Counter Intelligence – The Company


Counter Intelligence – The Company

A film by Scott Noble of Metanoia Films (2013)

“An extraordinary work by a gifted filmmaker, ‘Counter-Intelligence’ shines sunlight into the darkest crevices of empire run amok. The film vividly exposes a monstrous and unconstitutional ‘deep state’ in which multiple competing chains of command — all but one illegalhijack government capabilities and taxpayer funds to commit crimes against humanity in our name. Anyone who cares about democracy, good government, and the future will want to watch all five segments of this remarkable film.” 

Counter-Intelligence is a 5 part series that explores in-depth, the vast, sprawling and secret National Security State that operates throughout the United States–and indeed the world. The series examines the foundations of the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex, charting through to the myriad consequences in today’s world where secret intelligence organisations continue to hijack governments, manipulate elections and commit heinous crimes against humanity–all under the cloak of “National Security”. In the wake of the continued revelations of the NSA PRISM program, this series is now more important than ever to provide a solid historical context to the workings of the rapacious and ever-expanding National Security State…

This first episode lays out the structure of the modern intelligence agency, using the evolution of the CIA and the creation of the concept of ‘plausible deniability’ to show how the continued rapacious spread of the clandestine National Security State has been built up over time, to the complex network it is today. Examples of previous operations by secret agencies show election tampering; assassinations; the setting up of NGO’s and front companies for ‘economic hit-men’; creation of mercenary groups and paramilitaries; the clandestine modern military-intelligence bureaucracy, including JSOC and NSA; as well as illustrating the emergence of The Panopticon–the vast National Security surveillance network. This network is more powerful than even governments–with examples in Australia showing how Gough Whitlam is expelled for wanting to shut down Pine Gap and other top secret US military bases…

The Deep State

The Strategy of Tension

The Strategy of Tension examines the history of false flag operations used for war, propaganda and psychological operations–or ‘psy-ops’. Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio are examples used to illustrate the nature of clandestine operation planning and execution; as well as shedding light on the intent and extent to which the National Security apparatus manipulates events and manufactures outcomes to suit its goals. This programme also looks at the issues that spin off from the history of false flag operations–such as how conspiracy theories are used to discredit inquiry and investigative journalism; and also how the cultural preconditions around dismissing false flag operations serve to protect their continuation and ‘plausible deniability’…

Necrophilous

This episode investigates how torture and extensive demonstrative violence have been used as tools throughout clandestine operations, intelligence gathering and also outright war. Recent examples covered are the abuses by the United States military in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, as well as the workings of covert operations involving torture and organised violence. Also discussed are attitudes towards civilian casualties in modern war, as well as recent framing conditions of propaganda such as Islamophobia–the driving force behind warmongering and mainstream media manipulation.

 

Drone Nation

On New Years Eve 2011, Barack Obama signs into law (without much opposition) the NDEAA Act–a law that allows the government to detain its own citizens without charge indefinitely, and even murder its own citizens without due process. Case in point was the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. This new law then leads to further secret drone strikes throughout Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq directed by Obama and institutions such as the CIA. What direction are we heading in from here?

Advertisements

Libya, ALBA and the West: Humanity’s Choice Between Cooperative Solidarity and Murderous Competition


In September 2013, the Belfer Center of Harvard University published a study confirming that NATO’s war on Libya was based on downright falsehoods. In June this year the US authorities announced data indicating that the economy contracted 2.9% in the first quarter. In the same month Facebook admitted accusations that it had abused its system so as to carry out an unauthorized experiment in mass psychological manipulation of its users

But no one in the NATO countries concerned is facing trial in the International Criminal Court for the criminal aggression against Libya. Stock market prices continue at high levels and the financial media say, six years after the international financial system collapsed in 2008, that the recovery is “gaining traction”. The millions of Facebook users continue to use that social network as if nothing has happened presumably because it has become such an integral part of their daily routine.

The connection between these diverse apparently unrelated events is that they show the integral corruption of the criminal system of Western capitalism. No matter where one looks. In international relations, in the United Nations, in the economy, in the financial system, in intellectual life, in the communications media, in sports bodies like FIFA or the International Olympic Committee, corruption is everywhere. Virtually every area of public policy is perverted so as to benefit corporate elites.

