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

TARGET LIBYA Behind the politics and dirty tricks that demonised Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi


TARGET LIBYA

Behind the politics and dirty tricks that demonised Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi

By David Guyatt

“It’s an easy hit.” The voice of Lester Coleman, former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) operative and joint author of the explosive book Trail of the Octopus, echoed hollowly down the line. Lester answered my question in four simple words. I had asked him why the US continues blaming Libya’s Qadaffi for all the woes in the world. Since his enforced “exile,” Lester has become something of an expert on Libya.

“Listen David,” he continued, “It’s all domestic politics.” Libyan skulduggery plays to the “Red-necks” who inhabit middle America. Lester, an accomplished linguist launched into a humorous back-woods drawl to emphasise his point. Most Americans believe anything they’re told about “Ay-rabs” he said, particularly at politically sensitive times or during an election year. One reason, perhaps, why the US had threatened to use a nuclear weapon against Libya in spring of 1996.

Conservative Sir Teddy Taylor in British parliament

I was told this latter piece of gossip by Sir Teddy Taylor, Conservative Member of Parliament. Sir Teddy had consented to an interview to provide background on the assassination of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and also on the downing of Pan Am flight 103, over Lockerbie. The MP had a special interest in both cases. Somehow, I had missed picking up the US nuclear threat on the news. When Sir Teddy mentioned it, my jaw dropped with a jowl-shuddering “clunk.” I later confirmed the story from American media sources. In the event it was just bluster. 1996 has proved a peculiarly good year for Libya. For the second time in a decade, it got shunted into the political back woods by Presidential warlords. Instead the mad Ayatollah’s of Iran took centre-stage as America’s arch-demon in this election year. But by all accounts it was touch and go whether Libya or Iran would be awarded the honour of the black boot this time around.

Les Coleman is the first DIA operative to have gone public and blown the whistle. His book blew the lid on the Lockerbie story. Because of his inside knowledge, he was inundated with death threats from the intelligence community and fled with his family to Europe for safety. Originally given temporary political asylum in Sweden, two years later he was forced to move on. Most recently he was residing in Spain.

When I spoke to him, he was planning his return to the US after years of exile. Now penniless and unsettled, we spoke about his chances of arrest on an old charge of obtaining a passport in a false name – something he did under DIA instruction as a field operative. In any case, Les hoped the forthcoming Presidential election might insulate him from prosecution, but was going to return “home” no matter what. His family had, understandably, grown tired of their nomadic life and missed “home”.

Unsurprisingly, word of his return to the USA had leaked out. A short while before finalising his flight plans he was attacked by four men and beaten to a pulp. He arrived in the US in a wheelchair on 17 October 1996, arrested and placed in custody on Federal charges. His book, due to be published in the US has been now been suppressed. US distributors for Signet Books, say the publication date is “indefinitely postponed.”

Les was one of many people I spoke to in an attempt to get a clear understanding of the nonsensical US position on Libya. For the better part of twenty years Libya and its leader Muammar Qaddafi has been hoisted atop America’s most hated nation list. It was a form of political vilification that Europe didn’t share, until the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, to which I shall return.

Upon taking power, the Reagan administration immediately commenced a bitter campaign against Qaddafi, principally under the guidance of Director of Central Intelligence, Bill Casey – a gruff, no nonsense financial street-fighter who’s lack of political eloquence was matched by a well used black-jack. Casey had been Ronald Reagan’s Campaign Manager and carried Reagan to victory on the back of the “October Surprise” issue of 1980. President Carter’s re-election chances were dashed by the intransigence of both the Iranians and US officials who – unknown to him – had concluded a secret deal to delay the release of US hostages, held by Tehran, in exchange for battlefield weapons. Reagan romped home to a landslide victory and immediately announced that the hostages would be released. It is now clear that Casey was one of the central architects who negotiated the deal with the Iranian Ayatollahs.

A virulent pro-market, anti-Communist, Casey shared his views with British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher – a close personal friend. Thatcher was one of the few Prime Ministers who took an active interest in the machinations of the intelligence community. She went out of her way to attend Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) meetings and insisted on being regularly briefed. Her interest in these exotic areas may have been whetted by many of her ardent supporters, like Airey Neave, who possessed intelligence backgrounds.

Casey also had a “thing” about Qaddafi, who he saw as a lowlife rebel-rouser who bankrolled the globe’s terrorists. Along with other administration hard-liner’s, Casey set out to destabilise Libya and over-throw Qaddafi in true CIA fashion.

Within months of taking office, President Reagan authorised a battle fleet to sail along Libya’s coastline. Announced to the media as a “naval exercise,” the manoeuvre was designed to challenge Libya’s recently announced sovereignty over the Gulf of Sidra - a move that extended Libya’s territorial claims well beyond the internationally recognised twelve mile coastal boundary.

Ordinarily, a territorial dispute of this nature would typically be subject to international diplomacy and discussion. In the event the Reagan administration saw it as a perfect excuse to buckle on the hip-holsters and start blasting away with a set of Texan six-guns. Qadhafi was about to get a taste Reagan’s gung-ho, go-get-‘em diplomacy – the first in a series of “police actions” that were later to lead to the invasion of Granada and Panama.

On August 19, 1981, two US Navy F-14 “Tomcats” patrolling thirty miles inside the disputed territorial waters were attacked by Libyan jets. In the melee that followed two Libyan jets were shot down. A delighted Ronald Reagan mimicked his old western movie days – for the benefit of his close aides – by drawing two imaginary six-guns and peppering an equally imaginary Qaddafi with numerous bullets. It was pure “boy’s own” stuff but backed by multi-megaton muscles.

Over the following months, numerous intelligence briefings reported that Qaddafi had ordered a revenge attack against President Reagan and other high administration officials. Quickly shown to be unfounded, the fabricated report was traced to Manucher Ghorbanifar – a shadowy Iranian arms dealer who had helped to broker the arms for hostages deal. Despite this, the “false” death threat gave Casey and other administration insiders the ammunition they needed to wage a protracted campaign against the Libyan leader.

By November, a top secret National Security Planning Group (NSPG) chaired by the President (who was known to sleep through Cabinet meetings) authorised planning for ” a military response against Libya in the event of further Libyan attempts to assassinate American officials or attack U.S. facilities.” Soon drafted, the Top Secret memo “counter-terrorist planning towards Libya” recommended the President to “immediately direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ready assets to carry out military action against Libya in self-defence, following a further Libyan provocation.” A number of retaliatory “graduated” responses were planned. Out of the main five options, four centred on air strikes against Libyan targets. Fear-stricken at these developments, Qaddafi reacted by sending an envoy to Washington, pleading that the whole thing was pure bunkum. The strategy proved successful… for the time being.

There followed a hiatus in US activity against Libya, as the CIA and Casey focused most of its resources on the Nicaraguan situation. But Qaddafi was not to be forgotten. In a tour of European Capitals in early 1984 – a US Presidential election year – US officials seeking allied co-operation against Libya returned home in bleak mood. The picture they presented of European attitudes to Qaddafi was not encouraging. The Libyan leader was generally well regarded. First he did a lot of business with Europe; he wasn’t a fundamentalist, and; a large number of European ex-pats lived and worked in Libya. Collectively, the Europeans wouldn’t sanction US hostilities. Hardly surprising when the bulk of Libya’s crude oil – almost 80% – is exported to western Europe – principally Italy, Germany, Spain and France.

With administration insiders concluding that Qaddafi would be just the “ticket” leading to a Reagan victory at the upcoming election in November, something had to be done to modify European public opinion. Within months, “fate” seemed to lend a helping hand.

Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher was on duty outside London Libyan people’s Bureau, on 17 April 1984. Located in the fashionable and serene St. James Square, the Libyan Bureau building huddles in a corner of the square. It’s address is No. 5. On that day a hail of automatic gunfire disturbed the tranquillity, sending Pigeons flying in all directions. The eleven round burst – fired by a 9mm Sterling sub-machine gun – from the first floor of the Libyan building, felled a number of anti-Qadaffi demonstrators protesting outside. WPC Fletcher was killed outright. The slaying caused uproar and hit the headlines around the world. Condemned in the worlds media and Parliament, all Libyan diplomats were expelled by a furious Home Secretary. The only problem with the Home Secretary’s understandable indignation was that the Libyan gunman didn’t shoot Yvonne Fletcher.

The Fletcher killing occurred out-of-the-blue and singularly changed British political and public opinion overnight. Open season was declared on Qaddafi and Libya by the US, and most importantly, was supported by Britain. The rest of Europe kept silent and sulked – having been out manoeuvred. With the aid of a single bullet, the Reagan administration’s “destabilisation” plan against Qaddafi was back on track.

Eighteen months after Fletcher’s assassination, 40 US warplanes screamed across the night sky above Tripoli and Benghazi. Of those, eight F111 bombers had launched from bases in East Anglia, England – with the blessing of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and a still enraged British population. Each bomber carried four 2000-pound laser-guided “smart” bombs. In all, 32,000-pounds of high explosive ordnance were explicitly targeted to kill Qadaffi. Miraculously, he escaped unhurt. His fifteenth-month old daughter was killed and two adopted sons badly injured.

The Reagan administration loosed the warplanes on Libya following the bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in West Berlin, nine days earlier. One US serviceman and a young Turkish woman had been killed outright, and 230 people injured. The Disco was a known hangout for off-duty US servicemen.

President Reagan claimed he had irrefutable proof of Libyan sponsorship for the atrocity. Despite this claim, no evidence has been submitted by the Reagan administration to support their allegations. A host of well informed individuals and “sources” doubt any proof ever existed – except in the fevered imagination of CIA boss, Bill Casey. Conservative MP, Sir Teddy Taylor, regards the American allegations as “total rubbish.”

In April 1996, Britain’s Channel Four “flagship” documentary programme Dispatches – in a massively researched broadcast – revealed that Fletcher had been murdered by elements of British and American intelligence. The purpose of the slaying, as outlined earlier, was to “shape” public opinion and, importantly, pre-empt Parliamentary indignation for the later bombing of Tripoli by British based US warplanes. Disgracefully, these astonishing revelations went unreported by the media.

The film, made by the highly regarded Fulcrum Productions, was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on 8 May 1996. MP’s Sir Teddy Taylor and Tam Dalyell, demanded the government initiate a full inquiry. Responding for the government, Home Office Minister of State, David MacClean, described the Dispatches programme as “preposterous trash.” In doing so, he called into question the reputations of leading ballistics experts and gun-shot specialists – and carefully avoided reference to information provided to the documentary team by well placed, and knowledgeable, intelligence sources. It was a white-knuckle statement that will hopefully, one day, boomerang back on him.

Fulcrum had learned that British and US intelligence had established a major surveillance post – adjacent to the Libyan People’s Bureau – at No. 8 St. James Square. This post had been “active” for at least six weeks prior to the shooting, with up to 40 individual intelligence officers present. On the morning of the shooting, the post was abandoned. Moreover, Dispatches also learned that the demonstration outside the Libyan Bureau was a phoney. The demonstrators belonged to a CIA front organisation.

Two additional facts were discovered: British and American intelligence knew that Col. Qaddafi had sanctioned his London Bureau to shoot at the demonstrators – they had intercepted the secret message granting authorisation. Secondly, the CIA and MI5 knew precisely the calibre of weapon to be used. Both intelligence agencies had “penetrated” the Bureau and had Libyan “sources” supplying information to them.

Crucially, Fulcrum Productions learned, beyond doubt, that the bullet that killed Fletcher had been fired from the upper floor of No. 8 St. James Square – the location of the surveillance post. Ballistics experts consulted by the documentary team, confirmed the bullets entry track to have come from No. 8. The team also learned that the bullet was adapted to fire with “Terminal Velocity.” This technique – a speciality of SAS “shooters” - is achieved by removing some of the explosive propellant from the cartridge. The result is a quieter shot – similar to using a silencer. A side effect of a bullet fired in this manner is that it flies slower and “tumbles” as it strikes the target - wrecking havoc as it rips through soft tissue. In every respect it is a “killer” shot – where chances of survival are so slim as to be negligible. The information on the bullet’s “Terminal Velocity” characteristics were also confirmed by independent experts.

A well-placed and reliable “source” interviewed by this writer, explained why WPC Fletcher was targeted. Intelligence operatives knew Qaddafi had authorised a “hitman” to let loose with a sterling automatic weapon against CIA funded demonstrators gathering outside the London Bureau. This information was gleaned with the aid of signals intercepts and human intelligence (HUMINT) sources inside the Bureau itself. The great worry amongst the secret cabal who planned the assassination, was that random killing of Arab protesters would not be sufficient to force the British Home Secretary to expel all Libyan diplomats. It was argued that a targeting a British “Bobby,” especially a Police Woman would do the trick.

Such appalling cynicism is the hand-maiden to the intelligence community as well as heartless politicians who believe the end justifies the means. The “source” also explained that it was an “off the books” hit, and that “elements” inside the British and American intelligence community were “out of control.” But the suspicion remains that someone with power and influence gave a “nod and a wink” to the operation. It is just not credible to suppose otherwise. The key to this convoluted reasoning was the cabal’s fear that the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, would not act as required, without immense public and political pressure to jog him along. This is the rationale of someone with a developed sense of political reality.

After the shooting, Brittan immediately ordered an investigation, which has remained under lock and key ever since. Not long afterwards, sordid stories began to circulate amongst the British media that the Home Secretary had unusual sexual appetites. The rumours were fed to the satirical magazine, Private Eye, who recognised the handiwork of the security service and refused to publish the allegations. However, within a year, Leon Brittan was forced from office for his part in the Westland helicopter debacle.

With Western European objections so neatly taken care of, Qadaffi’s demonisation went in to full gear. The anachronistic Bedouin was rapidly elevated from “useful” to “primary” middle east “scapegoat.” At the same time, European governments learned as a result of the Libyan bombing, just how “hard” the US were prepared to play in pursuit of domestic politics and wider foreign policy. Tarring Qadaffi as the world’s bad boy suited the selfish interests of the political power elite in the US, and was an added bonus when other illegal CIA middle east “covert ops” went belly-up. One such operation was the CIA protected Heroin pipeline operating from the middle east to the USA.

A recurring problem for President Reagan was his inability to rescue the US hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Hanging like a dark cloud over his otherwise successful term of office, the hostage problem was turned over to Lt. Colonel Oliver North to resolve. North, a medium ranked military officer with close personal ties to the CIA’s Bill Casey, was the administrations global Mr. Fixit. He, in turn, called on the services of his old friend, Manzur El-Khassar – a Syrian born “big-time” narcotics and arms trafficker. Earlier, the Syrian had assisted North in his time of need, by brokering a large shipment of weapons to the CIA backed, Nicaragua’s Contra’s. It earned him a lot of kudos inside the administration.

