In an image from the Pentagon, a bomb was moved from a bunker in Libya to be later drained of its chemical agent.
WASHINGTON — Even as the international effort to destroy Syria’s vast chemical weapons stockpile lags behind schedule, a similar American-backed campaign carried out under a cloak of secrecy ended successfully last week in another strife-torn country,Libya.
The United States and Libya in the past three months have discreetly destroyed what both sides say were the last remnants of Col.Muammar al-Qaddafi’s lethal arsenal of chemical arms. They used a transportable oven technology to destroy hundreds of bombs and artillery rounds filled with deadly mustard agent, which American officials had feared could fall into the hands of terrorists. The effort also helped inspire the use of the technology in the much bigger disposal plan in Syria. ****(The previous regime didn’t have any lethal arsenal of chemical arms, what the destroyed discreetly in the Sahara desert was the chemical weapons of Syria which is going to cause a NATURAL DISASTER TO ECHO SYSTEM OF THE DESERT, as if that is not enough lets not forget the Depleted Uranium they (NATO) bombed Libya which has already shown the signs of the disaster to the Echo system in the country and to the people. Of course this does not concern America and the Libyan government who want to destroy Libya completely. These chemicals should have gone to America or Saudi Arabia while they are the ones who begun and financed these wars.)
Since November, Libyan contractors trained in Germany and Sweden have worked in bulky hazmat suits at a tightly guarded site in a remote corner of the Libyan desert, 400 miles southeast of Tripoli, racing to destroy the weapons in a region where extremists linked to Al Qaeda are gaining greater influence. The last artillery shell was destroyed on Jan. 26, officials said.
As Libya’s weak central government grapples with turmoil and unrest, and as kidnappings and assassinations of military and police officers accelerate in the country’s east, American and international weapons specialists hailed the destruction of the Libyan stockpile as a bright spotin an otherwise gloomy security environment.
“It’s a big breakthrough,” said Paul F. Walker, an arms control expert with the environmental group Green Cross International who has helped in efforts to demilitarize the American and Russian chemical weapons stockpiles since the 1990s. “Even though Libya’s chemical stockpile was relatively small, the effort to destroy it was very difficult because of weather, geography and because it’s a dangerous area with warring tribes, increasing the risks of theft and diversion,” he said. ***(see what I mean they want to destroy us completely)
Libya’s last two tons of chemical weapons were dwarfed by the 1,300 tons that Syria has agreed to destroy. But American and international arms experts say the need for easily transportable and efficient technology to wipe out the Libyan arms became a model for the Syria program now underway.
For Libya’s fragile transitional government, such collaboration with the West on security matters is a delicate issue. It gives the country’s leaders desperately needed assistance to defuse internal threats, but also risks accusations of compromising national sovereignty.
Asked about the American efforts to destroy the chemical weapons, Libyan security officials in Tripoli initially issued sweeping denials. One later briefly acknowledged the operation on the condition of anonymity, and then officials stopped returning phone calls.
On Sunday, the White House said that it would ensure that the Syrian government complied with an accord to give up its chemical arsenal despite missed deadlines and delays in carrying out the deal.
The White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that the deal was “not falling apart, but we would like to see it proceed much more quickly than it is.”
The disposal of the last of Libya’s chemical weapons closes a chapter that Colonel Qaddafi began in early 2004, when his government turned over a vast cache of nuclear technology and chemical stockpiles to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors. ****(The previous regime turned ALL of its Chemical Stockpile and that is why they Bombed us to the stone age Condition.)
At that time, Libya declared for destruction 24.7 metric tons of sulfur mustard, a syrupy liquid that when loaded into bombs or artillery shells and exploded creates a toxic mist that penetrates clothing, burns and blisters exposed skin, and can kill with large doses or if left untreated. The chemical was used extensively in World War I.
Libya had destroyed about half of these stocks when civil war broke out in 2011. Western spy agencies closely monitored the destruction site in the Libyan desert to ensure the stockpiles were not pilfered by insurgents.
When the new government took control in Tripoli that fall, it signaled its intent to finish the job. Libyan officials also surprised Western inspectors by announcing the discovery in November 2011 and February 2012 of two hidden caches of mustard, or nearly two tons, that had not been declared by Colonel Qaddafi’s government. That brought the total declared amount of chemical to 26.3 tons. ****(What they are not saying is that the nearly two tons was imported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, USA, France and England to be used against the Libyan people as you can check in my archives you will see at the time in question this chemical weapons were used against Sirt and Ban Walid, the chemical agents where Mustard,Sarin and White Phosphorus, I am sick and tired of the West and America putting the blame on the previous regime.)
Unlike the majority of Libya’s mustard agents, which were stored in large, bulky containers, the new caches were already armed and loaded into 517 artillery shells, 45 plastic sleeves for rocket launchings and eight 500-pound bombs. ****(Here we have to thank Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA. It was the only way to win the war.)
The new stockpiles immediately posed huge challenges for the fledgling Libyan government, which had no ability to destroy the combat-ready chemical weapons, as well as for its American and European allies called upon to help. ****(yes poor Libya has to ask for help!)
The disposal site is deep in the desert, in an area where Islamist militants hostile to the West wield growing influence. It also sits on the front line of the struggle between Libya’s eastern and western provinces over political power and oil revenue. A defining issue in post-Qaddafi politics, the regional rivalry has often spilled out into armed blockades of the national highways and crucial oil-export terminals as well. ****(do you see what I mean? (hostile to the west – armed blockades and crucial oil-export) they want to destroy every thing)
Using $45 million from the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has helped rid the former Soviet Union of thousands of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon and its Defense Threat Reduction Agency tapped the Parsons Corporation, a construction firm based in Pasadena, Calif., ****(wonder how many millions $$ they are collecting) to work with Libya to oversee the rebuilding and safeguarding of the Libyan disposal site, which had been ransacked during the civil war. ****(what civil war? We have the patriotic Libyans against the foreign backed government and the two hundred fifty militias which are foreign backed and financed by the West. That’s not CIVIL WAR, as the 250 militia and the government are foreigners and exiled Libyans from 1969 who these people have NOT LIVED IN LIBYA FOR THE LAST FORTY TWO YEARS and are not accepted by the Libyan people)
Remarkably, the mustard agents stored in bulk containers at the site were untouched and their inspection seals unbroken, American and international officials said. These have all been destroyed, too.
