The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya


The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya

 

Democrats and Republicans Are Both Missing the Big Picture On Benghazi and Libya

Democrats and Republicans have very different views about Benghazi, Libya.

The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya 070514ben

Image: Clinton & Obama (YouTube).

Republicans say the Obama administration is to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens – and have created a special committee to investigate Benghazi – while Democrats by and large say that the is nothing but politics.

The truth is bigger than either side is admitting …

First, Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam under Nixon and the torture scandal under Bush – says that Benghazi was really a CIA outpost for running weapons capture from Libya after Gaddaffi was overthrown into Syria … approved on a bipartisan basis by both Democrats and Republicans.

Second, it has been confirmed that the U.S. backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya so that they would overthrow Gaddaffi.

Third, as we noted right after Gaddaffi fell, the Obama administration’s stated reason for going into Libya makes no sense. Now, RAND Corporation political scientists theorize that Obama might have decided to bomb Libya – not for any reason having to do with Libya or Gaddaffi themselves – but rather “to keep the Arab Spring going“.

The U.S. ousted Gaddaffi and then left, and Libya has now descended into chaos.

The Washington Post argues that America fighting the Libyan war is a bigger scandal than Benghazi itself:

Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.


The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

Fourth, the Libya war – just like the Iraq war – was illegal, as noted in the New York Times,Washington PostHuffington PostWashington TimesGuardianSalon, and elsewhere.

Those are four the deeper stories about Benghazi and Libya which neither the Democrats or Republicans are talking about …

source: washingtonsblog.com

About these ads

Rothschild’s Saudi Lapdog Armed Syrian & Libyan Rebels


Rothschild’s Saudi Lapdog Armed Syrian & Libyan Rebels

BY 

14world

In a March 7, 2011 article in The Independent of London titled “America’s Secret Plan to Arm Libya’s Rebels”, journalist Robert Fisk reported that the Obama Administration had asked Saudi Arabia to arm the Libyan rebels.  The Saudis complied and later backed the same al Qaeda rebels in Syria.  The Saudis also invaded Bahrain to save the al-Khalifa monarchy.

The Saudis have played this role for the City of London banker cabal for nearly a century – part of a quid pro quo which involves oil, arms, drugs and covert operations.  (See my post, The Saudi Paymaster, or Chapter 3 of my book, Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

The Saudi throne has long served as anti-democratic bulwark in the region for the London/Wall Street bankers and their inbred royal European shareholder brethren.  It was all part of a plan hatched by the Rothschild-controlled Business Roundtable a century ago to seize control of Middle East oil.

The Rothschilds are majority owners of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Saudi central bank – Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA).

In 1917 the British made a client of Ibn Saud, who was told to encourage Arab tribesman to repel the Ottoman Turks from the Persian Gulf Region.  That same year the British House of Rothschild pushed through the Balfour Declaration, lending Crown support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  A year later the Ottomans were defeated.

Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were carved out of the Ottoman Empire and fell under British rule, with Ibn Saud taking control of his namesake – Saudi Arabia.  In 1922 the Treaty of Jeddah gave Saudi Arabia independence from Britain, though the Crown still exerted considerable influence.  To this day British mercenaries serve as bodyguards for the House of Saud.

During the 1920’s – with help from British troops – Ibn Saud grabbed more territory from the Ottomans.  He annexed Riyadh and seized the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites.

Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Texaco) found oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938.  The company formed ARAMCO with its Four Horsemen cartel buddies Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP.  The US and Britain signed security agreements with the House of Saud and Bechtel busied itself building ARAMCO’s oil infrastructure.

In 1952, on the heels of the US/Saudi Security Agreement, SAMA was created as the Saudi Central Bank.  By 1958 SAMA was run by Pakistani native Anwar Ali, later adviser to King Faisal.  Anwar had been Chief of the International Monetary Fund’s Middle East Department.

Ali recruited three Western bankers to serve as SAMA advisers.  Known as the Three Wise Men or White Fathers, these Western bankers called the shots at SAMA, with Ali serving as figurehead.  The most powerful of the three was John Meyer, Jr., chairman of Morgan Guaranty’s (now JP Morgan Chase) International Division and later chairman of the entire Morgan mother ship.

The White Fathers funneled SAMA petrodollar royalties into Morgan Guaranty accounts.  In turn Morgan served as well-paid investment counselor to SAMA.  Anwar Ali’s son even landed a job at Morgan Guaranty.  With billions in petrodollars flowing, the oil for arms quid pro quo was established.