Lebanon’s Bekka Valley is a fertile and productive area specially suited to growing Opium poppies. Rifat Assad, the brother of Syria’s President Hafez Assad was widely known to have been in charge of Syria’s narcotics enterprise. As the “Supremo” of the Bekka Valley’s massive Opium industry, he was also a paid “asset” of the CIA and was being “groomed” to succeed his elder brother as Syrian President. He was also an extremely close friend to El-Khassar. It is widely believed that the influx of 30,000 Syrian troops in to the Bekka Valley during the eighties, had as much to do with protecting the lucrative Opium fields as with separating Lebanon’s warring factions.

El-Khassar agreed to negotiate on behalf of the US for the release of the US hostages. His side of the deal was to get an agreement that the US would protect the Syrian drugs pipeline that shipped through Frankfurt airport to the USA. The CIA allegedly established a group – known as “CIA One” – who would oversee and protect the drugs route. If publicly discovered, the response was to say that the “protected” drugs shipments were part of a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) “sting” operation, dedicated to tracking distribution networks inside the USA.

Unknown to North and his cahoots, there was also a secret five-man Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) team working in Lebanon. The team, headed by Major Charles “Tiny” McKee was independently tasked with locating and rescuing the US hostages. During the course of his work, McKee, stumbled across El-Khassar’s “CIA One” protected Heroin network. Reporting his “discovery” to CIA HQ at Langley, and outraged at the lack of response, McKee booked his team on a flight home. At this point, El’Khassar learned of McKee’s activities and was also informed of his flight plans. Anxious that McKee would put a stop to his activities, he contacted his CIA One handlers who, in turn, communicated with their “control” in Washington.

Against this insidious backdrop, other, unrelated covert plans were being hatched. Following the July 1988 shoot-down of an Iranian Airbus by the US Navy battle-cruiser Vincennes, hard-line Iranian Ayatollah’s demanded swift retaliation for the 290 lives lost. They hired the Syrian based Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command (PFLP-GC) for a tit-for-tat attack. Led by Ahmed Jibril – and with a $10 million Iranian bounty – the PFLP-GC searched for a suitable target. An expert at bombing aircraft, Jibril soon learned of El-Khassar’s Frankfurt based dope pipeline and persuaded El-Khassar to place a bomb inside the Heroin laden suitcase. Pan Am flight 103 was scheduled for destruction.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Federal Police, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), received a warning that a bomb was to be substituted for the dope shipment aboard flight 103. They alerted CIA One, who passed the information on to their Stateside “Control.” The reply came back: “Don’t worry about it. Don’t stop it. Let it go.” On December 21st 1988, Pan Am’s Jumbo 747 “Maid of the Seas” exploded high above the Scottish village of Lockerbie. All 259 passengers perished. A further eleven people died as wreckage from the aircraft hurtled down to earth.

Within hours, a host of CIA agents arrived at the crash scene. It is thought that the CIA search team arrived via helicopter from a US Special Forces facility located at Machrihanish, on the Mull of Kintyre. The speed of their arrival suggests they had foreknowledge of the bombing. In any case the CIA agents, dressed in Pan Am overalls, set about ransacking the crash sight in a desperate search for incriminating evidence. For two days they searched for the luggage of the dead DIA team and frantically sought the suitcase containing the heroin shipment. One suitcase was recovered, flown out and later returned empty, to be “re-discovered” by the forensic team scouring the wreckage. It belonged to Major Charles McKee. Curiously, one unidentified body was snatched from the wreckage and never returned.

Les Coleman believes it would be wrong to blame the CIA in to for the Lockerbie atrocity. Intelligence outfits do not work as cohesively as many outsiders believe. There is a great deal of rivalry and fragmentation at work. DCI Bill Casey, had plenty of detractors inside the monolith he directed. Some worked hard feeding unattributed information to their favourite journalists that was designed to damage him and, hopefully, lead to his removal. Others are known to operate as part of small and secretive core that has variously been identified as the “Enterprise” or the “Octopus.” The latter is said to operate with organised crime and leading politicians who covertly traffic in guns, drugs laundered money and any other commodity that can generate massive profits. Whether the proceeds of these illegal activities are siphoned back into the “black” budgets of the CIA, or fill the pockets of participants – or both – isn’t entirely clear.

Despite Coleman’s caution, the CIA’s infamous history – stretching over fifty years – clearly suggest that US foreign policy and private gain “coalesce” in to a game-plan that benefits various parties. Some intelligence “watchers” point to the wealth of some long-term CIA officers and ask how they amassed their fortunes based on salaries of $60,000 a year? It is a valid question that can be equally addressed to former and serving politicians and senior government bureaucrats.

By attributing the responsibility of Lockerbie on Qaddafi, the US administration was following in the well-worn foot-steps of many predecessors in similar situations. It’s a technique as old as the hills. Caught virtually red-handed in massive illegality, the first thought is to cast round for a suitable scapegoat. As Lester Coleman said when I first spoke to him, Qaddafi is an easy target. Independently minded and unwilling to align himself with US middle eastern policy, he became a target in the US. His past bankrolling of “terrorist” causes – and one-time expansionism – also did him no favours. It’s a case of if you’re not for us, you’re against us.

Sitting on vast reserves of oil is also a significant factor for Libya’s treatment at the hands of the US. The fact that most of this oil flows to western European oil companies, clearly doesn’t cut much ice with the US. Rivalry between the European and US business elite is as intense as ever. US oil companies can’t be pleased that they are effectively out of the picture. In that sense Qaddafi was, as Les Coleman said, an “easy hit.”

Perhaps more telling than anything else, British support for the US anti-Libyan “campaign” clearly demonstrates the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the British political process. That those in power manipulated the British judicial system and continue to lie to the families of the Lockerbie victims is sinister enough. That they not only tolerated, but connived in the murder of an innocent woman police officer – to further American political designs – says more than any party political manifesto could begin to utter. All power corrupts, but the continued exercise of raw, unadulterated power of this magnitude is the very antithesis of a participatory democracy.

In researching this article I spoke with many different individuals. Some agreed to speak on the record, whilst others requested anonymity. One well placed and knowledgeable source summed up the situation with these words: “There is no democracy. There is no free press.” That source remains a leading Member of Parliament.

ENDS
NUJ

©1996 – David Guyatt

source: plane-truth.com

CIA BRAINWASHING – MUAMMAR GADDAFI


 

 

CIA BRAINWASHING – MUAMMAR GADDAFI

 

Gaddafi with David Berg whose name has been linked to pedophilia and the CIA’s MK ULTRA brainwashing. (RELIGIOUS MIND-CONTROL CULTS)

 

Muammar al-Gaddafi – Lunch with the FT

 

Colonel Muammer Gaddafi was rumoured to be fleeing south across the Sahara in a heavily armed convoy when the man whose job it is to guard him emailed me with a date for lunch.

 

I met Colonel Gaddafi at a restaurant which must remain nameless.

 

Muammar looked different from the person who appears in his early photographs; somehow he reminded me of a scary looking Michael Jackson or Anders Breivik.

 

The Western media have speculated that Muammar is mentally disturbed.

 

I wondered if he was a victim of mind control.

 

Allegedly, Muammar has taken an interest in Black Magic.

 

 

While tucking in to Cuisses de Grenouillesal, Muammar talked about his time as a boy scout and about his military training in the United Kingdom.

 

Was he brainwashed by the British, I asked.

 

He took a mouthful of water and started talking about his bloodless seizure of power in 1969.

 

“The Americans wanted the British puppet King Idris to be toppled,” he explained.

 

He said that, like Nasser, he was at first an asset of the CIA, and then an enemy of the CIA.

 

He closed the American and British military bases, and demanded that more of Libya‘s oil wealth went to Libyans.

 

He said he felt that Israel could not defeat the Arabs, if the Arabs were to be united.