Canada donated $6 million to help restore water, sewage service and electricity to the site, ****(donated really? the donated from the frozen assets of Libya so that’s Libyan money and not Canadian, although Canada owes a lot more to the Libyan people for all damages done by bombing us and destroying all the infrastructure of Libya)and to build living quarters for Western and Libyan contractors. Germany agreed to fly international inspectors to the site.
The project has relied on a custom-built device from Dynasafe, a Swedish company, to destroy the weapons. It is essentially a giant, high-tech oven called a static-detonation chamber. The munitions were fed through an automated loading system into a gas-tight chamber, where the toxic materials were vaporized at temperatures between 750 and 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Gases created in the process were scrubbed by special filters.
“The destruction of these munitions was a major undertaking in arduous, technically challenging circumstances,” Ahmet Uzumcu, the director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, whose inspectors supervised the destruction of the chemical weapons, said in a written statement.
Although American officials acknowledge that Libya is awash with conventional arms, they expressed confidence that the vast Libyan desert holds no other secret caches of unconventional arms for jihadis to exploit. ***(So let America explain why there was Sarin gas and White phosphorus was used only recently (January) in Sabha and Ban Walid on the people? When they confirm that there is no other secret caches.)
Andrew C. Weber, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, said, “This is the culmination of a major international effort to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Libya and to ensure that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.” ****(yeah right!!! It will be only used by these terrorists 250 militias, Qatar, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia Turkey and the U.S.A. against the Libyan people.)
2. Gaddafi is “bombing his own people”
3. Benghazi Save
4. African mercenaries
5. in May. fueled by Viagra mass rape
6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
7. Gaddafi – the Devil
8. Freedom Fighters – Angels [or rebels Santos]
9. victory for the Libyan people
10. defeat for “the left”
Since Colonel Gaddafi has lost his military control in the war against NATO and the insurgents or rebels or new regime, numerous talking heads have taken to celebrating this war as a “success”.
They believe that this is a “victory of the Libyan people” and we should all be celebrating. Others proclaim victory for the “responsibility to protect“,” humanitarian interventionism, “and condemn the” anti-imperialist left. “
Some who claim to be “revolutionaries,” or believe they support the “Arab revolution,” somehow find it possibleto sideline NATO’s role in the war, instead extolling the democratic virtues of the insurgents, glorifying his martyrdom, and expanding their role until everything else is pushed from view. I wish to dissent from this circle of acclamation, and remind readers of the role of fabrications ideologically motivated “truth” that were used to justify, enable, enhance, and motivate the waragainst Libya-and to emphasize how damaging the practical effects of those myths have been to the Libyans, and all those who favored peaceful, non-militarist solutions.
These ten myths are some of the most repeated claims by the insurgents, and / or by NATO, European leaders, the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and even the so-called “International Criminal Court”, the main actors speaking in war against Libya. In turn, we look at some of the reasons why these claims are better seen as imperial folklore, as the myths of the broader support of all myths-that this war is a “humanitarian intervention,” designed for ” protect civilians. “
Again, the importance of these myths lies in their wide propagation, with little doubt, and the lethal effect. Moreover, can severely distort the ideals of human rights and their invocation of the future, thus helping the continued militarization of Western culture and society.
Just a few days after street protests began on February 21 very quick to defect Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said :
“We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli planes still bringing mercenaries to the airports..” This is excellent: a myth that is composed of myths. With that statement was linked three key myths together - the role of airports (of Hence the need for that gateway drug of military intervention: the no-fly zone), the role of “ mercenaries ” (meaning, simply, black people), and the threat of “ genocide“(geared toward language of the UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect). As goofy and totally unfounded assertion that era, he was intelligent, improvising three horrible myths, one of them grounded in racist discourse and practice that endures to the present, with new atrocities reported against black immigrants in Libya and Africa on a daily basis. He was not alone in making these claims.
Among others like him, Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights , told Reuters on March 14 that if Gaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi, “there will be a suite of royal blood, a slaughter as we saw in Rwanda. “ That’s not the only time he remembered about Rwanda. Here was Lt. General Roméo Dallaire, the much worshiped Canadian force commander of the UN peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in 1994, currently an appointed senator in the Canadian Parliament and co-director of the project will intervene in Concordia University. Dallaire, in a race to judgment dizzying speed, not only made repeated references to Rwanda when trying to explain Libya, he spoke of Gaddafias “employing genocidal threats to ‘cleanse Libya house by house. ‘”This is a If it was taken selective attention to Gaddafi’s rhetorical excesses too seriously, when on other occasions, the powers that be rather quick to dismiss it: U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner scared Gaddafi alleged threats Europe, saying that Gaddafi is “someone who has given to overblown rhetoric”.
How very calm, by contrast, as very convenient, because on February 23, President Obama said he had instructed his administration to reach a “choice” to take against Gaddafi.
But “genocide” has a well established international legal definition, as seen repeatedly in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where genocide involves the persecution of a “one national, ethnical, racial or religious group “.
Not all violence is “genocidal.” domestic violence is not genocide. Genocide is notjust “lots of violence” nor violence against undifferentiated civilians. How much Dabbashi, Dallaire, and others do not was to identify the group of national, ethnic, racial or religious persecution, and how they differ in terms of the alleged perpetrators of genocide. They really should know better (and do), one as UN ambassador and the other as a more exalted and lecturer on genocide expert. This suggests that myth-making was either deliberate, or founded on prejudice.
What foreign military intervention did, however, was to enable the actual genocidal violence that has been routinely sidelined until very recently: the horrific violence against African migrants and black Libyans , identified solely on the basis of their skin color .That has carried out unhindered, without apology , and until recently, without much notice . Indeed, the media even collaborates , rapid to assert without evidence that any captured or dead black man must be a “mercenary”. This is the genocide that the white, Western world, and those who dominate the “conversation” about Libya, have missed (and not by accident).
