A Military Coup Will Remove Obama


A Military Coup Will Remove Obama

 

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

The Aftermath of Benghazi

benghazi obama leaves em behind

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

The First Military Coup

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

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

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

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

A Review of Benghazi

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

The Truth Is Hiding In Plain Sight

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

Arming Al-Qaeda In Syria

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

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

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

Admiral Gayouette

Admiral Gayouette

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

Others Have Taken Note and Spoken Out

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

Obama’s Tumultuous Relationship with the Military

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

  CIA Director David Patraeus Is Sacked

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

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

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

  • Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.

  • Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.

  • Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.

  • General Allen, on November 13, 2012.

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

Conclusion

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

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

 

About these ads

THE ILLEGAL WAR ON LIBYA, EDITED BY CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: BOOK REVIEW


THE ILLEGAL WAR ON LIBYA,

EDITED BY CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: BOOK REVIEW

BY LADY KHAMIS  (‘The Girl Who Loves Khamis’)

   “Think of this book as your primer on war propaganda, deliberate media deception, hidden political and personal agendas, and finally, on what a set of politically powerful and well-connected people will do to a country when they have access to military power and the will to use it”.

  So writes editor Cynthia McKinney at the start of this must-read, gripping collection of chapters by different authors, showing the world that the illegal war on Libya in 2011 was a war on civilians – the very people the West claimed to be protecting. A set-up like the Iraq war – but far less publicised.

  Just like the Israeli-led false flag ‘Operation Trojan’ project of 1986 that led Libya to be bombed then in an attempt to murder its leader, Muammar Qadhafi, so the latter was again framed in 2011.

  America’s real aims, she continues, were to ‘clean up’ the old pro-Soviet regimes of Iraq, Libya and Syria. To attack and destroy the SEVEN countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. And The Project For The New American Century – as desired by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld etc. – to destabilise the Middle East and turn it upside down.

  McKinney has been told that the US keeps mercenary forces at an offshore base near the Libya-Tunisia border – which are carrying out joint operations with al-Qaeda in Eastern Libya. And that US forces operate in Tripoli under the protection of al-Qaeda’s Abdulhakim Belhadj – where they control the shipping terminal and Mitiga Airport.

  My own opinion is that America deliberately brought al-Qaeda to power in Libya – and is seeking to do the same in Syria – under the usual covert plot of publicly pretending to do otherwise. (Think CIA and their ‘war on drugs’). This will best continue America-‘israel’ plans for chaos across the Islamic world.

  The chapter by Wayne Madsen poignantly describes the scene at the house of Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab, hours after the latter was murdered here by a US warplane, along with a friend and three of Qadhafi’s grandchildren on 30th April 2011. No evidence of it being a ‘military compound’ was ever found. It was an attempt to kill Qadhafi himself – who had just left the building to tend to some animals just 500 feet away. Indeed, the book shows a photo of a traumatised gazelle wandering amongst the rubble. (McKinney later describes the scene too and the “shredded” children).

  Madsen also writes how Bernard-Henri Levy, the Jewish French ‘philosopher’ (?!) was forging links with the rebels in Benghazi and then travelling to ‘israel’. Rebel support for ‘israel’ was a key demand in return for more support from Nato.

  One of Nato’s first targets in Tripoli was the Office Of Investigation Of Corruption. The real reason several Qadhafi ministers defected to the rebels is because they were being investigated by the Libyan Government for fraud. (This was covered up by the Western media). The documents on corruption were backed up – but are now “in a safe location”.

  Belhadj was issued with a false Libyan passport – showing him with a beard. Such a photo was not permitted by Qadhafi’s government.

  Many rebels are al-Qaeda fighters released from Guantanamo Bay – armed with weapons not found in Libya’s stockpiles. Many weapons used by the rebels in 2011 came from a CIA-connected subsidiary. One rifle, used as standard by the rebels, only uses Nato standard rounds. This weapon was never used by the Libyan Army – which relied on Soviet weaponry. Rebels also used US-made machine-guns – again chambered for Nato rounds. (This proves Nato and Western media claims that the rebels only used weapons captured from Qadhafi forces were lies).

