Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya


Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

By: Daniel Greenfield

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

 

hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make-benghazi-dead-americans-911

As Libya continues melting down, the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell has an important story on just how conflicted the situation was. This war a tug of war between Hillary Clinton, who wanted to bomb Libya, and the Pentagon which didn’t.

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

So the Pentagon went rogue over Hillary’s War.

The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”…

While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward…

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.

That more than Benghazi may explain Ham’s abrupt exit. He had been proven right, but Hillary was the heir to the throne.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”

But not the State Department.

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

It’s ironic considering how the media liked to play up Saddam’s truce offers, but this doesn’t get reported. The Pentagon wanted to avoid a war, but Hillary was howling for one.

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “its all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.

More like he didn’t care. So he let Hillary have her war.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”

“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”

That’s what I’ve written all along, but the Secretary of Defense admitting that the American public was lied to over an illegal war just isn’t interesting when Obama is in power.

Advertisements

IS TURKEY THAT INNOCENT? Sniper Bazaar Turkey: The New Land of Assassins?


IS TURKEY THAT INNOCENT? Sniper Bazaar Turkey: The New Land of Assassins?

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Busy hands…

VT Sniper Platform

 

American built sniper rifles and specialized optics, thermal and light amplification, all very restricted, are flooding into Turkey.  They are going to Al Qaeda.  The production is from small shops, one or two owned by dilatant Fox News “generals” and GOP mercenary groups.  VT is the primary designer of these weapons but has the wrong politics.

Israeli “businessmen” have been roaming the US, visiting the many and sundry machine shops and custom assembly facilities that produce sniper rifles.  They pick up samples, often without legal transfer as required by law, as foreign nationals can’t buy weapons in the US.  That doesn’t matter, these are Israeli’s and weapons they get can go out on El Al planes, diplomatic pouches or be carried to Israel by members of congress, they own more than a few of those.

The weapon wanted is the mysterious AR 10, the .308 and/or 7.62x51mm version of the old semi-reliable M16 or M4 carbine.  The weapons are showing up in Turkey, mostly in sniper configuration.  I know a bit about these things as VT has an affiliated custom shop that produces more models of AR 10 sniper rifles than any other.

These are low production specialized weapons.  There is little standardization for the AR 10, no “mil spec” as it were.  Parts from one don’t fit another, springs and triggers don’t fit, receivers are non-standard and most bolt carriers don’t work in any weapon, not as manufactured.  Why do people want these weapons?

11 inch barrel, .308

The standard sniper rifle used in much of the world is the Dragunov in Russian 7.62x54R, a rimmed cartridge from well over 100 years ago.  These are outstanding weapons but have no buffer group, don’t adapt to modern optics well and, though semi-automatic, can’t put out rapid accurate fire at above 500 meters because of recoil.  The AR 10 has no recoil.

Are sniper rifles the only weapons being gathered for Al Qaeda?  First of all, it should be a reasonable concern that weapons like these are going into the hands of terrorists.  It might also be a concern that they are coming from the United States and flowing directly to the group that many Americans, those who believe our government, a smaller group every minute, believe was responsible for 9/11.

Who are they going to kill with these things?  Will it just be Syrian soldiers or are there other plans? ****This is a dangerous game they are playing as it’s not only sold to the extremists in Syria but also to Libya that is why the Turkish Ship was hit by the Libyan army as it was trying to dock in Derna to supply them these arms..

Quality weapons aren’t that hard to get.  However, these fire much like the American M4, a very underpowered but highly accurate and very light rifle.  What they do that the M4 and AK47 does not do is shoot 800 meters with deadly accuracy.  A child can kill at extreme distances with one of these with almost no training at all.  These weapons were what the US didn’t have in Afghanistan and why the US bought back a shipload of aging Garand style M14s from Korea, weapons that are primitive in comparison although excellent.

VT came upon the sniper rifle bazaar because we are embedded in that community.  These weapons are made from limited production parts with companies like Armalite, DPMS, Matrix Aerospace, Aero Precision and Palmetto putting out the majority of basic receiver sets.  The sale of these is tracked and mass production has not been ramped up though we are obviously going to see it now.

Moreover, there are only dozen or so gunsmith/designers who have worked with this “build platform” more than casually.