Two. Gaddafi is “bombing his own people”.
We must remember that one of the reasons why early in rushing to impose no-fly zonewas to preventGaddafi using his air force to bomb “his own people”, a distinct phrasing that echoes what proven in the demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
On February 21, when the first alarmist “warnings” about “genocide“were made by the Libyan opposition,bothAl Jazeeraand the BBC claimed that Gaddafi had deployed his air force against protesters, as the BBC “reported “: “Witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city.” However, on March 1, in a press conference at the Pentagon , when asked: “ Did you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of him, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent? “answered U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “ We haveseen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that. “ Backing him up was Admiral Mullen: “That is correct. we ‘ve seen no confirmation whatsoever. “
In fact, claims that Gaddafi also used helicoptersagainst unarmed protesters are totally unfounded, a pure invention based on false claims. This is important since it was Gaddafi’s domination of Libyan air space that foreign interventionists wanted to nullify, and therefore myths of atrocities perpetrated in the air took on added value of providing a starting point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to “protect civilians”.
David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times , as early as March 21 confirmed that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming that there are no battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making highly exaggerated claims of his barbaric behavior “. The “so inflated claims” are what became part of the folklore of the imperial environment events in Libya, that suited Western intervention. Rarely did the Benghazi-based question journalistic crowd or contradict their hosts.
Three. Save Benghazi.
This article is being written as the Libyan opposition forces march on Sirte and Sabha, the two last remaining strongholds of the Gaddafi government, with ominous warnings to the population to be delivered, or otherwise. Apparently, Benghazi became somewhat of a “holy city” in international discourse dominated by leaders of the European Union and NATO.
Benghazi was the only city on earth that could not touch. It was like a sacred place. Tripoli? Sirte? Sabha? These can be sacrificed, as we all look on, without a hint of protest from any of the existing powers-that, even as the first reports of how the opposition has slaughtered people in Tripoli. So back to the Benghazi myth.
“If we wait another day, “said Barack Obama in his March 28 address , “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a slaughter that have affected the region and stained the conscience of the world. “
In a joint letter, Obama with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said:. “By responding immediately, our countries advancing Gaddafi forces stopped the bloodbath he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented. Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. “ Not only French aircraft bombedretreating column, what we saw was a very short column that included trucks and ambulances, and that clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi.
Apart from the “exaggerated rhetoric” Gaddafi, the U.S. were quick to dismiss when it suited its purposes, it is not up to date yet you provided no evidence that programs of Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of “tens of thousands” of lives as proclaimed by Obama.Cameron and SarkozyThis by Professor Alan J. is best explained Kuperman in “ False pretense for war in Libya? ”
“The best proof that Gaddafi did not plan genocidein Benghazi is that do not occur in the other cities that were fully or partially recovered, including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya,which together have a population greater than Benghazi ….Gaddafi acts were far from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields …. Despite ubiquitous mobile phones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate slaughter …. Nor Gaddafi increasingly threatens slaughter of civilians in Benghazi, as Obama says .’s warning ‘mercilessly’, March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised a amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Qaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.”
In a bitter irony, what evidence there is of massacres, committed by both sides, is now found in Tripoli in recent days, months after NATO imposed its “life-saving” military measures .
Revenge killings daily reported most frequently, including the slaughter of black Libyans and African migrants by rebel forces. Another sad irony:in Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months, well after Gaddafi forces were repulsed, not even that has prevented violence: revenge killings have been reported there too, the lowest number 6 below.
April. African mercenaries.
Patrick Cockburn summarized the functional utility of the myth of the “African mercenary” and the context in which it arose: “ Since February, the insurgents, often supported by foreign powers, said the battle was between Gaddafi and his family on the one hand, and the Libyan people, on the other. Their explanation of t that large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money. “
As he notes, black prisoners were put on display for the media (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention), but Amnesty International later found that all the prisoners had supposedly been released since none of them were fighters, but rather were undocumented workers from Mali, Chad and West Africa.
The myth was useful for the opposition to insist that this was a war between “Gaddafi and the Libyan people,” as if he had no domestic support at all an absolute and colossal lie so that one might think that only children small could believe such a fantastic story. Myth is also useful for cementing the intended rupture between “the new Libya” and Pan-Africanism, realigning Libya with Europe and the “modern world”, which the opposition so explicitly crave.
The “African mercenary” myth, as was deadly, racist practice, is a fact that paradoxically has been both documented and ignored it. Months ago he offered me a comprehensive review of the role of the media, led byAl Jazeera, as well as planting media, in creating the African mercenary myth.
The racist attacks and murders of African Saharan black Libyans and continues to the present.
Patrick Cockburn and Kim Sengupta speak of the recently discovered mass of “rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli“.
Even while showing us video of hundreds of bodies in the Abu Salim hospital, the BBC dares not highlight the fact that most of those who are clearly black people, and even wonders about who might have killed. This does not is a question for the anti-Gaddafi forces interviewed by Sengupta: “Come and verify. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries,” shouted Ahmed Bin Sabri, lifting the tent door to show the body of a dead patient, his gray dark red blood-stained shirt, the saline pipe running into his arm black with flies. Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed? ”
Today, Human Rights Watch has reported: “Dark Skin Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans face particular risks because rebel forces and other armed groups have often considered them Gadhafi mercenaries from other African countries have seen. Violent attacks and killings of these people in areas where the National Transitional Council took control “.
Amnesty International has also just reported on the disproportionate detention of black Africans in rebel-controlled Al-Zawiya of and the targeting of unarmed, migrant farm workers.
Reports continue to rise as it is being written, with other human rights groups finding evidence of the insurgents targeting Sub-Saharan African migrant workers. As president of the African Union, Jean Ping, recently stated. “NTC seems to confuse black peoplewith mercenaries. All blacks are mercenaries If you do that, it means (that) one third of the population of Libya, which is black , is also mercenaries. they are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them. “ (For more information, see the list of the last reports I have collected.)