  Rebels agreed to allow ‘israel’ to have a 30-year lease for a military base in East Libya – that will be used against the Egyptian military should there be any future ‘problems’.

  Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were used to pretend Libya was a state rebelling too, but Madsen reminds us that an American diplomat was operating as a CIA agent in Libya in 2010 – forging links with a rebel ‘sleeper-cell’.

  Madsen also claims that it has long been believed that Qadhafi’s former head of Libyan Intelligence, Musa Kusa, was a double agent for the CIA.

  Shortly after the rebels seized Benghazi, they plundered Libya of its money. They emptied the entire Central Bank’s cash vault in the city – even hiring a professional safecracker from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to open the safe. The rebels now had 900 million Libyan dinars – stealing it from the Libyan people.

  The next chapter contains the true scale of suffering, terror and death Nato unleashed on civilians in Tripoli, Zlitan etc. A testimony from one doctor is so harrowing that I defy any normal person to read it without feeling tears of anger. Children so frightened that they even contemplated suicide. And the other real scandal is of the media’s silence, its cover-up, and the way the people could not tell the world what was happening - and that many did not even know why they were being targeted just to get rid of their leader.

  The chapter “Nato Bombs The Great Man-Made River”, by Mark Metcalfe, tells the fascinating story of “the eighth wonder of the world”; how Qadhafi installed clean water for all the Libyan people – a project now derailed after Nato targeted the civilian population by bombing the pipe-making plant at Brega – murdering six security guards. 

  The segment “Black Genocide In Libya”, by T-West, describes how the targeting of black people by the rebels in Libya was a deliberate fomenting of ethnic strife by Nato - in order to break up the country. With a Euro-centric central bank that ties into the stock exchange and America and European corporate banking headquarters in Qatar, and a small group of puppets of the more Arab-centric Eastern Libya controlling the oil.

  The rebels have foisted the old monarchy’s flag and anthem on Libya – symbols that represent the British-ruled Libya of that time – so as to create a federal system that revives total European manipulation, with the Arab monarchies of Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia underneath this.

  A Libyan Army jet stolen by rebels was mistakenly shot down over Benghazi – by the rebels themselves – but the media used the situation to pretend the jet was Qadhafi attacking civilians.

  Western journalists reported how Libyan Army jet pilots were disobeying Qadhafi and missing targets so as to avoid civilians. But, in fact, the pilots had been ordered to drop bombs harmlessly in order to avoid casualties and act as a warning to rebels – (who were systematically attacking army and police posts). Qadhafi was not going to be baited into the mass-bloodshed the West wanted from him – so the West made it up anyway.

  Controlled by Jews – the Sephardim wing of France and the Ashkenazim wing of the US – they influenced the output of Reuters, the Associated Press etc.  20% of the rebellion believed the lie that Qadhafi himself was a Jew!

  But T-West’s chapter ultimately shows us what a traitor Obama has been to all black people – the very people who voted him into power believing he was an icon for their cause.

  Stephen Lendman’s piece then excellently sets out the legal case for trying Nato for the war crimes of “daily civilian terror bombings to break their morale, cause panic, weaken their resistance, and inflict mass casualties of punishment” to “conquer, colonise, occupy, and plunder another vassal state”, with “humanitarian intervention” as “mere subterfuge”.

  The next segment is by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and is an exploration of the magnificent plans that Qadhafi had for the future – such as ridding the government of corruption, the Wealth Redistribution Fund for all Libyans, the United States Of Africa, and the South Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Sato) – to protect Africa and Latin America from Nato.

  The West was horrified – and feared other populations would demand more fairness too.

  Saif al-Islam put Mahmoud Jibril into the position of a virtual Prime Minister – controlled by the US and the EU. Jibril would open up Libya to foreign corporations to plunder, and privatisation and poverty in Libya.

  Jibril met with Levy to discuss deposing Qadhafi – who was investigating Jibril for corruption. Jibril believed the Libyan people were not fit to govern themselves and that the ‘elite’ should always control the wealth of any nation. Jibril later fled to Cairo to meet the rebel ‘council’ leaders of both Libya and Syria.

  Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi even admitted that Nato’s bombings were not conducted as a result of a revolt against Qadhafi – but were intended to cause a revolt against Qadhafi…

  Another chapter by Nazemroaya explains the West and Israeli plots of reconfiguring the Middle East – by using wars as ‘creative destruction’ –deliberately targeting countries to create or exploit any religious differences or racial and ethno-linguistic tensions etc. Internal violence to bring countries to their knees and implement the doctrine of divide, rule and conquer.

  This supports the Zionist’s ‘Yinon Plan’ – partitioning individual countries – both in North Africa, as well as around ‘israel’ – into smaller and weaker states. Iraq was the primary target (and we see it today falling into the pre-planned Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish entities)…

  The break-up of Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria are also part of the Plan (and we are already seeing at this moment how the created chaos has now taken hold in all four).  The primary aim being to ensure that ‘israel’ has regional superiority. For the West, it continues the latter’s global empiric ambitions. Divided, exploited, colonised and dysfunctional societies – too weak to fight back against their oppressors and their puppet clients.

   Other targets and victims of these same plots are Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan and Sudan (Sudan has, of course, already been divided into two warring separate countries).

  After America invaded Iraq, Ariel Sharon told them to next attack Syria, Libya and Iran (and Tony Blair recently called Sharon ‘a man of peace’)!

  The assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon was used as part of the ‘israeli’ Plan to destabilise Syria. (I personally believe that Hariri’s death – and that of many innocent bystanders in the same massive car bombing – was a Mossad/CIA operation – designed to frame Assad’s Syria).

  Nazemroaya continues that there are unknown snipers targeting Syrian civilians and army – to cause chaos and internal fighting. Christians are targeted by unknown groups. Most likely, the attacks include a coalition of US, French, Israeli, Jordanian, Turkish, Saudi, and Gulf Arab forces -working with some Syrians on the inside.

  This is part of a reign of terror that they are trying to spread in Syria – as they did in Libya.

  A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East, he concludes. An Islamic world free of Christians and Jews – who the Muslims have historically peacefully co-existed with – is the desired outcome. This would replenish the Christian population of the EU – and be used to support a new Crusade. The precursor to The Clash Of Civilisations…

  Dr. Christof Lehman’s chapter is next and he explains that the US uses al-Qaeda as either an enemy or an ally – depending on what role suits its agenda at the time.

  He also explains the evil hold that France has over Africa. Removing leaders like Qadhafi and Gbagbo (Ivory Coast) because they dared to plan to get rid of the African franc currency. This is because the African franc is one of the biggest sources of income for France. Worse still, France not only controls the value of it, but also has absolute control over no less than EIGHT African countries’ economies…Shockingly, 85% of all foreign exchange reserves of these eight states are 100% under the control of the French treasury!

  Qadhafi lobbied to help the people of these eight countries to free themselves from France’s enslavement and impoverishment of them.

France viewed him as the obstacle to even more French colonial expansion in North Africa.

  My favourite chapter is by an outstanding journalist, Keith Harmon Snow – whose knowledge and passion for the subject of Africa and the West’s utter hypocrisy in dealing with it is breathtaking.

  He, like other parts of the book, exposes the media’s manipulation of the facts of the situation in Libya in 2011: “Real facts are hidden behind these facades created through well-planned and coordinated psychological operations, like the one that played out in the media over the invasion of Libya. What the capitalist system seeks to hide are the Western mafias and their elite kingpins who are perpetuating the shock doctrines of disaster capitalism. This is what happened in Libya”.

  Snow deliciously debunks the myths of the West’s propaganda against Qadhafi’s “Green Book” philosophy: “No wonder the elites ruining the world don’t want you to read the Green Book, they might be prone to the arising of dangerous thoughts such as these that criticise the system of oppression that now threatens all life on planet Earth”.

  Snow is referring to Qadhafi exposing how Western ‘democracy’ is, in fact, based on propaganda, monopolisation and manipulation etc. for the benefit of only the rich elites.

  Snow acknowledges the repression practiced by Qadhafi’s government in Libya – but reminds us that it was only because Libya faced a constant barrage of coups, dirty tricks, undermining, infiltration and assassination – by Western powers and their agents. And that Qadhafi benefited the Libyan people far more than the Western regimes have done for their own populations: “The faults of the Libyan regime pale in comparison to the faults of foreign regimes in the countries that persecuted Libya”, as Western governments enslave and repress their people while serving private elites for corporate profit.