The partnership between Israel and Turkey is no surprise.  The superiority of American weapons is a surprise to some but it shouldn’t be.  What should be of note is that Al Qaeda feels totally free to come to the United States to gather needed hardware designed only to murder specific medium to high value targets and nobody seems to care. ***Why should they care Al Qaeda is an American/Israeli proxy instead of using American/Israeli soldiers they use Al Qaeda it’s cheaper and the American/Israeli mothers will not receive their sons/daughters in body bags and start a riot against their government policies… they learned this lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq.

With a 24 inch Ar 10 with a thermal scope, a SWAT officer nearly a thousand yards away wearing extensive camouflage and obscured by smoke can be killed quickly and easily with a single shot.  A skilled shooter with a Semi-Automatic Sniper System can erase an entire special operations team in 15 seconds.  There are specialized optics available for these weapons that automatically track a chosen target and operate the trigger as well.

We don’t even want to begin discussing remote sniper systems that work off an I pad anywhere on earth.

Someone has decided to “inoculate” themselves from American SEAL teams and Special Forces by flooding the battlefield with “low rent” amateur snipers.

This is one weapon system, just one.  How many others are getting the same “quick to market” promotion near Al Qaeda’s Hatay, Turkey training camps?

Chaos – not Victory – is the Empire’s “Name of the Game”


Chaos – not Victory – is the Empire’s “Name of the Game”

By Peter Koenig Global Research

“Once again a country “liberated” by the West is sinking deeper and deeper into chaos.” Global Research. 

This could be anyone of the countries in conflict, where Washington and its Western and Middle Eastern stooges sow war – eternal chaos, misery, death – and submission.

This is precisely the point: The Washington / NATO strategy is not to ‘win’ a war or conflict, but to create ongoing – endless chaos. That’s the way (i) to control people, nations and their resources; (ii) to assures the west a continuous need for military – troops and equipment – remember more than 50% of the US GDP depends on the military industrial complex, related industries and services; and (iii) finally, a country in disarray or chaos, is broke and needs money – money with hardship conditions, ‘austerity’ money from the notorious IMF, World Bank and other associated nefarious ‘development institutions’ and money lenders; money that equals enslavement, especially with corrupt leaders that do not care for their people.

That’s the name of the game – in Yemen, in Ukraine, in Syria, in Iraq, in Sudan, in Central Africa, in Libya…. you name it. Who fights against whom is unimportant. ISIS / ISIL / IS / DAISH / DAESH / Al-Qaeda and whatever other names for the mercenary killer organizations you want to add to the list – are just tags to confuse. You might as well add Blackwater, Xe, Academi and all its other successive names chosen to escape easy recognition. They are prostitutes for the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon Empire, prostitutes of the lowest level. Then come elite prostitutes, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf States, plus the UK and France, of course.

President Hollande has just signed a multi-billion euro contract with Qatar for the sale of 24 Rafale fighter jets. He is now heading to Riyadh for talks with the Saudi King Salman, and to sell more Rafale planes – it’s good business and helps killing off the fabricated enemies; and also to attend a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit on 5 May. Topics of discussions at the meeting are the ‘crises’ of the region including in Yemen, planted by the west on behalf of Washington (and its Zionist masters) and blamed on the ‘rebels’ who are seeking merely a more just government.

The west has invented a vocabulary so sick, it’s like a virus ingrained in our brains – or what’s left of it – that we don’t even know anymore what the words really mean. We repeat them and believe them. After all, the MSM drills them into our intestines day-in and day-out. People who fight for their freedom, for survival against oppressive regimes, are ‘terrorists’, ‘rebels’. – The refugees from Africa, from the Washington inflicted conflict-stricken countries, the refugees of whom more than 4,000 have already perished this year trying to cross the Mediterranean for a ‘better life’ – they have been conveniently renamed ‘immigrants’. Often the term ‘illegal’ is added. Thus, the west’s conscience is whitewashed from guilt. Immigrants are beggars. Illegal immigrants belong jailed. They have nothing to do with unrest and chaos planted by the west in the ‘immigrants’ home countries. – Shame on you, Brussels!

Back to chaos – Mr. Hollande knows very well that his jets are being used to serve the master and spread more havoc in the region, more death, more disaster, more misery, more slavehood – more refugees drowning in the Mediterranean Sea – more everlasting chaos, people at the edge of survival, people who can no longer fight for their country, for their resources, for their freedom – as they must just fight for their sheer survival, for the survival of their kids and families. That’s empire.