The “African mercenary” myth continues to be one of the most vicious of all the myths, and the most racist. Even in recent days, newspapers such as the Boston Globe uncritically and unconditionally show photographs of black victims or black detaineeswith the immediate assertion that they must be mercenaries, despite the lack of evidence.
Instead, it is usually provided with casual assertions that Gaddafi is “ known to have ”recruited Africans from other nations in the past, without even bothering to find out if those shown in the photos are black Libyans. The lynching of two black Libyans and sub-Saharan African migrant workers has been continuous and has not received any expression of concern, even nominal U.S. and NATO members, nor has aroused the interest of the so-called “International Criminal Court”.
It is no coincidence, and some that is justice for the victims, and that is all stop these heinous crimes that clearly constitute a case of ethnic cleansing. The media, only now, is becoming increasingly aware of the need to cover these crimes, if any overlooked for months.
May. Viagra-fueled rapes mass.
The reported crimes and human rights violations of the Gaddafi regime are awful necessary, it is not that one has to wonder why someone would make up stories like that of Gaddafi’s troops, with erections powered by Viagra, going on a rape spree.
Maybe it was sold, because it is the kind of story that “ captures the imagination of the public traumatized ”. This article was taken so seriously that some people started writing to Pfizer to get it to stop selling Viagra to Libya, since its product was allegedly used as a weapon of war. People who otherwise should know better, set out deliberately to mislead international public opinion.
In a surprise to the Security Council of the UN Declaration U.S. Ambassador Susan Ricealso asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops it with Viagra to encourage mass rape.
She offeredno evidence to support THIS claim. In fact, U.S. military and intelligence sources flatly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are receiving Viagra and participation in systematic rape against women in rebel areas.“ Rice is a liberal interventionist who was one of those to persuade Obama to intervene in Libya. She used this myth because it helped her make the case at the UN that there was no “moral equivalence” between Gaddafi abuses on the rights and insurgent .
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also stated that “Gaddafi’s forces on security and other groups in the region are trying to divide the people by using violence against women and rape as a weapon of war, and United States condemns this in the strongest possible terms. “ He added that it was “deeply concerned” by these reports of “large-scale violations.” (Ha, so far, said nothing at all about racist lynchings of the rebels .)
On June 10, Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading an inquiry into the rights of the United Nations on the situation in Libya, suggested that the reporting of Viagra and mass rape was part of a “massive hysteria ”.
In fact, both sides of the war have made the same accusations against each other. Bassiouni also told the press of a case of “a woman who claimed to have sent 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse “.
However, his teams asked for those questionnaires, they never will-”was, but she goes around the world telling everybody about it … so now I have that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused, “Bassiouni said.
He also noted that “there appears to be credible that the woman was able to send 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not working “.
Not only we are not all victims, but we have not even met people who have met victims. Regarding boxes Viagra that Gaddafi is supposed to have had distributed, which were found intact near tanks that were burned completely. “
However, this did not stop some news manufacturers from trying to maintain the rape claims, in modified form.
The BBC came to add another layer of only a few days after Bassiouni humiliated the ICC and the media: the BBC now claimed that rape victims in Libya “honor killings” faced. This is news to the fewLibyans I know, who ever heard talk about honor killings in their country.
The academic literature on Libya turns into little or nothing on this phenomenon in Libya. Myth of honor crimes serves a useful purpose for keeping the mass rape claim on life support: it suggests that women no show and witness, for shame. Also just a few days after Bassiouni spoke, Libyan insurgents, in collaboration with CNN, made a last effort to save the rape allegations: a cell phone with a video of the violation it was presented ., claiming that it belonged to a soldier of the government of men appearing in the video are in civilian clothes. No evidence of Viagra. It is no date on the video and we have no idea who recorded it or where. Those with mobile phone stated that many other videos existed, but they were conveniently being destroyed to preserve the “honor” of the victims.
6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Having asserted, wrongly as we saw, that Libya before the impending “genocide” at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces, it became easier for Western powers to invoke 2005 UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect .
Meanwhile, it is not entirely clear at the time that the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 that the violence in Libya had even reached the levels seen in Egypt, Syria and Yemen.
The most common refrain against critics of the selectivity of this supposed “humanitarian interventionism” is that the fact that the West can not intervene everywhere does not mean it should not intervene in Libya.Maybe … but that still does not explain why Libya was the chosen destination. This is a critical point because some of the first reviews of theR2P expressed in the UN raised the issue of selectivity, of who decides and why some crises where civilians are targeted ( eg Gaza) are essentially ignored, while others receive maximum concern, and whether R2P served as the new fig leaf for hegemonic geopolitics.
The myth at work here is that foreign military intervention was guided by humanitarian concerns. For the myth, one has to willfully ignore at least three key realities.
One you have to ignore the new scramble for Africa, where Chinese interests are seen as competing with the West for access to resources and political influence, something thatAFRICOM wants to challenge .
Horace Campbell argued that “ U.S. involvement in the bombing of Libya is becoming a public relations ploy for AFRICOM ”and an” opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention “. In addition, Gaddafi’s power and influence on the continent had also been increasing, through aid, investment, and a series of projects designed to reduce Africa’s dependence on the West and to challenge Western institutions multilateral by building African unity it represented a rival U.S. interests.
Thirdly, one has to also ignore the fear in Washington that the U.S. was losing control over the course of the “ Arab revolution ”. How can stack up these realities, and match them against ambiguous and partial “humanitarian concerns”, then the conclusion that, yes, human rights is what mattered most, seems entirely implausible and unconvincing- especially with the atrocious record of NATO and the U.S. violations of human rights inAfghanistan, Iraq, and before that Kosovo [Serbia]. The humanitarian perspective is simply neither credible nor even minimally logical.
If R2P is seen as founded on moral hypocrisy and contradiction -now definitively revealed-it will become much more difficult in the future to cry wolf again and expect to get a respectful hearing. This is especially the case since little in the way of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation preceded the military intervention-while Obama is accused by some of having been slow to react, this was if anything a rush to war, in a rate that far surpassed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
We not only know of the African Union about how its efforts to establish a peaceful transition were impeded, but Dennis Kucinich also reveals that received reports that a peaceful solution is at hand, only to be “ scuttled by officials of the Department. “These are absolutely critical violations of the R2P doctrine, showing how those ideals could instead be used for a practice that involved a hasty march to war, and war aimed at regime change ( which is itself a violation of international law ).