In Western media, innumerable liberal and progressive analysts express an almost neurotic longing for change. The academic and media phenomenon of Thomas Piketty’s study of capitalism openly acknowledges the social and economic injustice of capitalism. The media phenomenon of Edward Snowden explicitly recognizes the routine abuse on a massive scale about which many other people before Snowden had raised the alarm for decades.

Few have noted the paradox that these media phenomena are generated by the self-same inert broken system that Snowden and Piketty criticize. Far from being a virtuous demonstration of democracy, essentially what Piketty and Snowden and their promoters are saying comes down to something like, “Sure, the system’s broken but if we tighten a nut here and a bolt there the machinery will work again just fine”. Or perhaps, if the Princess could only overcome her revulsion and kiss the toad everyone could live happily ever after. Real human history has been very different.

Human history prior to 1945 was one of a century and a half of bitter struggle by untold millions of women and men around the world against the sadistic cruelty and injustice of genocidal Western capitalism. That long history of struggle achieved a few positive results at end of the Second World War, including the start of decolonization and recognition of the right to self-determination. One can argue that those changes have helped the majority world to resist in some degree since 1990 the persistent surges of aggression by the Western powers trying to defend their residual global domination.

In recent years, Libya has been the most representative case of North American and European sadism and hypocrisy. The opportune study in 2013 by Alan Kuperman of Harvard University’s Belfer Center concludes : “Libya’s 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force.” Kuperman adds, “NATO’s action magnified the conflict’s duration about sixfold, and its death toll at least sevenfold, while also exacerbating human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, Islamic radicalism, and weapons proliferation in Libya and its neighbors.

While there has been wide recognition of the deceit-based failure of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, not for nothing have few admitted the disastrous failure of the war against Libya. More than any other recent conflict, the sadistic aggression against Libya revealed the falsity not just of Western governments and corporate media but also of Western alternative media, progressive intellectuals and progressive movements. Along the whole length of the Western political spectrum the most distinguished political academic and intellectual leaders were mistaken in the most humiliating and shameful way.

The destruction of Libya shows the completely rotten reality underlying the false claims to moral and intellectual superiority of Western political culture. The contagion of baseless prejudices and rumours glibly treated as fact also extended to many majority world intellectuals. It was truly remarkable how many supposedly cultured, sophisticated individuals, knowing practically nothing about Libya, expressed an irrational antipathy against both the Libyan Jamahiriya and its architect Muammar al-Gaddhafi.

Only a few leaders, notably Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, showed the necessary wisdom to accurately assess what was happening. This is indisputable. So one obvious conclusion is to question the judgment of all those Western political leaders, intellectuals and many supposedly progressive movements, whatever their political label may be. The aggression against Libya has proven to be the graveyard of the credibility of public political and intellectual life in North America and Europe.

The UN showed itself yet again to be a reliable accomplice of aggression violating its most fundamental principles. Almost alone, it was the governments of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas who maintained a consistent and correct position based on an accurate assessment of the facts. When almost all other world political leaders failed so grossly on Libya, it is indeed interesting to look at why Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro and their ALBA colleagues got things right.

More than anyone those leaders and their colleagues like Nicolas Maduro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa understand the meaning of the true history of mass struggle against the Western imperialist powers throughout the majority world. They were right about Libya and they are right now in their defence of Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina in Latin America and, elsewhere, of the people and government of Syria and the people of eastern Ukraine. Last week they again showed the strength of their anti-imperialist political vision in two very important events for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Firstly, last week saw the first meeting of the Administrative Council of the long delayed Bank of the South, a South American alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Secondly, last week also saw unanimous solidarity with Argentina from Latin American and Caribbean countries in the Organization of American States against US court judgments favouring predatory vulture funds. Both cases indicate the influence and prestige achieved in recent years of the ALBA countries’ vision of solidarity based regional integration.

As the economic and political crisis in the NATO countries deepens, the challenge to its global political and economic domination increases. The West promotes a vision based on greed and competition rigged via unfair trade, manipulative development cooperation and unjust debt. The increasingly influential ALBA vision, of solidarity and cooperation based on fundamental respect for nations’ self-determination is also the vision of the Libyan Jamahiriya. In Latin America, the deep moral battle between this vision and the destructive corporate greed of the West plays out mainly in the continuing vicious blockade of Cuba, the violent destabilization of Venezuela and, now, the wanton legal attack on Argentina’s economy.