Ibn Saud’s progeny form the modern-day House of Saud monarchy, which rules Saudi Arabia.  Less than twenty families connected to the throne control the Saudi economy.  The House of Saud spreads its influence through money and reproduction.  Male members of the Saud family now number over 5,000.

Crown Prince Abdullah – half-brother of King Fahd – runs the Saudi National Guard and has assumed day to day control of the Kingdom since King Fahd suffered a serious stroke in 1995.  Prince Sultan, Prince Nayef and Prince Salman are full brothers of King Fahd and serve as Ministers of Defense and Interior and Governor of Riyadh, respectively.  Prince Sultan’s son is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US.  Prince Bandar’s cousin, Prince Saud al-Faisal is the Saudi Foreign Minister.

These Saudi princes use the government agencies they run as personal piggy banks and represent foreign companies bidding for contracts in the Kingdom.  They handle trillions in overseas investments.  King Fahd is the second richest man in the world with a personal fortune of over $20 billion.

Prince Bandar is part of the Sudeiri clan which is comprised of the offspring of the late King Adbul Aziz and his favorite wife.  The Sudeiris are the most powerful and most Westernized family in the kingdom.  The House of Saud encourages a fundamentalist Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, but practitioners of Wahhabism in the Kingdom consider the Sudeiris munafaqeen (hypocrites).

While the Sudeiri clan lives in opulence, most Saudis struggle to put food on their tables.  The increasingly unpopular Sudeiris rule with an iron fist and are constantly cited by international human rights organizations for their brutality and opposition to democratic freedoms.

The Saudi monarchy rules by decree.  Women are not allowed to drive cars and are banned from many restaurants.  The Kingdom has no democratic institutions.  Opposition to the House of Saud is criminalized, driving political opponents underground.  In 1990 the Saudis beheaded 111 dissidents.

US corporations acquiesce in the Saudi oppression of women.  At Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Starbucks establishments in Saudi Arabia, there are segregated sections for men and women.  The women’s sections are run down.  Starbucks has no seating at all for women.  Women who show up at other Western restaurants without their husbands are turned away.

In January 2002 the US-based Freedom House released a survey which ranks countries in accordance with the freedoms they allow.  Saudi Arabia was ranked as one of the ten least free countries in the world.

Human Rights Watch recently accused the United States of ignoring Saudi human rights violations to ensure a continuous oil supply.

The US/NATO intervention in Libya is not about “freedom”.  It is about snuffing out a long-time nemesis of the House of Saud, the London & Paris-based Rothschilds and the neo-colonial international economic system which these financial parasites lord over at the expense of developing and resource-rich nations.

source: deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Israel Is A Racist State


Israel Is A Racist State

In this report, Joel Northam explores the question: What happens when you condense 500 years of conquest and colonial expansion into 65 years, possess the latest high tech weaponry, sprinkle a little bit of imperialist patronage of the United States to the tune of 30 billion dollars a year in military aid, possess a vast nuclear arsenal, and gift wrap it all in a nationalist ideology that would make every fascist dictatorial regime in history proud?

Isreal, Palestine, Apartheid, Isreal Apartheid, Occupied land, Racist, Occupied Palestine, Gaza, human rights, Racism, US Israel relations, African migrants, Jewish state, Zion, Zionism, Pillar of defense, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Uganda, Rwanda, South Korea, Popular Resistance, Resistance Report, Joel Northam, Acronym TV, Asher Platts,

The film that rocked Saudi Arabia


The film that rocked Saudi Arabia

 

The film that rocked Saudi Arabia, will be soon in Syrian theaters, “The King of the Sand”.

It is the title of the movie of the famous Syrian director Najdat Ismail Anzour. A sensational news because this film tells the story so far never approached of King Abdul Aziz A’al Saud, founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

According to the director Anzour “The film research the roots of the concept of terrorism that has spread throughout the world, and the Wahhabi ideology that has facilitated the spread of the groups of extremism and violence and their expansion around the world.”

King of The Sand Conference London Part 01, 02, 03

 

Quote

How the Sunni-Shia Schism is Dividing the World

 

The unprecedented Saudi refusal to take up its Security Council seat is not just about Syria but a response to the Iranian threat

By Robert Fisk

October 24, 2013 The Independent” – -  The Muslim world’s historic – and deeply tragic – chasm between Sunni and Shia Islam is having worldwide repercussions. Syria’s civil war, America’s craven alliance with the Sunni Gulf autocracies, and Sunni (as well as Israeli) suspicions of Shia Iran are affecting even the work of the United Nations.