  But Snow’s piece mainly explores the wars in Africa – secretly waged by ‘israel’ and the West - that have led to the loss of many millions of lives.

  He reminds us that ‘israel’ trained Idi Amin – before Britain brought him to power by force in Uganda. (Later, he turned on ‘israel’ and so the West turned on him). Under the current dictator, Yoweri Museveni, Uganda was used as a base for the 1996 invasion of what is now DR Congo. It has also been used for the ‘israel’ and Nato invasion of Sudan (now Sudan and South Sudan) – a war that was, and still is today, primarily caused and maintained by ‘israel’, America, Canada, France and Britain.

  Israel’s shipment of tanks for the horror of the war crimes in Darfur – via Uganda – was helped by America – and utterly covered up by the Western media. (Has anyone ever told George Clooney about this)?!

  In 2011, Qadhafi was interviewed and demonised by ‘journalist’ Christiane Amanpour – but she was, in fact, a (Zionist) covert agent for the US State Department. She had also covered up the US’s involvement in DR Congo and Rwanda. US ‘Special Forces’ were on the ground shelling refugee camps and slaughtering innocent people – as part of the fuelling of the Tutsi and Hutu genocide wars that served the West’s interests (while at home, Western leaders pretend to bleat about “Responsibility to Protect” these “tragedies” from happening again)…

  Ethiopia’s leader, Meles Zenawi, has been conducting genocide against his own people for years, but as a puppet of the West, the latter says nothing. Ethiopia provides a base for covert Western military operations against Somalia, Sudan and even Syria.

  African mercenaries – trained by America since 2004/2009 – in Mauritania, Chad, Niger and Nigeria were used as death squads to invade Libya in 2011 (under the guise of being ‘freedom fighters’ from Libya itself).

  Snow asks why is Qadhafi a notorious household name in the West, when genuine despots such as the following are not? “Daniel Arap Moi, Gen. Gnassingbe Eyadema, Paul Biya, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, Lt. Jerry John Rawlings, and Omar Bongo”. (Add Museveni, Zenawi and Paul Kagame too).

  Why is it never said that it is the Western wars of annihilation that go on in Somalia – involving Ugandan troops trained by US ‘Special Forces’ – as well as Darfur, Rwanda, DR Congo, Sudan and Central Africa etc?

  While Qadhafi undoubtedly aided many noble liberation movements, Snow also raises interesting questions about some of the people Qadhafi himself armed and his reasons for doing so – but that is a whole other book!

  The final chapter is a transcript of Qadhafi’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 23rd 2009.

  It is chilling reading – as, retrospectively, its context is forever coloured by the events that subsequently occurred.

  Qadhafi speaks of wars that benefit only the few; military interventions of aggression and hostile acts by those with Power Of Veto. He calls the UN Security Council the “Terror Council” – for its treatment of the Third World – using terror, intimidation and sanctions to serve its own interests: “Wars of aggression waged against us by superpowers”, “that have violated the sovereignty of independent states. It has led to war crimes and genocide…in violation of the Charter of the United Nations”.

  He speaks of Africa “colonised, isolated and persecuted, and its rights usurped. Its people enslaved and treated like animals and its territory colonised and placed under trusteeship”. “How can we feel safe”? “Can we trust the Security Council or not”?

  Conversely, he calls Barack Obama a “son of Africa” and “our son”. But did he envisage really that Libya would be attacked? And, if so, that it would not be Obama who would be the one to do it?

  Completely deluded (?) about Obama’s true evil nature (“I am very good at killing people”, Obama informed us in 2013), Qadhafi calls Obama’s election win “a wonderful thing”, that Obama will be “a temporary relief for the next four or eight years”. “We would be content if Obama could remain President of the US forever”, he unwittingly (?) extols…

  Even worse, he says Obama “spoke truly when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside”.

  Yes, this statement is true but not Obama’s belief in it!

  I wish that I could force every Westerner to read this magnificent book – then maybe the real revolution will begin…

  I will end my review with the final line of Qadhafi’s speech:

  “We should live in peace – always”.