THE SISTERS OF NO MERCY: HOW THE MEN OF OIL NEED COUNTRIES “TO BE BLED”


THE SISTERS OF NO MERCY:

HOW THE MEN OF OIL NEED COUNTRIES “TO BE BLED”

 

BY LADY KHAMIS (‘thegirlwholoveskhamis’)

 

If you have ever wondered what the real connection is between oil and the devastating wars waged on mankind, then here is your chance to find out. Al-Jazeera UK have done a stunning 4-part series of films that tell the mind-blowing true story of how the men of oil control the waging of wars, as well as controlling the governments who do them, foreign policies – and the fixing of the oil business itself.

The series – titled ‘The Secret Of The Seven Sisters’ – is a must for anyone who cares about the world we live in, and why no-one can close their eyes any longer to the real reason why millions of people have been – and continue to be – sacrificed for oil and money.

  The story begins in 1928 when the top three men of oil met for a private shooting party in Scotland. The secret aim was to discuss their top-secret venture – to join together and create a New World Order. To plot their control of the world’s oil, make money, and fix the prices, installation of wells, trade and transportation etc. – and form the elite oil cartels that would do this. In other words, everything to do with the oil business would be dictated by them.

  The three men were a Dutchman – from Royal Dutch Shell, a Briton – from what was to become BP oil, and an American – from what was to become Exxon.

  The Seven Sisters of evil that became controllers of the world and its fate, were formed over time and became known as Shell, BP, Exxon, Gulf, Chevron, Texaco, and Mobil. (Some of these have since, of course, amalgamated into each other).

   Episode 1: Focuses on the oilmen’s favourite – the Middle East. It covers the coup d’etat forced on Iran, as well as Egypt and the Suez crisis.

  But it is the astonishing revelations about the US’s dealings with Iraq that is the standout piece.

  The West has repeatedly demonised Saddam Hussein for both invading Kuwait and attacking Iran. But the truth could not have been more different. Saddam invaded Iran (in a dispute over oil fields) with the blessing of the US. (I also recall how America used the Saudis to goad Saddam into attacking Iran). The war lasted eight years and left over one million people dead – but according to one oilman, this was the deliberate intention of the oil companies…

  In a truly gut-wrenching admission, oil trader Xavier Houzel says “We waged (this war) against Iraq because one country had to be used to destroy the other” and because “from time to time, THEY HAVE TO BE BLED”…

  Later, Saddam was led to believe that he was free to invade Kuwait and claim oilfields that were historically part of Iraq.

  After he told a US ambassador of his intentions, he was told that it was an “internal matter” and he understood that the US would not intervene. The programme interviews an official who says that it was “a trap” laid by the Yanks – and that Saddam “fell into it”.

  Whatever his faults, history has certainly truly misjudged the Iraqi president…

  Moving on to the next war on Iraq in 2003, the programme describes the 9/11 attacks on America as “a pretext”.

Dick Cheney formed a secret society to help the oil agenda. He and Condoleeza Rice – a former executive of Chevron oil – were devoted to helping the cause of the oil companies – and the prime target was Iraq. The odious pair even had a map showing how they were going to divide Iraq into various oil zones.

  The first order given to the US military was to secure the oil wells and the Oil Ministry. All the ministries in Iraq were then pillaged – except the Oil Ministry. It was never touched – as a ring of US tanks and soldiers made it untouchable…    

 

Episode 2: Appropriately titled “Black Eldorado”, this focuses on Africa – especially Libya and the dealings of the oilmen with Gaddafi. Several times there is an appearance by his former oil minister, Shukri Ghanem, being interviewed – which is most eerie. The programme returns back to him at the end and states that the Austrian authorities claim Ghanem died of a heart attack. For those who have forgotten, he was found dead in the River Danube after fleeing the Libya war in 2011. Myself, and others, are certain Ghanem was murdered.