 

That meant Libya being friends with all Arab countries.

 

“The enemy is Imperialism and Zionism,” he said.

 

Gaddafi

 

“Your government conducted executions of political opponents,” I pointed out.

We executed people who tried to topple the government,” he replied, and recently the CIA provided us with information on Libyan dissidents.

“And you allowed Libya to be a base for extraordinary renditions.”

“I have been called a dictator,” he said.

“I moved Berbers out of their mud-brick towns into modern apartments, with electricity, running water and satellite TV.”

“But you tried to abolish the Berber culture.”

“I have made enemies.”

“The accusation is that your friends became rich while the people in the eastern parts of Libya were neglected.”

“Some people blame me for being a socialist,” he said.

“Libya now has the best educated people in Africa and the highest GDP per capita in Africa,” he continued.

“We had 10 percent growth of GDP in 2010, the highest of any state in Africa.

“In the first 15 years of Green rule, the number of doctors increased seven-fold.

“Infant mortality is the lowest in Africa.

“Our Great Man-made River scheme is the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’.

 

 

Our Bouillabaisse arrived.

 

I asked Muammar about Islam.

 

I pointed out that some people have said that Libya is run like Saudi Arabia, along ultra strict Islamist lines. Strict punishments for theft and adultery. No alcohol.

 

“We are a Muslim country,” said Muammar.

 

I pointed out that he had been involved in a number of wars, including a bloody one in Chad and a conflict with Egypt.

 

“We have had our problems,” said Muammar. “But, in 1989, we had the Maghreb Pact linking Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya. That must have worried the Imperialists and Zionists.”

 

I mentioned the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

 

“After the fall of Saddam”, said Muammar, “I got rid of certain weapons. Even before the Iraq War, I wanted good relations with the West. I had to get the sanctions removed.”

“I was tough with the oil companies.

“The Shah of Iran copied me.

“The Shah, of course, was toppled by the CIA.”

 

I pointed out that Libya had been friends with Idi Amin.

 

“Saddam, the Shah, and Idi Amin were all put into power by the West,” explained Muammar.“But when they displeased the West, they suddenly werepainted by the Western media asbeing monsters.”

 

 

I related that Libya had reportedly trained and supported Charles Taylor of Liberia.

 

“Charles Taylor was put into power by the CIA,” said Muammar.

 

I asked about Slobodan Milosevic.

 

Muammar pointed out that Milosevic was up against the CIA’s al Qaeda.

 

“Both Hugo Chavez and I wanted to fight imperialism in Africa and Latin America,” he added.

 

Muammar talked of Pan-Africanism and African Unity.

 

Muammar explained: “The Arab world refuses to become united. Africa has become so important because of its resources.”

 

Muammar related that he had spoken up for Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir and for Idi Amin.

 

I asked about Zimbabwe, where Muammar reportedly owns at least 20 luxurious properties.

 

Muammar said that Mugabe was right to fight against attempts at destabilisation.

 

I asked about Libya’s alleged support for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines.

 

“They are financed by the CIA,” said Muammar.

 

 

I asked Muammar about his support for the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

 

“These organisations were all controlled by the CIA and MI6,” said Muammar. “Many of the top people in the IRA are agents of the British security services. And it should not be forgotten that the CIA supplied weapons to the IRA.”

 

What about policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, killed in London in 1984, allegedly by a bullet from the Libyan embassy?

 

Muammar explained that a British TV documentary proved that the shot which killed Yvonne Fletcher came from a building with links to the CIA.

 

Was Muammar the planner of the Lockerbie Bombing?

 

Muammar said that the CIA brought down PanAm 103 to destroy Major Charles McKee and the evidence he and his team had collected of CIA drug smuggling.

 

Nelson Mandela persuaded Gaddafi to hand over two Libyans to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, where they faced trial in 1999.

 

“You know, Nelson Mandela is an agent of MI6,” said Muammar.

 

Bernard Faucon

 

I put it to Muammar that he had said a number of controversial things over the years.

 

Muammar had claimed that certain viruses were biological weapons manufactured by a foreign military; that the Christian Bible was a forgery; that Europe would become a Muslim continent; and that a single-state solution was best for Israel-Palestine.

 

Muammar looked enigmatic. “You know that two Israeli women claim they are my close blood relations.”

“I am protected. When the SAS wanted to kill me in 1969, the CIA vetoed the plan.

“In 1981, when Giscard d’Estaing plotted to kill me, the CIA vetoed the plan.”

 

In 2011, a Brazilian plastic surgeon told the Associated Press that Gaddafi had been his patient in 1995.

 

I wondered who Muammar was really working for.

 

 

 

source: aangirfan.blogspot.com

 

Coalition of Crusaders Join with al Qaeda to Oust Qaddafi and Roll Back Libyan Revolution


Coalition of Crusaders Join with al Qaeda to Oust Qaddafi and Roll Back Libyan Revolution

by Gerald A. Perreira

Wed, 03/23/2011

The West – the former colonial powers and the United States – have not only coordinated their assault on Libya, but orchestrated the rebellion against Col. Qaddafi from the start, says the author. Qaddafi’s claim that al Qaeda is involved is only dismissed by those who fail to understand that “al Qaeda is a Wahhabi/Salafi ideological movement and it has reinvigorated Salafi movements and cells worldwide.” Qaddafi deserves support at this critical hour, as “a revolutionary leader who has consistently opposed western hegemony in the Arab and African World.”

This article previously appeared in Global Breaking News.

It is now crystal clear that this rebellion in Benghazi was an orchestrated attempt, supported by foreign sources, to use the events taking place across North Africa as a cover for the overthrow of the Libyan revolution.

A coalition of Crusaders, as Qaddafi described them, including the US, Britain, France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Spain and Canada, have begun an all out military assault against Libya. Using what Libya claims is an invalid and illegal UN resolution as a pretext, the coalition is pounding the Libyan defense forces with a military might that has not been seen since the Gulf war.

The real and illegal goal of what has been called Operation “Odyssey Dawn” is “regime change.” A replay of the nightmarish Gulf war scenario, the plan is clear: to disable Libya’s defense ability, and to arm and strengthen the reactionary conglomerate of rebel forces in Benghazi, in the hope that this rag tag bunch will roll back, once and for all, the Libyan revolution.

This is not the first imperialist attempt to lynch Qaddafi and bring Libya to its knees. In 1986, the US falsely accused Libya of the bombing of a discotheque in Berlin and Reagan attempted to assassinate Qaddafi, by bombing the Bab al-Azizia compound in Tripoli where he was housed, killing Qaddafi’s daughter and over one hundred Libyans. Next, Libya was falsely accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing as an excuse for initiating sanctions, in order to economically cripple the revolution.

Not the first time Britain and al Qaeda have collaborated on Libya

In 1996, British intelligence employed the services of an al Qaeda cell inside Libya, paying them a huge fee to assassinate Muammar Qaddafi. A grenade was lobbed at Qaddafi as he walked among a crowd in his hometown, Sirte. He was saved by one of his bodyguards, who threw herself on the grenade.

Former MI5 operative David Shayler revealed that while he was working on the Libya desk in the mid 90s, British secret service personnel were collaborating with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of Osama bin Laden’s trusted lieutenants.

Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces were the first to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. They have spent years trying to warn the world about the very serious threat posed by these Islamic deviants. According to Shayler, western intelligence turned a deaf ear to Libya’s warnings because they were actually working with the al Qaeda group inside Libya, to bring down Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution.

In the mid 90s, British secret service personnel were collaborating with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.”