Lady Khamis (‘thegirlwholoveskhamis’)

For libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org

Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?


Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?

Video

This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore.
March 19 will be the third anniversary of the NATO intervention into Libya.

Looking back, what were NATO’s objectives?

What Libya did they hope to find after the overthrow of Gaddafi?

And what in fact is today’s Libya?

Now joining us from Syracuse University is Professor Horace Campbell. He teaches African-American studies there and political science. He’s written extensively on African-American politics. And his new book is called Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya.
Thank you very much for joining us, Horace.

HORACE CAMPBELL, PROF. AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, SYRACUSE UNIV.: Thank you for inviting me to discuss the failures of the U.S. foreign policy in Africa and the failure of NATO in Africa.
NOOR: So it was only a day or two ago, Navy SEAL sailors boarded a Libyan-North Korean boat carrying oil coming from a rebel-held oil port in Libya. This was, I guess, to send a message that the central government, so-called, of what is recognized by the United States, and nobody else should be selling oil. But it’s a reflection of what chaos there is in Libya. ****(what is not said by the US is that although the captured the ship they didn’t find the OIL ON BOARD)
Give us a sense now of what’s going on in Libya, and then we’ll kind of dig further back into why this all came about.
CAMPBELL: This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.
NATO intervened in spite of the differences between different sections of NATO, between France and the United States, between France and Germany, and the competition between Italy and France. Despite these differences, they came together after France precipitated this massive invasion to destroy Libyan society in 2011.
But that destruction has only created a great problem for Western capitalist forces in Africa.
JAY: I don’t quite understand why the West simply wanted to destroy Libyan society. Gaddafi’s regime was playing footsie with the IMF, with the World Bank. His sons were knocking the gavel at the stock exchange. In fact, one of his sons was visiting American military manufacturers, negotiating arms deals just before the invasion. They were doing oil and gas deals. There’s reports from the World Bank praising his reforms and privatization of the Libyan banking system. I mean, he cooperated with Bush–Cheney in many ways. He had made a big reconciliation with the Americans. I don’t understand, on the face of it, why they wanted to overthrow him. Obviously they did, but I don’t think that explains it.
CAMPBELL: That is all very true. But you’re missing one factor: that every political leader seeks political legitimacy. And in the case of Libya, the legitimacy of the leader had come from his presenting himself as someone who was part of the African Union and wanted to build an African Monetary Fund, an African Central Bank, and a African common currency. And that was a danger to not only the euro, because Sarkozy said, we’re going to fight to save the euro, but it would present a threat to the dollar. Moreover, the Libyan leadership had moved to take over the Arab banking corporation in Bahrain, and the Libyan leadership had over $200 billion in foreign reserves.
So, yes, you’re correct. They were playing footsie with the West. But that same leadership was also capable of nationalist pressures inside of Libya and inside of Africa so they could have nationalized oil companies in the midst of this global capitalist crisis. And the West did not want any surprises, where Libya would want to call on Africans to turn away from the dollar as the reserve currency and to use African resources, such as gold, as a new currency for all of Africa.
JAY: But, Horace, what evidence is there that they were really concerned about this? I know Gaddafi talked about it, but, I mean, he himself was up to the eyeballs in the World Bank. ****(see what I mean they are always mis-informed) And, you know, rhetoric is one thing, but the reality of the Libyan economy was becoming totally assimilated into global capitalism. ****(that is what the West told the rebels and they believed it. These rebels where living abroad and had no connection with the reality of Libya) It seems to me more that there was a problem is that he was also playing footsie with the Russians—
CAMPBELL: No, no, no, no, no.
JAY: —and there was more that he was caught in these inter-imperialist contradictions. I mean, you can’t tell me Libya had the power to change the currency of Africa.
CAMPBELL: They did, because Libya have $200 billion in reserves, and if Libya got five or six other African countries with massive reserves to create a common currency for Africa, which is one of the mandates of the African Union, that’s a threat to Western Europe and North America.
Moreover, the Chinese had become the dominant force in infrastructure development within Libya. There were over 36,000 Chinese involved in railway, road, water, agriculture, and other forms.
So there’s no question that Libya had the financial wherewithal to determine their own independence.
And I think one of the things that the media is missing, even those who call themselves the left, is the role thatGoldman Sachs andtheir dalliance trying to use the resources of Libya toshore up thederivatives market and thefact that they wereso involved in Libya prior to intervention.
JAY: Yeah. Well, talk a bit about that. Why was Gaddafi so involved with Goldman Sachs?
CAMPBELL: Well, that is the point. The point was that Gaddafi wanted to please the Western forces. Gaddafi’s son had studied in the London School of Economics. Gaddafi had been open to talking to this group from Boston that was going there. And all of these forces were trying to ingratiate themselves with Gaddafi, so that Gaddafi would completely be in the pockets of the West.
But he was unpredictable, and that was the problem between them and Gaddafi.