That R2P served as a justifying myth that often achieved the opposite of its stated objectives, it is no longer a surprise. I’m talking not even here the role of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in bombing Libya and aiding the insurgents, even as a copy of the Saudi military intervention to crush the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, nor of cast ugly mantle in an intervention led by consumer tastes indisputable human rights who have committed war crimes with impunity in Kosovo[Serbia], Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am taking a narrower approach, such as the documented cases where NATO even not only willfully failed to protect civilians in Libya, but deliberately and consciously attackedin a manner that constitutes terrorism by most definitions officers used by Western governments.
A U.S. Apache helicopter in a repeat of the infamous crimes listed in the Collateral Murder video - gunned down civilians in the central square of Zawiya, killing the brother of the information minister among others. Taking a fairly wide of what constitutes “command and control facilities” concept targeting NATO civilian residential space resulting in the death of some of the members of the Gaddafi family, including three grandchildren .
As if to protect the myth of “protecting civilians” and the unconscionable contradiction of a “war for human rights“, the mainstream media often kept silent about civilian deaths caused by NATO bombings.
R2P has been invisible when it comes to civilians targeted by NATO.
As for the failure to protect civilians, so that’s actually a international crime, have numerous reports of NATO ships ignoring the distress calls of refugee boats in the Mediterranean fleeing Libya.
In fact, NATOWatch, at least 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya have died at sea since the war began. Were mostly sub-Saharan Africans , and they died in multiples of the death toll suffered by Benghazi during the protests. R2P was utterly absent for these people.
NATO has developed a peculiar terminological twist for Libya, designed to absolve the rebels of any role in the commission of crimes against civilians, and abdicating its responsibility to protect call.
Throughout the war, spokespersons for NATO and the governments of the U.S. and Europe always portrayed all actions of the Gaddafi forces as “threatening civilians,” even when in either defensive actions, or combat against armed opponents.
For example, this week the NATO spokesperson, Roland Lavoie , “appeared to struggle to explain how NATO strikes were protecting civilians at this stage in the conflict. Asked about NATO’s assertion that hit 22 armed vehicles near Sirte on Monday, was unable to say how the vehicles were threatening civilians, or whether they were in motion or parked. “
By protecting the rebels, to the same extent that spoke of protecting civilians, it is clear that NATO intended to see Gaddafi’s armed opponents as mere civilians.
Interestingly, in Afghanistan, where NATO and the U.S. fund, train and armed that Karzai regime in attacking “his own people” (as they do in Pakistan), the armed opponents are labeled “terrorists” or “insurgents”-even if most of them are civilians who have never served in an army of official recognition. They are insurgents inAfghanistan, and their deaths at the hands of NATO are listed separately counts of civilian casualties. By magic, in Libya, they are all “civilians”. In response to the announcement of the UN Security Councilvoting for military intervention, a volunteer translator for Western reporters in Tripoli made this key observation : “? Civilians holding guns, and want to protect it is a joke . We are civilians. What about us? “
NATO has been a shield for the insurgents in Libya to victimize unarmed civilians in areas they came to occupy. There was no hint of any “responsibility to protect” in these cases. NATO helped the rebels in the famine of Tripoli of supplies, subjecting its civilian population to a site that deprived those of water, food, medicine and fuel.
When Gaddafi was accused of doing this toMisrata, the international media were quick to cite this as a war crime.
Save Misrata, kill Tripoli -whatever you want to label as “logic” humanitarian is not an acceptable option. Leaving aside the documented crimes by the insurgents against black Libyans and African migrant workers, the insurgents were also found by Human Rights Watch to have engaged in “looting, arson, and abuse of civilians in [four] people recently captured in western Libya. “
In Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, revenge killings have been reported by The New York Times as late as May this year, and by Amnesty International in late June and the judgment of the Board of the National Transitional insurgents. Responsibility to Protect? was now sounds like something deserving wild mockery.
7. Gaddafi, the Devil.
Depending on your perspective, either Gaddafi is a heroic revolutionary, and thus the demonization by the West is extreme, or Gaddafi is a very bad man, in which case the demonization is unnecessary and absurd.
The myth is that the history of power Gaddafi was marked by atrocity, only that he is completely evil,without any redeeming qualities, and anyone accused of being a “follower of Gaddafi” must somehow feel more ashamed than those who openly support NATO.
This is binary absolutism at its worst, virtually any permission made regarding the possibility that some may not support Gaddafi, the insurgents, nor NATO. Everyone was to be forced into one of these fields, no exceptions allowed. The result was a phony debate, dominated by fanatics of either side. lost in the discussion, recognition of the obvious: however much Gaddafi had been “in bed” with the West in the last decade, his forces were now fighting NATO-driven take over of his country.
The other result was the impoverishment of historical consciousness, and the degradation of more complex appreciations of the full breadth of the Gaddafi record. This would help explain why some do not rush to condemn and disown the man (without having to resort to crude caricature children and their motivations).
While even Glenn Greenwald feels the need to properly insert, “No decent human being possibly harboring any sympathy for Gaddafi,” I have known decent human beings in Nicaragua, Trinidad, Dominica, and among the Mohawks in Montreal, I very much appreciate Gaddafi’s support -not to mention his support for various national liberation movements, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
There are many faces, and they are both true. Some refuse to “disown” Gaddafi, to “apologize” for his friendship towards them, no matter how distasteful, indecent, and embarrassing other “progressives” may find him. That has to be respected, instead of this nowfashionable bullying bumps and the gang that reduces a range of positions on a lesser charge: “you support a dictator” . Ironically, we support many dictators, with our own tax money, and they usually offer no apologies for this fact.