Anas al Libi was a member of the Libyan al-Qaeda cell. He remains on the US government’s most wanted list, with a reward of $25 million for his capture, and is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings. Al Libi was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996.

Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, despite being a high-level al Qaeda operative, Al Libi was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

The claims by Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces that the rebels in Benghazi are inspired by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the serious threat this poses, not only to Libya but to the entire region, are once again falling on deaf ears, just as David Shayler said they did back in the mid 90s. Why? Because once again, British intelligence forces, among others, are clearly in collaboration with the rebels in Benghazi – those referred to all over Libya as the ‘bearded ones’, who have close ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. As revealed by Shayler, the British have a long standing relationship with the al Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, based inside Libya. The British also have an historical relationship with the Wahhabi/Salafi brand of Islam, espoused today by Ikhwan al Muslimeen (Mulsim Brotherhood) and their offshoots, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

A Battle with a Long History

In 1744, an alliance was formed between the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab and the ruthless tribal leader, Muhammad ibn Saud, whose descendants rule Saudi Arabia up to today. This reactionary brand of Islam was the perfect theological foundation for the colonial creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism remains the official Islamic tendency in Saudi Arabia up till today. In 1915, the British entered into a treaty with the murderous House of Saud, protecting their lands and supplying them with weaponry, as part of the colonial project to establish the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the British did everything they could to help the Wahhabist doctrine to flourish, recognizing it as the perfect ideological tool to further their imperialist objectives. Some scholars have argued that the British actually helped to create Wahhabism.

Imagine, today, the British are calling on the descendants of Muhammad ibn Saud, the current Saudi regime, and their present day army of Wahhabis in the form of al Qaeda, to join in a medieval crusade to crush a bastion of revolutionary Islam, which is present day Libya. And the contradictions verify this. We have to wonder why a Saudi government official can say on BBC that “to allow the people to choose their own government is a very bad thing”, and why, with all the Western outcry about women’s rights in the Muslim world, the Saudi regime, which does not even allow women to vote or drive motorcars, is never questioned. Instead they are the ones that the Americans, British, and French are calling on to join them in the destruction of Libya which has liberated women and struggled to bring real democracy to its people.

Benghazi has been the center for those who have consistently opposed the liberatory Islam articulated by Qaddafi.”

As early as the mid 19th century, Wahhabi fundamentalism was imported into Benghazi by the reactionary and feudal Senussi fraternity. The influence of this tendency has been passed on from generation to generation, and Benghazi has been the center for those who have consistently opposed the liberatory Islam articulated by Qaddafi and implemented by the Libyan revolution.

The Muslims of Benghazi, who embrace the same ideology as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and have done for the last hundred years or more, have been reinvigorated in the last few years by AQIM’s presence on Libya’s borders. There is a renewed interest in the possibility of achieving the stated goal of AQIM, which is the establishment of an Wahhabi Islamic Emirate in the Maghreb, stretching over the entire North African region. When we understand the history of this region, we realize why the imperialists have not gone out of their way to find Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri and how and why these reactionary forces and doctrines are actually encouraged by western powers.

To understand Qaddafi’s current claims about al Qaeda in the Maghreb, we have to understand both the history of this current battle and also the present day chapter: how al Qaeda affiliated organizations operate in the region in 2011. There is a deliberate attempt to misguide the uninformed with the suggestion that Qaddafi is throwing up a simplistic image of Osama bin Laden directing the rebellion in Benghazi from a cave somewhere, as a scare tactic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We must understand how al Qaeda affiliated organizations operate in the region in 2011.”

Qaddafi is well aware of the reactionary aims of Wahhabism and understands only too well their modus operandi in the region. Being affiliated to al Qaeda does not mean that each cell refers to an al Qaeda central command. Rather, al Qaeda is a Wahhabi/Salafi ideological movement and it has reinvigorated Salafi movements and cells worldwide. The term Salafi simply refers to a contemporary strain of Wahhabism.

If there remains any skepticism regarding Qaddafi’s claims, let us turn to the Washington based think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, which gives us a description of AQIM’s operations in the region.

On their official website they state:

Terrorist activity in North Africa has been reinvigorated in the last few years by a local Algerian Islamist group turned pan-Maghreb jihadi organization: al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). A Sunni group that previously called itself the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), the organization has taken responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks in the region, declared its intention to attack Western targets, and sent a squad of jihadis to Iraq. Experts believe these actions suggest widening ambitions within the group’s leadership, now pursuing a more global, sophisticated, and better-financed direction. Long categorized as part of a strictly domestic insurgency against Algeria’s military government, AQIM claims to be the local franchise operation for al Qaeda, a worrying development for a region that has been relatively peaceful since the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s drew to a close. European officials are taking AQIM’s international threats seriously and are worried about the growing number of Europe-based cells.”

The Struggle Continues

This current battle in Benghazi is not new in Libya. For many years, the revolutionary forces have been struggling to keep this feudal, reactionary brand of Islam in check.

On February 24th, 2011, at the very outset of the Benghazi rebellion, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb posted the following statement on the al Qaeda affiliated al Fajr website: “We declare our support for the legitimate demands of the Libyan revolution. We assert to our people in Libya that we are with you and will not let you down, God willing. We will give everything we have to support you, with God’s grace.”

A few days after this statement was issued by AQIM, Al Libi resurfaced. The same Al Libi exposed by David Shayler as an al Qaeda operative working inside Libya back in the 90s. Now a top al Qaeda commander based in Afghanistan, he urged his countrymen to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi’s regime and establish Islamic rule. Al Libi, a pseudonym that means ‘the Libyan’ in Arabic, said in a video, produced by As-Sahab, the media wing of al Qaeda, that “it would bring shame to the Libyan people if the strongman (Qaddafi) were allowed to die a peaceful death”.

Al Qaeda and Drugs in the Maghreb

Libya’s revolutionary forces have also made continual references to the fact that there are drug problems in the region and that many of the young people are affected. Once again, this claim was scoffed at by Western media and analysts, who are ill informed about what is actually taking place on the ground.

As recently as November 2010, Moroccan police detained 34 people with ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, attempting to move 1,300 pounds of cocaine through the country.

Moroccan Interior Minister, Taieb Cherquaoui said We are dealing with an apparent coordination and collaboration between drug traffickers and terrorists linked to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

He added that the leader of AQIM’s drug ring was detained in Mali, and he stated that the international drug peddling ring involved local Moroccan drug traffickers, who were collaborating with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well as cartels in Latin America.

Until recently, Moroccan authorities have been able to keep the actions of al Qaeda inside Morocco at bay. The drug activity, however, has now revealed the extremist organization’s growing network, and the interior minister expressed “the urgent need for the Sahel countries to collaborate to secure their territories and to fight the group’s expansion.”

Tragically, the “coalition of crusaders” has seen fit to pound Qaddafi’s defense installations, thereby preventing Libya from being able to challenge AQIM’s expansion into their sovereign territory.

In a further development on this front, the Wahhabi spiritual leader of Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa stating that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Muammar Qaddafi should do so “to rid Libya of him.”

Qaradawi is a neo-feudalist, who has defended the practice of female genital mutilation, called for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and advocates separate systems of law for different classes of citizens. Such are the views of those who are opposing Muammar Qaddafi.

 

Qaddafi stated clearly that the destabilization of Libya’s eastern cities was being inspired and assisted by al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb.”

 

In a letter to Barak al Hussein Obama and in a separate letter to Sarkozy, Cameron and Banki Moon hours before the coalition launched its first military strikes, Qaddafi stated clearly that the destabilization of Libya’s eastern cities was being inspired and assisted by al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, and he invited member states of the coalition to come to Libya and confirm this reality for themselves.