JAY: Yeah, I agree with that part. He was unpredictable. But he was very much playing ball. He was very close to the new rising Rothschild. He was playing ball with the commodity brokers. I mean, he was using the Libyan sovereign wealth fund like a private investment thing, ***(that’s absolute BS they don’t mention that with Golden Sachs we had taken them to court for misusing the funds and loosing billions which of course GS would have to return back to Libya as they court was on the side of Libya) just to—really playing with every speculator in Europe and America.
But I agree with you: he was unpredictable, and he was playing ball too much with the Chinese and with the Russians, ****(well we may played ball with China and Russia but these two countries never sanctioned us plus being deprived of any goods(from medicine, food, to everything plus a no fly zone which meant that every Libyan person had to drive to the borders of Tunis or Egypt so that they could go to Europe or anywhere else. Imagine if you need immediate attention health wise and you had to drive 700 km to reach the border wait there for over six to seven hours and then to drive to the nearest airport to conclude if someone wanted to travel to England for example he needed to be on the road for 48 hours that was one of the things we had to endure through out the embargo that the US did to Libya) from America and Europe for over ten years what did the west expect that we would lay down and die? It was the west who lost on contracts with Libya while Russia and China where wiser. For the West’s stupid decision in putting sanctions to us we made new friends and for that FUKUS destroyed everything we built.)  and that he wasn’t becoming a reliable ally in Northern Africa. That—I think that much is for sure.
But there was a lot of differences in the West about what should be done and what the objectives were.
CAMPBELL: The differences in the West stems from the fact that there is a rivalry between the European Union and the United States over the reserve currency. The entire Western world is in the midst of a global capitalist crisis since 2007, 2008, and it’s imperative that they use the military to keep forces in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe in line behind the dollar as the currency of world trade.
So in the case of Libya, Libya had the wherewithal to be playing around with the Europeans, playing around with the Chinese, and playing around with the United States of America.
JAY: But, Horace, the Chinese have—first of all, they own several trillion U.S. dollars, and I think they’ve made it very clear for at least for this historical period they are not going to challenge the U.S. dollar ****(you think, they will use it at one point or other.) as a reserve currency. Far from it. They rely on the Americans to manage this whole global system.
CAMPBELL: They rely on the United States to manage the global system, but no country in the world is happy with the United States devaluing the dollar by printing dollars, what they call quantitative easing.
JAY: Yeah, this is true.
CAMPBELL: [incompr.] $65 billion dollars every month. If the United States of America is putting $65 billion every month on the world market, nobody wants to keep their reserves in dollars. So the Chinese, the Brazilians, everybody’s looking for the exit from the dollar, because the capitalist prices means that the dollar is worthless, because if anyone can have a printing press to print dollars, then other currencies are worthless.
JAY: Okay. Then why is everybody buying American dollars? I mean, they’re getting people to buy T-bills with practically zero percent interest.
CAMPBELL: Because the American military makes it, the American dollar, a force in world politics. What backs up the American dollar today is not gold, but the U.S. military.
JAY: Yeah, but I agree with that. But all these other governments and elites rely on that.
CAMPBELL: The elites in Latin America and Africa are seeking ways to exit this, in Latin America, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and all these countries are seeking an exit from the dollar. They’re trying to create a common currency in Latin America. In the Asian countries, they’ve created alternatives. In Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand they have created alternatives. The reality for the world is we’re living in a dangerous moment because of this capitalist crisis where the United States military is shoring up the printing of dollars and this condition in the world where the United States have unlimited access to the resources of the world.
JAY: And you think is what triggered the Libyan intervention.
CAMPBELL: This is one of the factors in the Libyan intervention. Initially the United States government was hesitant because this was a plot by the French to go into Libya. And at the outset, the secretary of defense Robert Gates and Mullen said before the Congress, do you have evidence that Libya was about to destroy their people. And the military in the United States, the United States Africa Command was originally opposed to going into Libya. But the pressures of Goldman Sachs, along with those people called the humanitarian hawks—Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton—[incompr.] the American public and the media to go along with France and Britain for the destruction of Libya in 2011. And the people of Africa are still living with this destruction, where over 50,000 people in Africa have been killed, 40,000 people, black-skinned from Tawergha, have been thrown out of where they live. And so we have to see that initially the United States military was opposed, but later on, the media, along with Clinton, Rice, and Powers, were able to build up the psychological warfare and propaganda within this society against the United States people to portray Gaddafi as this terrible leader, when, as you said, he was in league with the Western banking and financial institutions.
JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Horace.
CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End