Speaking of the breadth of Gaddafi registration, which must resist the simplistic reduction revisionist, some might care to note that even now , the U.S. State Department website in Libya points to a Library of Congress Country Study on Libya that features some of the Gaddafi government many social welfare achievements in recent years in the areas of health care, public housing and the education. In addition, Libyans have the highest literacy rate in Africa (see UNDP, p 171.) And Libya is the only African country to “high” in the Human Development Index of UNDP. Even theBBC recognized these achievements:
“ Women in Libya are free to work and to dress as they like, subject to family obligations. Life expectancy is in the seventies. And per capita income-while not as high as could be expected given Libya ‘s oil wealth and relatively small p -offering of 6.5 m is estimated at $ 12,000 (£ 9,000), according to the World Bank. Illiteracy has been almost wiped out because homelessness is a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi erawhere corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centers around the country. “
So if one supports health care, makes a medium compatible with dictatorship?Andif “the dictator” funds public housing and subsidizes incomes, which simply erasing facts from our memory?
8. Freedom Fighters of Angels.
The complement to the demonization of Gaddafi was the angelization of the “rebels” .My goal here is not to counter the myth through investment, and demonizing all of Gaddafi’s opponents, who have many serious and legitimate grievances, and in large numbers have clearly had more than they can bear. I am interested in place as“we” in the North Atlantic part of the equation, the construction of the ways that suit our intervention.
A standard way, repeated in different ways through a range of media and government spokesmen U.S. , can be seen in this New York Times ’ depiction of the rebels as “secular-minded professionals-lawyers , academics, businesspeople-who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law. “
The list of professions familiar to the American middle class which respects them, is meant to inspire a shared sense of identification between readers and the Libyan opposition, especially when you consider that it is in the hand of Gaddafi, where the forces of darkness dwell: the main “professions” we find are torturer, terrorist, and African mercenary.
For many weeks it was almost impossible to get reporters embedded with the rebel National Transitional Council in Benghazi to begin to provide a description of what constitutes anti-Gaddafi movement, if it was one organization or many groups, what their agendas They were, and so on.
The subtle thread in the reports was that cast the rebellion as entirely spontaneous and indigenous - that may be true in part, and may also be an oversimplification.
Some feel a definite need to be on the side of “good, “especially as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan offer a sense as fair claim. Americans want the world to see them as doing good, it is, not only indispensable, but also irreproachable. You can wish for anything better than being seen as the forgiveness of their sins in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a special moment, where the bad guy can safely be the other once again. A world that is safe for America is a world that is unsafe for evil. Marching Band, cane handles, Anderson Cooper , confetti, we got it.
9. The victory for the Libyan people.
To say that the current turn in Libya represents a victory by the Libyan people in charting their own destiny, at best, an oversimplification that masks the range of interests involved from the beginning in the development and determining the course of events on the ground, and that ignores the fact that much of the war Gaddafi was able to rely on a solid base of popular support.
As early as February 25, just one week after the start of the first street protests, Nicolas Sarkozy had already determined that Gaddafi “must go”. On 28 February, David Cameron, began working on a proposal for a no-fly exclusion of these statements and decisions were made without any attempt at dialogue and diplomacy.
At March 30, The New York Times reported that for “several weeks” CIA operatives had been working inside Libya, which would mean they were there from mid-February, ie, when the protests began-they were joined then inside Libya “dozens of British specialforces officers and intelligence MI6. “
The New York Times also reported in the same article that “several weeks” before (again, in mid-February), President Obama Several “signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to the rebels Libyans“with the support of” other “has a number of possible” covert actions ”.
USAID had alreadysent a team to Libya in early March. late March, Obama publicly stated that the goal was to overthrow Gaddafi. In terms awfully suspicious, “ said a senior U.S. administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would evolve‘organically, ’like those in Tunisia and Egypt, without foreign intervention “sounding as t exactly what kind of statesmen ta makes when something begins in a way that is not “organic” and when comparing events in Libya, marked by a potential legitimacy deficit when compared to those in Tunisia and Egypt.
However, on March 14 the NTCAbdel Hafiz Goga said: “We are able to control all of Libya, but only after the no-fly zone is imposed we”-that is not yet the case even six months later.
In recent days it has also revealed that what the rebel leadership swore, “boots foreign field” oppose is actually a reality confirmed by NATO ” troops of special forces from Britain, France Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gaddafi regime. “
This, and other summaries only scratching the surface of the range of external support provided to the rebels. Myth is that nationalist, self-sufficient rebel, fueled entirely by popular support.
At the moment, war supporters are proclaiming the intervention a “success”. It should be noted that there was another case in which an air campaign, deployed to support local armed militia on the ground, with the help of U.S. covert military operations, also succeeded in deposing another regime, and even much faster. That case was Afghanistan. Success.
10. Defeat of “the left.”
As if reenacting the pattern of articles condemning “the left” that came in the wake of the Iran election protests in 2009 (see as examples Hamid Dabashi and Slavoj Žižek ), the war in Libya once again seemed to have submitted a chance to go to the left, as if this were top on the agenda, as if “the left” was the problem to be addressed.
There seems to be some confusion over roles and identities. There is no homogeneousleft, nor me ideological agreement among anti-imperialists (which includes conservatives and liberals, between anarchists and Marxists).
Nor was the “anti-imperialist left” in any position to make a real or damage on the ground, as in the case of the actual protagonists.
There was little chance that the anti-interventionists in influencing foreign policy, which took shape in Washington, before the serious critiques against intervention were published.
These points indicate that at least some of the reviews are moved by concerns that go beyond Libya, and they even have little to do with Libya ultimately. The most common accusation is that the anti-imperialist left is somehow coddling a dictator.
The argument is that this is based on a flawed analysis-in criticizing the position of Hugo Chávez, Wallerstein says Chávez’s analysis is deeply flawed, and offers this among the criticisms: “The second point missed by Hugo Chavez’s analysis is that there is not going any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya “(yes, read it again). In fact, many of the counterarguments deployed against the anti-interventionist eco left or all the top myths that were dismantled above, that get their breed almost entirely wrong geopolitical analysis, and that pursue politics focused on part on personality and events of the day. This also shows us the deep poverty of the policy assumptions primarily on simplistic and one-sided ideas of “human rights” and “protection”(see Richard Falk’s critique), and the success of the new military humanism in diverting the energies left.