Saudi Arabia’s petulant refusal last week to take its place among non-voting members of the Security Council, an unprecedented step by any UN member, was intended to express the dictatorial monarchy’s displeasure with Washington’s refusal to bomb Syria after the use of chemical weapons in Damascus – but it also represented Saudi fears that Barack Obama might respond to Iranian overtures for better relations with the West.

The Saudi head of intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan – a true buddy of President George W Bush during his 22 years as ambassador in Washington – has now rattled his tin drum to warn the Americans that Saudi Arabia will make a “major shift” in its relations with the US, not just because of its failure to attack Syria but for its inability to produce a fair Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.

What this “major shift” might be – save for the usual Saudi hot air about its independence from US foreign policy – was a secret that the prince kept to himself.

Israel, of course, never loses an opportunity to publicise – quite accurately – how closely many of its Middle East policies now coincide with those of the wealthy potentates of the Arab Gulf. 

Hatred of the Shia/Alawite Syrian regime, an unquenchable suspicion of Shia Iran’s nuclear plans and a general fear of Shia expansion is turning the unelected Sunni Arab monarchies into proxy allies of the Israeli state they have often sworn to destroy. Hardly, one imagines, the kind of notion that Prince Bandar wishes to publicise.

Furthermore, America’s latest contribution to Middle East “peace” could be the sale of $10.8bn worth of missiles and arms to Sunni Saudi Arabia and the equally Sunni United Arab Emirates, including GBU-39 bombs – the weapons cutely called “bunker-busters” – which they could use against Shia Iran. Israel, of course, possesses the very same armaments.

Whether the hapless Mr Kerry – whose risible promise of an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria made him the laughing stock of the Middle East – understands the degree to which he is committing his country to the Sunni side in Islam’s oldest conflict is the subject of much debate in the Arab world. His response to the Saudi refusal to take its place in the UN Security Council has been almost as weird.

After lunch on Monday at the Paris home of the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, Kerry – via his usual anonymous officials – said that he valued the autocracy’s leadership in the region, shared Riyadh’s desire to de-nuclearise Iran and to bring an end to the Syrian war.  But Kerry’s insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime must abandon power means that a Sunni government would take over Syria; and his wish to disarm Shia Iran – however notional its nuclear threat may be – would ensure that Sunni military power would dominate the Middle East from the Afghan border to the Mediterranean.

Few realise that Yemen constitutes another of the Saudi-Iranian battlegrounds in the region.

Saudi enthusiasm for Salafist groups in Yemen – including the Islah party, which is allegedly funded by Qatar, though it denies receiving any external support – is one reason why the post-Saleh regime in Sanaa has been supporting the Zaidi Shia Houthi “rebels” whose home provinces of Sa’adah, al Jawf and Hajja border Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are – according to the Sunni Saudis – supported by Iran.

The minority Sunni monarchy in Bahrain – supported by the Saudis and of course by the compliant governments of the US, Britain, et al – is likewise accusing Shia Iran of colluding with the island’s majority Shias. Oddly, Prince Bandar, in his comments, claimed that Barack Obama had failed to support Saudi policy in Bahrain – which involved sending its own troops into the island to help repress Shia demonstrators in 2011 – when in fact America’s silence over the regime’s paramilitary violence was the nearest Washington could go in offering its backing to the Sunni minority and his Royal Highness the King of Bahrain.

All in all, then, a mighty Western love affair with Sunni Islam – a love that very definitely cannot speak its name in an Arab Gulf world in which “democracy”, “moderation”, “partnership” and outright dictatorship are interchangeable – which neither Washington nor London nor Paris (nor indeed Moscow or Beijing) will acknowledge. But, needless to say, there are a few irritating – and incongruous – ripples in this mutual passion.

The Saudis, for example, blame Obama for allowing Egypt’s decadent Hosni Mubarak to be overthrown. They blame the Americans for supporting the elected Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi as president – elections not being terribly popular in the Gulf – and the Saudis are now throwing cash at Egypt’s new military regime. Assad in Damascus also offered his congratulations to the Egyptian military. Was the Egyptian army not, after all – like Assad himself – trying to prevent religious extremists from taking power?

Fair enough – providing we remember that the Saudis are really supporting the Egyptian Salafists who cynically gave their loyalty to the Egyptian military, and that Saudi-financed Salafists are among the fiercest opponents of Assad.

Thankfully for Kerry and his European mates, the absence of any institutional memory in the State Department, Foreign Office or Quai d’Orsay means that no one need remember that 15 of the 19 mass-killers of 9/11 were also Salafists and – let us above all, please God, forget this – were all Sunni citizens of Saudi Arabia.

source: independent.co.uk

 

How the Sunni-Shia Schism is Dividing the World