source: therealnews.com

U.S.A.Why.We.Fight


U.S.A.Why.We.Fight

 

BBC documentary 2005
Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military–industrial complex and its 50-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The documentary asserts that in every decade since World War II, the American public was misled so that the government (incumbent Administration) could take them to war and fuel the military-industrial economy maintaining American political dominance in the world. Interviewed about this matter, are politician John McCain,****(the idiot who’s in bed with Al Qaeda and all the extremists, low life scums) political scientist and former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson, politician Richard Perle, neoconservative commentator William Kristol, writer Gore Vidal, and public policy expert Joseph Cirincione.
Why We Fight documents the consequences of said foreign policy with the stories of a Vietnam War veteran whose son was killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and who then asked the military to write the name of his dead son on any bomb to be dropped in Iraq; and that of a 23-year-old New Yorker who enlists in the United States Army because he was poor and in debt, his decision impelled by his mother’s death; and a female military explosives scientist (Anh Duong) who arrived in the U.S. as a refugee child from Vietnam in 1975.

Director: Eugene Jarecki
Writer: Eugene Jarecki
Stars: Gore Vidal, John McCain, Ken Adelman | See full cast and crew

A victory for the people of Libya? Ten myths of the war against Libya


A victory for the people of Libya? Ten myths of the war against Libya

By:  Maximilian C. FORTE

1.  Genocide
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 possible to 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 war against 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.

1. Genocide.

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 Gaddafi   as “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 not just “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 zone was to  prevent  Gaddafi 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 “genocidewere made ​​by the Libyan opposition, both   Al Jazeera   and 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 have seen 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  helicopters against 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 bombed  retreating 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 Sarkozy  This by Professor Alan J. is best explained Kuperman in  ”  False pretense for war in Libya?  “

“The best proof that Gaddafi did not plan genocide in 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 by   Al Jazeera, as well as planting media, in creating the African mercenary myth.

Deviations from the norm of  vilifying Sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans  that instead documented the abuse of these civilians, were the   Los Angeles Times,   Human Rights Watch  which found  no evidence of mercenaries at all in eastern Libya (in contradiction to the claims presented as truth by   Al Arabiya   and  The Telegraph, among others such as   TIME   and  The Guardian).

In a rare departure from  the propaganda about the black mercenary  threat which Al Jazeera and its journalists helped to actively disseminate,  Al Jazeera  produced  a single report   focusing on theft, murder, and abduction of black residents  in the eastern Libya (now that  CBS  , Channel 4 , and others are noting the racism, Al Jazeera is trying to ambiguously   show some interest ). Finally, there is a growing recognition of these facts of media collaboration in the racist media defamation  of civilian deaths insurgents see FAIR: ”  NYT Points Out of the racist overtones of misinformation in Libya, which helped spread  “. 

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? “

Recent reports reveal the insurgents involved in   ethnic cleansing against black Libyans in Tawergha, the insurgents calling themselves “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin,” vowing that in  the “new” Libya  to Tawergha blacks would be   excluded from health care and schooling   in nearby Misrata, from which black Libyans had already been   expelled by the insurgents.

