joke that America is not involved in any coups:

Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro has publicly accused the United States of trying to foment a coup in Venezuela. The accusations come as the Obama Administration has bizarrely labeled Venezuela a national security threat to the United States despite that obviously not being true.Maduro’s accusation stems not just from being labeled a national security threat but from a plot Venezuelan security services uncovered which was publicly detailed by Maduro on Venezuelan TV.

According to Maduro the plot involved Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco who operates out of New York and Miami, allegedly with the help of the US government. There is audio of Osuna dictating a statement rebel leaders should read after the coup.

If the plot is true it will be the second attempt by the US to foment a coup in Venezuela this century. The first being an amazingly blatant attempt in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez which the White House itself publicly supported before the coup was reversed and Chavez was returned to power.

Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:

As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.

We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”