Tell me – is someone who sells weapons, fighter planes – other types of killing machines, to countries, knowing quite well that these weapons are being used for killing people, for destroying countries – is such a person not a mass-murderer? A war criminal of the worst kind?

Mr. Hollande, in addition to being a war criminal, he is a perfect bigot who believes at the end of the day a few crumbs of the Big Loot will fall into his plate – and that he may swim with his masters in a lush sea of milk and honey. Does he think he has to safe the economy of his grand country that produced the likes of Victor Hugo, Stendhal, Balzac, Dumas – by selling killing machines to other stooges of the empire? – Does he not care that 83% of his electorate despise him?

Spreading unrest, chaos, misery – that is what Washington and its vassals do best. They do not want to ‘win’ wars; they want eternal chaos, misery; people who can be subdued easily – full spectrum dominance, they call it. 

And since the US army and its big brother (or sister) NATO cannot be everywhere, doesn’t want to be seen everywhere, they hire to kill. Washington invents and creates, then funds with its endless money stream, the ISILs, Daesh’s, AlQaedas – and the repertoire grows as the masters please – to fight for them, to kill for them, to produce chaos and false flags – so that eventually they – NATO and the Pentagon bulldozer – can come in and make believe ‘destroying’ those mercenaries that they generated in the first place. But the mainstream media won’t tell you the truth.

They have you believe that the Houtis, a secular humanitarian left-leaning group of Shias, and the Sunnis are fighting each other in Yemen for power; that the Saudis and their GCC cronies are just freeing Yemen from a bunch of terrorists; that the Houtis are supported by Iran (a predominant Shia country) – recently vehemently denied by a UN official – so, the Houtis have to be subdued. At the same time there is more reason for Washington to put yet another blame on Iran. Once the Houtis are dominated and killed off in sufficient numbers, a puppet president will be put in place, like the ex-President Saleh, or his successor Hadi, so that Washington can keep calling the shots – oppressing the country’s population to maintain unlimited access to the strategic port of Aden – and to the Gulf.

Ukraine is the same: Are ISIS / ISIL/ Daesh, Al Qaeda, or whatever their names may be, in the Ukraine? – You bet they are, under the command of CIA and some 6,000 US troops, trainers of course. They train the Kiev troops how best and fastest to kill their brothers in the Donbass; they train them how to create lasting chaos. And if the soldiers refuse to be trained to kill their brothers, the Kiev Nazi regime will shoot them as traitors. Point blanc. So easy. So that nobody will resist.

Not least, the US military ‘advisors’ and CIA with the help of their hired killers, the Kiev Nazis, the ISIS / Daesh / AlQaeda, are attempting to provoke President Putin into war – possibly a third World War. Yes, the third in less than hundred years, potentially devastating Europe, and possible the world. So far, the world has been spared this disaster, largely thanks to Mr. Putin’s wise strategy of non-confrontation.

So – no question whether the ISIS / Daesh / AlQaeda are in the Ukraine. They are everywhere the empire orders them to be. That’s what they are paid for. That’s what prostitutes do. Especially created prostitutes; well-paid prostitutes. Ideology is just a fig leave, conveniently used by the western media – so we all may believe that the Muslims are evil, some even more than others. The west must fight them, because they are a serious and present danger for our freedom, our liberty our democracies – and especially our neoliberal everything-goes free market values.

Because that is the ultimate goal: humans as a market commodity, dispensable, reducible to cannon fodder, to be killed off in masses by (poisoned) genetically modified food, by drones, by bombs, by artificially created famine, so that at the end the survivors are serfs to a small elite which controls the four corners of the globe and ALL its resources, to maintain a lifestyle of exceptional people – yes, the exceptional nation, will be reduced to a bunch of exceptional people living in grand splendor.

Remember Henry Kissinger’s infamous words, the vision of one of the most atrocious war criminals still alive today – another Nobel Laureate (sic) – spoken some fifty years ago: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

These words ring truer every day. But only as long as we allow it; as long as We, the People, We the 99.999% of the globe’s inhabitants, allow it.


Libya and “The Arab Spring”: Neoliberalism, “Regime Change” and NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”

by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – November 2011 – GlobalResearch

 

INTRODUCTION

First in Global Research’s Interactive Reader Series, we bring to the attention of our readers a collection of Global Research articles on the “Arab Spring”, covering recent developments in several countries across the Middle East and North Africa region. The Interactive Reader is a collection of previously published articles on Global Research. Its objective is to provide an overview as well as a comparative understanding of country-level experiences of the upheavals.