Of course, just as the war in Iraq was not about establishing the truth regarding weapons of mass destruction, this war against Libya was not about discovering the truth of events on the ground or verifying Qaddafi’s claims. When we understand the historical and present day facts, we realize that the crusader coalition is well aware of exactly who they are fighting and who they are supporting. In fact, that is why they were in such a hurry to act – to prevent any international fact finding mission which would verify Qaddafi’s claims for the world to see.

In the letter to Obama, Qaddafi asked him if al Qaeda was occupying American cities what Obama would do so that he (Qaddafi) could follow his lead. All to no avail, because Qaddafi has been demonized to the point of being inhuman and therefore not requiring even the courtesy of a response. Named by US media as the Castro of the Middle East there is only one aim – remove him by any means necessary.

 

Why?

 

In contrast to the Wahhabis and the neo-colonial regimes in the region, Qaddafi is a revolutionary leader who has consistently opposed western hegemony in the Arab and African World. Libya’s revolution has, for the past three decades, assisted liberation movements all over the world struggling against neo-colonialism and imperialism.

Libya’s oil resources are of course a factor. We know for sure that control of oil resources is a top priority for the the US and Europe. but even more worrying for the imperialists is Qaddafi’s call for a United States of Africa – with one government, one army and one currency.

Not surprisingly, the actions taken against Qaddafi and Libya are in stark contrast to western inaction with regard to events on the ground in other countries in the region such as Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, where protesters are being shot in the streets. In the case of Bahrain, protesters are being brutally suppressed with the assistance of invading Saudi ground forces and in Saudi Arabia itself, the regime has told its people that “anyone who raises a finger against the Saudi monarchy will have their finger cut off!.”

The so-called international community can barely name their long time partner in crime, Saudi Arabia, in their pronouncements, such is their support for this most undemocratic of regimes. In fact, far from condemning the actions of these governments, the Crusading coalition is frantically trying to get some of these same Arab countries to actively join the military operation against Libya so that this whole thing does not look like another US and European led aggression.

Are we going to hear impassioned pleas regarding the aspirations of the people of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? Are the US, Britain and France going to launch attacks on Yemen and Bahrain to assist the uprisings there to achieve regime change. I don’t think so.

 

Arab League legitimizes Crusade

 

The Arab League endorsed this imperialist attack on Libyan soil despite the nightmare of Iraq, where the number of civilian deaths has now reached one and a half million. It is an honor for Qaddafi to have no support among this league of bloated imperialist surrogates. At a recent meeting, he told them, prophetically it now seems, that they should be ashamed of themselves, having sat by and watched the US hang the entire leadership of the Iraqi Arab Ba’ath regime. It should be noted that although there were serious ideological and political differences between Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein, Libya took a principled position regarding hostile external aggression against Iraq. A few days ago, the National Leadership of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party issued a statement expressing solidarity with the revolutionary forces of Libya.

The Arab League has been consistently embarrassed by Qaddafi’s outspoken criticism of their double standards and hypocrisy with regard to Palestine, Iraq and a host of other issues, they are terrified by Qaddafi’s revolutionary Islam, and are contemptuous of Black Africa and Qaddafi’s attempts to bring about African-Arab unity.

Recently, when Qaddafi urged Libyans to intermarry with Africans, following the example of Prophet Muhammad himself, who encouraged intermarriage between races, Libyan and Arab contempt for Black Africans re-surfaced. Extremely few fair skinned Arabs would sanction the marriage of their daughters to a Black African. Rarely do fair skinned Libyans marry Black Libyans. Their disdain for Black people runs deep.

 

The Arab League are terrified by Qaddafi’s revolutionary Islam, and are contemptuous of Black Africa and Qaddafi’s attempts to bring about African-Arab unity.”

 

In fact, across other Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Gulf States, the horror stories emerging regarding the mistreatment of African domestic servants is reminiscent of the kind of treatment meted out to Black people during the days of chattel slavery. So a project for the development and unification of all of Africa, uniting, on equal terms, the ‘Arab’ north with Black Africa, is not close to the hearts of many fair skinned Arabs. Qaddafi is an exception to the rule.

In his book “Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of Muammar Qaddafi,” the respected Muslim scholar, Mahmoud Ayoub, states that:

he (Qaddafi) wishes to follow the example of the Prophet who fought with such determination against oppression and inequality in society that Bilal, the Black slave, became equal with his master Umayyah. He sees his own mission and the task of the

Libyan revolution as having the same motivations and goal for modern Muslim society. The basic aim of the Green Book is to present in general and contemporary terms the ideals of justice and equality which Qaddafi sees in the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet and his community.”

And what of Libya’s African neighbors?

 

‘A Million Man March’

 

Already an estimated 16,000 African freedom fighters (not mercenaries as the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera would have us believe) have poured into Libya from the Congo, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso to fight to the death for the Libyan revolution and Brother Muammar Al Qaddafi.

According to an official in northern Mali, hundreds of young Tuaregs from Mali and Niger are also among the African fighters, “We’re very worried”, said Assalat Ag Abdou Salam, president of the Regional Assembly of Kidal, “These young people are moving in droves to Libya. It’s very dangerous for us because whether Qaddafi wins or falls the impact will be felt in our region.”

We are witnessing a Pan-African unity on the ground that we have never seen before. Who is this man and this revolution that has the moral authority and power to draw an army of Africans from every corner of the continent?

One Tripoli resident answered with the following statement: “Qaddafi is our Che Guevara, and for Libyans and many people around the world, he is a symbol of freedom and democracy.”

 

An estimated 16,000 African freedom fighters have poured into Libya.”

 

He explained that the West does not understand Libya and the age old tribal and religious battles that are being waged, and pointed out, that even if Qaddafi was to leave Libya, these armed gangs and tribes would fight till judgment day. He added that it is Qaddafi who has tried for the last 40 years to overcome these age old conflicts and the backwardness that accompanies them, and build real democracy, through a system of people’s congresses and popular committees.

He finished by saying that “the West does not know this man but that they would surely come to know who he is now.”

The Pan-Africanism we are finally witnessing is not the ivory tower academic brand, which has been viewed as relatively harmless and ineffective by the imperialists, but a grassroots Pan-Africanism – bottom up – which has given birth to the continent’s first Pan-African army, willing to lay down their lives for a revolution and a leader that they love and to whom they owe a great deal.

Many of these fighters and liberation movements have received education, military training and assistance from Libya when they were battling imperialist backed despotic regimes in their own countries, and now they are determined to defend the man and country who stood by them in their darkest hour. This attack on Libya has serious repercussions for the entire African continent.

The Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (South Africa) travelled to Libya to meet with Qaddafi face to face and express their support and solidarity. They issued a statement expressing “their support to Qaddafi, who had been crucial to the PAC during the days of apartheid in South Africa.” 
“We have a long cooperation with Qaddafi himself and Libya. Our cadres were trained in Libya by Qaddafi and a friend is a friend no matter what,” said the party’s spokesman, Mzwanele Nyhontso.

Qaddafi has been a friend to all oppressed peoples throughout the world. There is hardly a liberation movement that has not been helped in some way by Qaddafi and Libya over the past three decades. He is our friend and brother and let’s hope everyone is clear on who our enemies are.

 

The Emperor is naked – what’s new?

 

Of course, imperialist maneuvers and crusades similar to this current one have been on going for centuries. In more recent times, from Vietnam to Iraq, we have seen the same scenario played out based on a litany of lies. So what is different this time around?

Certainly not the lying part – they are still weaving their usual web of lies. The African freedom fighter Kwame Ture, who had close ties with the Libyan revolution, warned us that “the imperialists don’t just lie sometimes, they lie all the time.”