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 people with 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 detainees   with 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.
The Viagra story was first disseminated by Al Jazeera, in collaboration with its rebel partners,  favored by the Qatari regime that funds Al Jazeera. It was then  redistributed  by almost all other  major Western media  .

Luis Moreno Ocampo ***(THE RAPIST), chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, appeared before the world media to say that   there was “evidence”   that   Gaddafi distributed Viagra   to his troops in order to ”  increase the possibility of rape  “and that Gaddafi   ordered  the rape of hundreds of women. Moreno-Ocampo insisted: ”  We are receiving information that Gaddafi decided to rape  “and that”  we have information  that   there was a policy to rape  in Libya those who were against the government. ” Also exclaimed that Viagra is “like a machete,” and that ”  Viagra is a tool of massive rape. “

In a surprise to the Security Council of the UN Declaration   U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice  also asserted that Gaddafi  was supplying his troops it with Viagra to encourage mass rape.

She offered   no 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 “.

In fact, Bassiouni’s team  “uncovered only four alleged cases” of rape and sexual abuse: ”  Can we come to a conclusion that there is a systematic policy of rape in my opinion, can not we?  “. In addition to the UN,  Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International said in an interview   with French daily   Libération  , that  Amnesty had “not found cases of rape  ….

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 few Libyans  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  .  

Gaddafi challenged AFRICOM’s intent   to establish military bases in Africa.  AFRICOM has become  directly involved   in the Libya intervention and specifically ”  Operation Odyssey Dawn  “.

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.

Secondly, you have to just ignore the  anxiety  of Western oil interests   on “Gaddafi resource nationalism  “(threatening to take back what oil companies had gained), an anxiety now clearly manifest   in the   European corporate rush   Libya  to   collect  the spoils of victory, but one has to  ignore the fear  of what Gaddafi was doing with those oil revenues in  supporting greater African economic independence,  and for history to support national liberation movements  that challenged Western hegemony.

 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  in  AfghanistanIraq, 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 attacked in a manner that constitutes  terrorism  by most definitions officers used  by Western governments.

NATO  admitted to deliberately targeting Libya’s state television,  killing three  civilian reporters, in a move condemned by international journalist federations as   a direct violation of resolution 2006 of the Security Council  which prohibits attacks against journalists.

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 May,   61 African refugees died  on a single vessel, despite making contact with vessels belonging to  NATO  member states.  In a repeat of the situation,   dozens died in early  August   on another vessel.

In fact,  NATO  Watch, 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 in Afghanistan, 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 Council  voting 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 to   Misrata, 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.

Gaddafi regime has many faces: some are seen by his domestic opponents, others are seen by recipients of his aid, and others smiled  at the likes of   Silvio Berlusconi,  Nicolas Sarkozy,   Condoleeza Rice,  Hillary Clinton   and   Barack Obama  .

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 now  fashionable 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 the   BBC 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 era  where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centers around the country. “

So if one supports health care, makes a medium compatible with dictatorship?  And if “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.

Among the reports that significantly complicated the picture were those that discussed the  CIA ties to the insurgents   (for more information, see   this  ,   this  ,   this  , and that  ), while others highlighted the role of the  National Foundation  for Democracy, the International Republican  Institute  , the National Democratic Institute and  USAID  , which have been active  in Libya since 2005  , which detailed the role of various   expatriate groups , and reports of the active role of   “radical Islamist”  militias  embedded within the overall insurgency, with some pointing to   Al Qaeda  connections  .

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 special forces 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 already  sent 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  NTC   Abdel 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.

Here we see articles, in various  states of intellectual and political deterioration, by  Juan Cole   (see some of the rebuttals: ”  The case of Professor Juan Cole, “”  An open letter to Professor Juan Cole: The answer to a libel “,”  WSWS ‘answers’ Professor Cole on Libya: An admission of intellectual and political bankruptcy“), Gilbert Achcar   (and   this especially), Immanuel Wallerstein, and   Helena Sheehan  who apparently some of its most important conclusions reached in the airport at the end of his first visit to Tripoli.

There seems to be some  confusion over roles and identities. There is no homogeneous left, 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.