This selection of articles is intended to dispel the notion that the “Arab Spring” is just a pro-democracy movement spreading spontaneously from country to country, opening the way to a meaningful change in the political and economic landscape. The term “Arab Spring” is itself a Western-imposed term conjured up by people who appear to have little understanding of the complexities and realities of the region.

The double-standards of the U.S. and the European Union have become visible during the course of these tumultuous events. Both the US and the EU have kept silent about the brutal repression of unarmed civilian protesters in the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, while, by contrast, the Western powers have vehemently pushed for conflict with Libya and Syria.

America is no “role model” of democratization for the Arab World, comprising some 22 countries with a combined population of 300 million. US military presence imposed on Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and other Arab countries over decades, coupled with Washington-inspired “free market” reforms, are the root cause of state violence.

Washington’s agenda for Egypt and Tunisia was to hijack the protest movement; what prevails in Egypt is the maintenance of a de facto military regime. In Tunisia, following the October 2011 parliamentary elections, the neoliberal policy framework remains unscathed.

From Washington’s standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of authoritarian military rulers, as in the heyday of US imperialism. Regime change can be implemented by co-opting political parties, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement, and by manipulating national elections.

The ultimate objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers and to uphold the “Washington consensus” of the IMF/World Bank economic agenda that has served to impoverish millions throughout the Arab World and beyond.

Moreover, Western powers have used “Political Islam” –including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups– to pursue their hegemonic objectives. Covert operations are launched to weaken the secular state, foment sectarian violence and create social divisions throughout the Arab World.

In Libya, the “pro-democracy” rebels were led by Al Qaeda affiliated paramilitary brigades under the supervision of NATO Special Forces. The much-vaunted “Liberation” of Tripoli was carried out by former members of the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)****(The leader of LIFG is Abdulhakim Belhaj MI6 asset and very close friend of the Late Ambassador Stevens, Hillary Clinton, Senator McCain and last but not least the UN representative in Libya “King Bernandino Leon” who gives orders and demands that the HoR international recognized government sits down and talk negotiations with the terrorist GNC holding captive the capital of Tripoli; which are: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, LIBYAN DAWN/FAJR, SUNRISE, ISIS/DAESH, AL SHARAIA, AND ALL OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS. I ask you had your country been in situation like Libya would they sit down and negotiate with TERRORISTS?)

Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in an advanced state of readiness for several years. The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US/NATO-sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A “humanitarian war” under the logo of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), as seen in Libya, is on the Western powers’ agenda for Syria. Such a venture would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations. The hitherto covert role of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in destabilizing Syria would also emerge as open aggression towards long-time regional rival Iran.

A war on Syria could quite possibly ignite a conflagration across the entire Middle East and North Africa, with repercussions on a global scale: Iran’s historic allies, Russia and China, will be pitted against the US and NATO powers; and religious schisms across the region could vent into an explosion of internecine conflicts; also proxy wars currently being waged in East Africa by Western powers could escalate with untold human suffering in an already famine-hit region.

War plans directed against Syria are coordinated with those pertaining to Iran.

Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme is the pretext and the justification. Tehran is also identified as a “State sponsor of terrorism”, for allegedly supporting the Al Qaeda network.

In recent developments, what is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the United Kingdom and Israel.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters : “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”

What this collection of essays demonstrates is that Western intervention in this pivotal world region is far from the benign rhetoric frequently spouted in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin, espousing universal human rights and democratic freedoms. Rather, we are witnessing a neo-imperialist intervention that is self-serving, expedient and ultimately setting the world on a path of incalculable destruction.

PART I  TUNISIA: DICTATORSHIP AND NEOLIBERALISM

Dictatorship and Neo-Liberalism: The Tunisian People’s Uprising

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-01-19
Tunisia is not free yet. The structure that kept Bin Ali in place still exists. The U.S. and France have still not forfeited their economic interests in Tunisia either.