What is different is that things are changing for the imperialists as the world plunges deeper and deeper into chaos, and their ability to influence affairs worldwide is diminishing rapidly. In the midst of rebellions all over the Arab world, what is clear is that fewer and fewer people give a damn what the US and Europe thinks. So they saw fit to take desperate measures in an attempt to regain some political hegemony and limit the demise of their strategic influence in the region.

Even as Mussa Kussa, the Libyan Foreign Minister, announced a cease fire and the Libyan authorities determination to accept the UN resolution and utilize it in a positive way, the French and British were in a frenzy, trying to get international support for military strikes against the Libyan forces. We have witnessed their war mongering before, however, they were quite literally foaming at the bit this time.

 

The imperialists will become more and more desperate in their attempts to regain their influence.”

 

Such a frenzy can only be understood against a backdrop of their dwindling ability to dominate. Even in the economic sphere, their power is decreasing, as China, India and Brazil emerge as vital new trading partners in Africa and South America. In the words of Kwame Nkrumah, “Neo-colonialism is not a sign of imperialism’s strength, but rather of its last hideous gasp”.

In 2011, the imperialists have brought the world to the brink of disaster. At an economic summit, at the outset of the current ongoing global capitalist crisis, former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, publicly told the gathering that “the credit crunch was the fault of white, blue-eyed people.”

As the capitalist crisis worsens, and the world plunges deeper and deeper into chaos, the imperialists will become more and more desperate in their attempts to regain their influence and direct events worldwide as they are used to doing. Events which they are increasingly incapable of comprehending – not only because of the speed at which these events are occurring, but also because of the complexity of the events and the paradigm shifts taking place, that are, quite simply, far outside their western imagination.

Furthermore, they have lost all credibility as the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles continue. The Emperor is naked, and the hypocrisy of the Empire has become so transparent, that even the least informed observers are finally realizing that something is horribly wrong.

 

A Last Hideous Gasp?

 

Imperialism is experiencing its “last hideous gasp” and it is imperative for progressive and revolutionary movements worldwide to seize this moment and to oppose this current assault with all of our collective strength. Those who still struggle to see the wood from the trees remain enablers of the continued enslavement of our people. As Pan-Africanists we need to come together as never before to defend this brother and the Libyan Al Fateh revolution.

Sadly, the African Union has become another impotent international body with a neo-colonial mindset, due to the fact that unfortunately, a number of member states are still imperialist facilitators. The Pan-Africanist scholar, Chinweizu, calls these facilitators of imperialism “leaders in Africa,” because, as he points out, they are not “African leaders.”

Despite this, the African Union, under the guidance of progressive members, have managed to take a principled stand on Libya. In a statement issued by the AU Peace and Security Council, headed by Zimbabwe, they unanimously opposed any foreign military intervention and recognized the unity and territorial sovereignty of the North African State of Libya. The statement went on to call for “an urgent African action for the immediate cessation of all hostilities.”

 

How good and how pleasant it would be, before God and man…

 

Muammar Qaddafi has a vision for Africa – a United States of Africa – with one government, one army and one currency. Of course, if this were to happen, it would shift the balance of power globally. The well documented fact is that if Africa stopped the flow of all African resources and raw materials to the western nations for just one week – the United States and Europe would grind to a halt – they are that dependent on Africa and are therefore determined to maintain their ability to control events on the continent.

Control over Africa’s affairs has always been a priority for the imperialist project. As Minister Louis Farrakhan pointed out many years ago at a conference in Libya, “Europe and the US cannot go forward into the new century without unfettered access to the vast natural resources of Africa” and he added that “Qaddafi is one who stands in their way.”

If they cannot maintain control, then at least they must try to maintain Africa’s divisions, thereby ensuring it is always in a position of weakness. African unity and true independence is something white supremacy, in all of its manifestations – capitalism, imperialism and neo-colonialism – will oppose with all its might.

When Sarkozy the clown, to quote Saif Qaddafi, made his ridiculous pronouncement recognizing the rag tag conglomerate of reactionaries in Benghazi as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people, and Hillarity rushed to meet with the “Libyan opposition,” the sinister imperialist plot began to unfold. Their mission was certainly not to “protect innocent civilians.” They had from the outset, very clearly chosen a side and now, as they bombard the Libyan revolutionary forces we know without any doubt, whose side they are on.

 

If they cannot maintain control, then at least they must try to maintain Africa’s divisions.”

 

Their plot further unraveled, when a Dutch helicopter, carrying Dutch marines on some kind of sabotage/espionage mission was captured right inside Libyan territory. The Dutch government finally acknowledged that its warship, the Tromp, was offshore in the sea off Sirte and the captured helicopter had lifted-off from there. If the rebellion in Benghazi was, as the media has reported, “a spontaneous rebellion, like others in the region,” then the Dutch were surprisingly well prepared. Actually, it would have been impossible for them to arrive so swiftly at the scene, and so they had to have had prior knowledge of what was taking place. It is now crystal clear that this rebellion in Benghazi was an orchestrated attempt, supported by foreign sources, to use the events taking place across North Africa as a cover for the overthrow of the Libyan revolution.

And then there was William Hague’s brazen landing of the British SAS personnel inside Libyan territory to make contact with the al Qaeda inspired rebels. Of course it is no surprise that the British and al Qaeda are on the same side – as noted above they have been collaborating to destroy Libya for a very long time. Reactionaries inevitably end up dovetailing, and a partnership with the imperialists is after all where al Qaeda had its beginnings: as a US instrument in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. George Bush Senior had close ties with the Taliban, and Ronald Reagan poured millions of dollars into assisting the Jihadists in Afghanistan, the forerunners of al Qaeda, which means ‘the base’, and refers to a data base of Mujahideen from numerous countries, compiled with the help of the CIA.

 

Many Battlefronts

 

In addition to the battle between “true religion and false religion” to paraphrase the Muslim revolutionary thinker, Ali Shariati, there is another major battlefront in Libya. It is the battle between Black Africans and those fair skinned ‘Arab settlers’, who embrace a “separatist” stance, refusing to acknowledge their African heritage, and who want little to do with the Pan-African project although they are on the African continent. As noted above, these ‘Arabs’ look upon black people with utter contempt and disdain. They definitely do not share Qaddafi’s vision of a united Africa and resent the resources of Libya being used to assist projects towards this end throughout the continent.

It has been well documented that the Libyan rebels are committing crimes against humanity. There have been “African hunts” in rebel held territory. Black workers, students and refugees have been detained, raped and executed - some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Even Black Libyans have been targeted, and many of them have been abducted by armed rebels and are being held in secret locations. These are the forces that the imperialists are racing to support. There has been a deafening silence from the so-called international community and western media regarding these well documented “African Hunts” and the massacre of Black Africans by the rebels.

 

Black workers, students and refugees have been detained, raped and executed.

 

From Washington, France and London, they continue their attempts to demonize Muammar Qaddafi with their lies. But the truth is that he is a revolutionary and a freedom fighter, who has assisted almost every struggle for liberation over the past three decades, and worked tirelessly, day and night, to facilitate African advancement and unification. At the same time, the revolution he has led, has taken Libya from the status of being the poorest country in the world to a country that has attained the highest standard of living in Africa. The “weapons of mass deception” assembled by the Crusaders can never succeed in portraying him as a ruthless dictator – an enemy of humanity? Let us heed the warning of the great revolutionary, Al Hajj Malik Al Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X:
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power because they control the minds of the masses.”