And a question persists: if those opposed to intervention were faulted for providing a moral shield for “dictatorship” (as if imperialism was not itself one global dictatorship), what about those humanitarians who have supported increasing xenophobia and racism militants so many accounts engage in ethnic cleansing?
Does this mean that the pro-interventionist people racist? Even object racism? So far, I have heard only silence from those quarters.
The agenda on the forehead, beating masks anti-imperialist straw man an effort to curb dissent against an unnecessary war that has lasted and expanded human suffering; advanced the cause of war corporatists, transnational companies and neoliberals, destroyed the legitimacy of multilateral institutions that were once openly committed to peace in international relations; violated international law and human rights, witnessed the emergence of racist violence, to the imperial state to justify its continued expansion, violated national laws, and reduces the discourse of humanitarianism to a mere handful of slogans, reactionary impulses, and policy formulas that privilege war as a first option.
Actually, the left is the problem here?
Maximilian Forte is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada Professor. Their website can be found at http://openanthropology.org/ ~ ~ V like his previous articles on Libya and other facets of imperialism.
In a March 7, 2011 article in The Independent of London titled “America’s Secret Plan to Arm Libya’s Rebels”, journalist Robert Fisk reported that the Obama Administration had asked Saudi Arabia to arm the Libyan rebels. The Saudis complied and later backed the same al Qaeda rebels in Syria. The Saudis also invaded Bahrain to save the al-Khalifa monarchy.
The Saudis have played this role for the City of London banker cabal for nearly a century – part of a quid pro quo which involves oil, arms, drugs and covert operations. (See my post, The Saudi Paymaster, or Chapter 3 of my book, Big Oil & Their Bankers…)
The Saudi throne has long served as anti-democratic bulwark in the region for the London/Wall Street bankers and their inbred royal European shareholder brethren. It was all part of a plan hatched by the Rothschild-controlled Business Roundtable a century ago to seize control of Middle East oil.
The Rothschilds are majority owners of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Saudi central bank – Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA).
In 1917 the British made a client of Ibn Saud, who was told to encourage Arab tribesman to repel the Ottoman Turks from the Persian Gulf Region. That same yearthe British House of Rothschild pushed throughthe Balfour Declaration, lending Crown support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. A year later the Ottomans were defeated.
Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were carved out of the Ottoman Empire and fell under British rule, with Ibn Saud taking control of his namesake – Saudi Arabia. In 1922 the Treaty of Jeddah gave Saudi Arabia independence from Britain, though the Crown still exerted considerable influence. To this day British mercenaries serve as bodyguards for the House of Saud.
During the 1920’s – with help from British troops – Ibn Saud grabbed more territory from the Ottomans. He annexed Riyadh and seized the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites.
Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Texaco) found oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938. The company formed ARAMCO with its Four Horsemen cartel buddies Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP. The US and Britain signed security agreements with the House of Saud and Bechtel busied itself building ARAMCO’s oil infrastructure.
In 1952, on the heels of the US/Saudi Security Agreement, SAMA was created as the Saudi Central Bank. By 1958 SAMA was run by Pakistani native Anwar Ali, later adviser to KingFaisal. Anwar had been Chief of the International Monetary Fund’sMiddle East Department.
Ali recruited three Western bankers to serveas SAMA advisers. Known as the Three Wise Men or White Fathers, these Western bankers called the shots at SAMA, with Ali serving as figurehead. The most powerful of the three was John Meyer, Jr., chairman of Morgan Guaranty’s (now JP Morgan Chase) International Division and later chairman of the entire Morgan mother ship.
The White Fathers funneled SAMA petrodollar royalties into Morgan Guaranty accounts. In turn Morgan served as well-paid investment counselor to SAMA. Anwar Ali’s son even landed a job at Morgan Guaranty. With billions in petrodollars flowing, the oil for arms quid pro quo was established.
Ibn Saud’s progeny form the modern-day House of Saud monarchy, which rules Saudi Arabia. Less than twenty families connected to the throne control the Saudi economy. The House of Saud spreads its influence through money and reproduction. Male members of the Saud family now number over 5,000.
Crown Prince Abdullah – half-brother of King Fahd – runs the Saudi National Guard and has assumed day to day control of the Kingdom since King Fahd suffered a serious stroke in 1995. Prince Sultan, Prince Nayef and Prince Salman are full brothers of King Fahd and serve as Ministers of Defense and Interior and Governor of Riyadh, respectively. Prince Sultan’s son is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US. Prince Bandar’s cousin, Prince Saud al-Faisal is the Saudi Foreign Minister.
These Saudi princes use the government agencies they run as personal piggy banks and represent foreign companies bidding for contracts in the Kingdom. They handle trillions in overseas investments. King Fahd is the second richest man in the world with a personal fortune of over $20 billion.
Prince Bandar is part of the Sudeiri clan which is comprised of the offspring of the late King Adbul Aziz and his favorite wife. The Sudeiris are the most powerful and most Westernized family in the kingdom. The House of Saud encourages a fundamentalist Wahhabist interpretation of Islam,but practitioners of Wahhabism in the Kingdom consider the Sudeiris munafaqeen(hypocrites).
While the Sudeiri clan lives in opulence, most Saudis struggle to put food on their tables. The increasingly unpopular Sudeiris rule with an iron fist and are constantly cited by international human rights organizations for their brutality and opposition to democratic freedoms.
The Saudi monarchy rules by decree. Women are not allowed to drive cars and are banned from many restaurants. The Kingdom has no democratic institutions. Opposition tothe House of Saud is criminalized, driving political opponents underground. In 1990 the Saudis beheaded 111 dissidents.
US corporations acquiesce in the Saudi oppression of women. At Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Starbucks establishments in Saudi Arabia, there are segregated sections for men and women. The women’s sections are run down. Starbucks has no seating at all for women. Women who show up at other Western restaurants without their husbands are turned away.
In January 2002 the US-based Freedom House released a survey which ranks countries in accordance with the freedoms they allow. Saudi Arabia was ranked as one of the ten least free countries in the world.