 

Tunisia and the IMF’s Diktats: How Macro-Economic Policy Triggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-01-20
Against a background of rising food prices, the IMF recommends the removal of subsidies…


PART II  THE POPULAR UPRISING IN EGYPT: “REVOLUTION” AND “COUNTER-REVOLUTION”

The Protest Movement in Egypt: “Dictators” do not Dictate, They Obey Orders

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-01-29
“Dictators” do not dictate, they obey orders. President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests.
The Popular Uprising in Egypt: The Military Machine Remains Intact, The Political Status Quo Prevails

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-02-21
The same group of Egyptian generals running Cairo presently also formed the backbone of the Mubarak regime. There has been no real change in government. The military junta represents a continuation of the Mubarak regime.
Dictators are “Disposable”: The Rise and Fall of America’s Military Henchmen

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-02-18
When dictators are no longer needed, they are replaced. The military machine prevails, combined with a ruthless form of capitalist development…

 

PART III  BAHRAIN: THE FORGOTTEN “ARAB SPRING”

Bahrain: The Social Roots of Revolt Against Another US Ally

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-02-18
The Bahraini authorities deployed helicopters and tanks, with army and police firing teargas and live rounds. Among the protesters were hundreds of women and children.
Slaughter in Bahrain

– by Finian Cunningham
There is little doubt that the regime received clearance from political allies in Washington, London and the other Gulf states to step up its four-week old repression against the civilian population.
Detained Bahraini Medics: Brutal Crackdown against Pro-Democracy Movement

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-04-21
The families of medics unlawfully detained in Bahrain have accused the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (RCSI) of putting financial investment interests above human rights.
Bahraini Rulers Play Sectarian Card in Bid to Trump Pro-democracy Movement

– by Finian Cunningham
Increasing attacks on Shia mosques in the Bahraini state’s withering crackdown against the pro-democracy movement is a deliberate attempt to isolate the political opposition and amounts to a campaign of “sectarian cleansing”,

PART IV  LIBYA: NATO’S “HUMANITARIAN WAR”

Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-09-29
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims that Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi…
When War Games Go Live: “Staging” a “Humanitarian War” against “SOUTHLAND”

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-04-16
We were led to believe that the protest movement in Egypt and Tunisia had spread to Libya, but the war on Libya was planned months prior to the Arab protest movement…
“Our Man in Tripoli”: US-NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists Integrate Libya’s Pro-Democracy Opposition

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-04-03
Concepts are turned upside down: The US-NATO military alliance is supporting a rebellion integrated by Islamic terrorists, in the name of the “War on Terrorism”…
“Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa

– by Prof Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-03-09
Libya is among the world’s largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.
The “Liberation” of Libya: NATO Special Forces and Al Qaeda Join Hands

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-28
The jihadists and NATO work hand in glove. These “former” Al Qaeda affiliated brigades constitute the backbone of the “pro-democracy” rebellion.
Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-20
A historical reversal in Libya economic and social development has occurred. An entire country has been destroyed, its people driven into abysmal poverty.

PART V  YEMEN: REPUBLICAN DICTATORSHIP AT THE CROSSROADS

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-02-07
The militarization of the Indian Ocean is a process of securing US control over Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden.

PART VI  SYRIA: NATO’S NEXT WAR

SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-05-03
The ultimate purpose is to spark sectarian violence and political chaos within Syria by covertly supporting Islamic terrorist organizations.
The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-16
Recent developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers.
The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-02
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, with a view to justifying a “humanitarian” military intervention by NATO

PART VII  MILITARY ESCALATION AND THE BROADER WAR

A “Humanitarian War” on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-09
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) directed against Syria.
America’s Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Julien Teil. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney – 2011-10-06
Terrorists not only fight for Washington on the ground, they also act as frontmen for regime change through so-called human rights organizations that promote democracy.
The Powers of Manipulation: Islam as a Geopolitical Tool to Control the Middle East

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-07-02
As Washington and its cohorts march towards the Eurasian Heartland, they have tried to manipulate Islam as a geo-political tool. They have created political and social chaos in the process.
America’s War in the Horn of Africa: “Drone Alley”, A Harbinger of Western Power across the African Continent

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-10-29
The US Military confirms Washington’s secret new war in Somalia despite official denials.
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney – 2011-10-11
An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway…
Global Warfare: Targeting Iran: Preparing for World War III

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-03
The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. What is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the UK and Israel

About the Authors

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca  website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia and Latin America, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Finian Cunningham is currently Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent. He has written extensively on international affairs. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests. He is now based in East Africa.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and an award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several Western media. He was Special Correspondent for Global Research and Pacifica’s investigative radio program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages.

————————–

 

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


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

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

COMMON THEMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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