As I write this article, Qaddafi is addressing the world. He is defiant, preparing Libyans for a long war and assuring the crusaders that they will never get their hands on Libya and its resources. Meanwhile, the coalition of Crusaders and their Arab enablers are starting to show some signs of strain.

I am reminded of Qaddafi’s words in 1986, when Reagan bombed his residence,

They may hit us with long range missiles and aircrafts – this is expected, but they will never stay. This land is too hot for their feet.”

Gerald A. Perreira has lived in Libya for many years. He served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Libyan revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli. He can be contacted at mojadi94@gmail.com.

source: blackagendareport.com

 

Tony Blair: Libya, Lockerbie, Arms and Betrayals.


Tony Blair: Libya, Lockerbie, Arms and Betrayals.

Tony Blair: Libya, Lockerbie, Arms and Betrayals.. 50765.jpeg

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” (Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, letter 1775.)

This will surely have you falling down with surprise. According to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by the (UK) Sunday Telegraph, the August 2009 release from Scotland’s Barlinnie jail of Libyan Abdelbaset al- Megrahi, accused of the bombing of  Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, hinged on an oil and arms deal, allegedly brokered by roving war monger (sorry, roving “Peace Ambassador”) Tony Blair.

Felicity Arbuthnot

At this point it should be said that anyone who has read John Ashton and Ian Ferguson’s meticulous “Cover up of Convenience” (i) on the Lockerbie tragedy could only regard Mr al-Meghrahi’s conviction as between very unsafe and very questionable.

The British Labour Party, which Blair headed for ten years, until 27th June 2007, have always insisted that the release had no connection with commercial deals. After leaving Downing Street, Blair visited Libya some six times.

On 8th June 2008, the then British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, sent Tony Blair’s private office a thirteen hundred word briefing on the UK’s eagerness to do business with Libya, according to the Telegraph. (ii) Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Colonel Quaddafi, just two days later, June 10th. Qaddafi paid: Blair, always lavish with other’s money had requested, and was granted, the Colonel’s private jet for the journey.  

Sir Vincent’s “key objective” was for: “Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth through the City of London”, according to the Telegraph, which also cites the Ambassador writing of the UK being : “privately critical of then President George Bush for ‘shooting the US in the foot’ by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals.” Britain however, was voraciously scrambling to fill the fiscal gap.

Unlike the US and UK who abandon or drone to death their own citizens who are in trouble, or even accused of it, Libya’s Administration had stood by their man and seemed to be prepared to do even unpalatable deals to free him and had long been pressuring the UK to release al-Megrahi.

In May 2007, a month before he left Downing Street, Blair had made his second visit to Libya, meeting Colonel Qaddafi and his Prime Minister Al Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi in then beautiful and now near ruined city of Sirte.

Surely coincidentally, on this trip, a deal was seemingly thrashed out, including prisoner transfer, just before British Petrolium (BP) announced their approximate £454 million investment to prospect for £13billion worth of oil in Libya.

Also, states the Telegraph report: “At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Al Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy a missile defence system from MBDA – a weapons manufacturer part-owned by Britains’s  BAE Systems.” This seemed to (also) hinge on a Memorandum of Understanding for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement: “which the Libyans believed would pave the way for al-Megrahi’s release.” Various sources state that the arms deal was worth £400 million, and up to two thousand jobs in the UK. Sir Vincent referred to the arms deal as a “legacy issue.” Blair’s “legacy”, as ever, synonymous with destruction. 

Ironically, it was Blair who credited himself with persuading Colonel Qaddafi to abandon and destroy his weapons programmes  after his visit to the country in March 2004 (placing that Judas kiss  the Colonel’s cheek) as a step to Libya returning to the fold of the duplicitous “international community.” With friends like Blair, enemies are a redundancy.

When Blair returned to Libya in June 2008, the Telegraph contends that the British Government, then under Gordon Brown, Blair’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer (who left the national coffers near empty) used the opportunity: “ to press the case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis - and Libya, though the Libyan Investment Authority – had billions of pounds in reserves.”

Saif al-Islam, Qaddafi’s son, expressed the concern over the arms deal being voiced from within the Libyan military, given their close ties to the “Russian defence equipment camp.” 

An earlier discovery by the Sunday Telegraph shows, in letters and emails, that Blair held hitherto undisclosed talks with the Colonel in April 2009, four months before al-Megrahi’s release. (iii) 

Again he was flown at the expense of the Colonel, in his private jet: “In both 2008 and 2009, documents show Mr Blair negotiated to fly to the Libyan capitol … in a jet provided by Qaddafi.” Blair’s Office denies the claims, saying they were transported in a Libyan government ‘plane.

By the time of the 2009 visit: “Libya was threatening to cut all business links if al-Megrahi stayed in a British jail.” Blair seemingly attempted to pour oil on troubled waters by bringing American billionaire, Tim Collins to that meeting to advise Qaddafi on building the beach resorts he was planning, on the Libyan coast. 

Further adding to the murk, a spokesperson for Collins stated:”Tim was asked to go by Tony Blair in his position as a trustee of Mr Blair’s US faith foundation. Tim had no intention of doing any business with Qaddafi.”

However: “Sources in Libya said Qaddafi had discussed with Mr Collins opening beach resorts along the Libyan coast, but that Mr Collins had dismissed the idea because the Libyans would not sanction the sale of alcohol or gambling at the resorts. 

Blair’s spokesperson said of the visit: ” … Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.” A Blair first, seemingly, given the impression that he never touches down anywhere without emerging with a lucrative contract or a large cheque, 

However, Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, is quoted as saying : “Mr Blair is clearly using his Downing Street contacts to further his business interests.”

In a further coincidence, the Prisoner Transfer agreement for Mr al-Megrahi was signed the day before Blair’s 2009 visit.

When al-Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, was released in August 2009, the British media and politicians were outraged. Scotland had done a deal and was benefiting financially from Libya. The latest revelations prove Scotland did no financial deals. When Mr al-Megrahi failed to die, politicians and media were even more outraged. They were a shaming spectacle.

Mental mind set can be a huge force in prolonging life in even the most serious cancer patients. No doubt in al-Megrahi’s case, being back in a home and with a family he loved contributed to his extra time. He survived long enough to see his country destroyed by the devious forces the West embodies – and at which Blair excels.  Megrahi died in September 2012. 

Incidentally, Ambassador Fean reportedly “expressed relief” at al-Megrahi’s release: “He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. ‘They could have cut us off at the knees.”(iv)

Qaddafi, however, never signed the arms deal.

Footnote: The 2004 visit by Blair was arranged by Saif al Islam, who Blair seemingly knew well and had allegedly even offered suggestions on his PhD thesis when Saif was studying at the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS.)

In September last year Saif al-Islam’s lady friend of six years, appealed, passionately, to Blair to intervene to save the life of his now captured, maimed and death penalty-facing friend: “The two are old friends – it is time that Mr Blair returned some loyalty. Mr Blair is a man of God – as a Christian he has a moral duty to help a friend in need”, she has commented. (v)

Seemingly there has been no response from Blair’s office. Further, an extensive search for a comment on the appalling death of  Colonel Qaddafi – his former host and private ‘plane provider – and the demise of much of his family from this “Peace Envoy” and “man of God”, has come up with absolutely nothing.

To mangle a quote: Beware of British offering deals.

i. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/lock-a24.html

ii. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10206659/Lockerbie-bomber-release-linked-to-arms-deal-according-to-secret-letter.html

iii. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8771192/Libya-Tony-Blair-and-Col-Gaddafis-secret-meetings.html

iv. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lockerbie-bomber

v. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197304/Saif-Gaddafis-girlfriend-calls-PM-save-life.html

source: english.pravda.ru