Human Rights Watch recently accused the United States of ignoring Saudi human rights violations to ensure a continuous oil supply.
The US/NATO intervention in Libya is not about “freedom”. It is about snuffing out a long-time nemesis of the House of Saud, the London & Paris-based Rothschilds and the neo-colonial international economic system which these financial parasites lord over at the expense of developing and resource-rich nations.
Fighting has broken out again in southern and western Libya clashes as pro-Gaddafi forces Between Rebel Militias have resulted in the seizure of several cities and an air base by loyalist. These events led French Admiral Edouard Guillard to appeal for imperialist intervention in Libya Renewed denying they evolution along the southern borderCould lead to a “terrorist threat.” (Washington Post, 27 January)
Guillard said any intervention would require the consent of the neocolonial regime in Tripoli headed by Prime Minister Ali Zeidan and General National Congress (GNC). Yet almost three years ago, the UN Security Council passed two resolutions impose an arms embargo on the Gaddafi government and “authorizes” the “fly zone”, a code word for a massive bombing campaign lasting eight months.
Since mid-January the allied forces REMAIN With the former political and economic system under the rule of Libya Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who was overthrown and killed brutally in October 2011 amid the Pentagon and NATO bombing campaign monitoring took several cities and towns in the South. Sebha, a town in the area has-been the scene of clashes Between Two ethnic groups Tebu and Awlad Sulaiman.
Other areas include Affected by the fighting south Wirshefana Ajilat, Zawia and territory west of Zahra. Clashes have Also Been Reported around the capital Tripoli, where loyalist forces have Fought pitched battles with Militias and military forces are backed by the regime of GNC. ( Libya Herald, January 20)
The Tebu , are dark-skinned Africans, are in conflict over the monitoring of resources in Awlad Sulaiman. Their withdrawal airbase in Tamenhint created the conditions for taking this important location by pro-Gaddafi forces on January 21.
ACCORDING to a report published by the Saudi Gazette, “The Tamenhint airbase 30 km north-east of Sebha is Reported to be back in the hands of Gaddafi forces guarding after tebu Mourzouk Withdrew. They unilaterally Monday night (January 20), denying that the government was deliberately exploiting clashes between Sebha and Awlad Sulaiman TEBUS in order to divert attention from movements to replace it with a new administration. “(January 22)
These events sent shock waves through the GNC and its weak and vacillating prime minister who is allied With the United States and other imperialist states Were responsible for the installation of the current regime in power. During the counter-revolutionary uprising of 2011. Libya Situation Clearly Demonstrated That the current regime has failed to stabilize the country in the Militias Which Were Involved in criminal activities in defiance Zeidan and other “authorities” in Tripoli.
The oil industry, which is the main export of the state of North Africa, has-been Largely off workers after Militias and various drilling installations and ports have taken Control of the production and threaten to exercise trade with foreign companies without the consent of Tripoli. Zeidan Within the limited support has GNC and the Islamic Justice and Building Party (JCP) recently resigned from the government due to political Differences With the prime minister.
However, the events in the South, where the Green flag of the Jamahiriya is Openly flying in defiance of the regime supported by the West is Causing Panic Within the country. A new law prohibits satellite TV networks to broadcast news and commentary now for Gaddafi is a direct result of the unstable situation of GNC.
This legal prohibition Seems destined to block satellite stations that have taken a pro-Gaddafi position in publishing its content. Such stations include channel al-Khadra and al-Jamahiriya.
Discontent is growing Among the Libyan population to the current situation. The most prosperous nation in Africa, with a standard of living That exceed several states in Europe, the conditions inside the country have the counter-revolution Deteriorated Dramatically since 2011.
This decline in living standards, the failure of the regime to reign in the Militias terrorizing the population, the collapse of the oil industry and Widespread corruption has even developed EXTENSIVE reviews Favored Among the elites. Another decree was issued in January, which prohibits scholarship students and employees to speak out against the conditions prevailing in Libya.
These Developments in Libya show That there is no benefit for the masses of oppressed nations, where other U.S. imperialist states have overthrown Governments and installed puppet regimes. The situation in Libya is reflected Also in Iraq, where people die every day of internal conflict and the That horrendous conditions prevail Among the majority of the population.
In Syria, more than 100,000 People Have died in the past three years since the U.S. has supported a counter-assault on the population. Present talks in Geneva Switzerland are ostensibly designed to reach a political solution Despite The U.S. and allies continue to Their finance and coordinate Those seeking to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
The anti-war and anti-imperialist groups in Western countries must Oppose this military and political interference in the internal affairs of Asian states: such as Afghanistan, where twelve years after the forces of the Pentagon and NATO is no closer Victorynowadays are Africa, the Middle East and in 2001. The U.S. and NATO Should be forced to withdraw its forces from foreign states and close its military bases.
The resources used to Maintain These occupations Should be redirected to rebuild the cities and towns are facing unprecedented That economic crisis through austerity and mass poverty. Such oppressed nations under imperialist occupation Should be paid compensation for the destruction Carried out by Western military forces.
Any Black-Green alliance in Libya?
“As These two forces begin to fight against racist and imperialist These puppets who rule the country are beginning to see a form of mass resistance. Having finished what form Remains to Be Seen.”
The Great Werfalla Tribe of Libya (largest Tribe in Libya 2 million strong – from Bani Walid) speaks and tells the world what is happening in Libya. The Tribes of Libya are cleaning their country of Radical Islamists, NATO mercenaries and puppets. NOW CURRENT ATROCITIES ARE BEING COMMITTED AGAINST THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS OF LIBYA BY AL QAEDA, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, ANSAR ALSHARIA AND OTHER NATO MERCENARIES TRYING TO KEEP THEIR EVIL CONTROL OF LIBYA BY ANY MEANS. THESE EXTREMIST GROUPS (many of them from foreign countries) ARE USING BOMBS, SARIN GAS, PHOSPHOR BOMBSagainst any tribe who stands against them.
The Great Werfalla tribe stands with, fights with and supports in any way the Libyan popular resistance made up of honorable Libyan heroes to bring their country out of the darkness left by NATO and the US.