Editors Note: Mr Ghanem did not flee the country in 2011,  he was being blackmailed by UK/MI6, USA/CIA, France/DGSE and ISRAEL/MOSSAD they had kidnapped his children with their families who lived in Austria forcing him to resign with the blessing of the Late Qaddafi that he should take care of his family. Proving the fact that when he arrived to Austria he was boxed by the four agencies to accept to co-operate with the NTC which he declined knowing that this would cost him his life. As I know him personally Mr. Ghanem NEVER left his home without his daily planner and business cards, not even when on holiday. Health wise he was healthy as an ox so the heart attack is a lie, when found dead in the River Danube they did not find anything on him, no wallet, no daily planner, no house keys or car keys for that matter. One day prior to his death I had spoken to him over the phone and he told me “I’m being pressured and I am under surveillance by the agencies mentioned above, if anything happens to me please tell our people that the truth will come to light someday.”  “Please tell our people I will never betray them.” “As for you please try to stay safe and invisible as you are so that one day we can return to our country as Liberators, take care it will be the last time that I will be talking to you.” The next day I read that he had drowned. The man never went near the water as he did not know to swim. They murdered him because he knew too much, he knew and had documents about the dealings with Sarkozy and his presidency, he knew about the false witnesses paid by CIA for the Lockerbie case  and a lot of other dealings that could bring all four agencies and their respected countries down to their knees. He had to be eliminated at any cost. Libya lost a great man.

Sudan and Algeria are also covered, as well as the goon Bongo of Gabon.

But I particularly want to feature its coverage of Nigeria and the death of Ken Saro Wiwa – as the West’s treatment of Nigeria is truly shocking in its hypocrisy when compared to Libya in 2011.

In the 1990’s, one of its many despots, General Abacha, ruled Nigeria.

Abacha was the perfect puppet of the Western oil companies and ran the country and its people into the ground – in particular allowing the West to cause monumental environmental damage in its petroleum excavations.

The people rose up – led by a charismatic freedom fighter Ken Saro Wiwa. Here, unlike Libya, was a genuinely rebelling, genuinely repressed nation, with genuine grievances over poverty and robbery of all the oil wealth. Abacha brutally crushed the rebellion – killing thousands.

But there was to be no Nato intervention here. Abacha was the West’s servant – and regime change was never going to be allowed to be an option…

Despite international outcry, Saro Wiwa was arrested, sentenced to death and hung in 1995.

But it was the oil companies who made certain of his fate…

Royal Dutch Shell paid ‘witnesses’ – bribing them to provide FALSE testimony that implicated Saro Wiwa in ‘murders’… They ensured their bogeyman would be of no further trouble to them…

(Incidentally, Gen. Abacha himself met his own sticky end just three years later – poisoned by two prostitutes he had been keeping company with… No doubt, hired by someone from his considerable collection of enemies)!…

Episode 3: Focuses on Russia, and the sordid deals of the Saudis.

Episode 4: Focuses on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and the CIA plots against them, and what will happen when the world finally runs out of oil…

 The good news is that The Seven Sisters of evil are actually dying…

  And they are being replaced by seven nice sisters – the growing and profitable seven oil companies of such countries as Brazil, China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran etc. These states do not want wars and all believe in keeping the oil under their own individual control and having their own peoples benefit from their own oil wealth. (Note though, how all these countries are on America’s hit list)…

  All four programmes can easily be found by googling ‘the secret of the seven sisters’.

thegulfintelligence.com is a good place to see them.

Lady Khamis  (‘thegirlwholoveskhamis’)

For libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org

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.

The death of Hugo Chavez, and the trend of hi-tech assassinations in global politics


The death of Hugo Chavez, and the trend of hi-tech assassinations in global politics

by Peter Baofu

The death of Hugo Chavez, and the trend of hi-tech assassinations in global politics. 49602.jpeg

Hugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela for 14 years, died on March 05, 2013, after having courageously fought against cancer in the last few months. Media reports superficially stated “heart attack” as the cause. But a troubling question is, Who killed him? This question is not rhetorical, since its answer points to the trend of hi-tech assassinations in contemporary global politics.

I. HISTORICAL CASES

In the last few years alone, quite a number of prominent individuals who opposed the policies of some powerful states on the world stage had been targeted for hi-tech assassination, which often leaves no trace behind and can kill the victim silently (often in a slow and painful death), and this kind of silent killing becomes an increasingly preferred form of very sophisticated assassination by some powerful states in our time — unlike the crude use of shooting by an assassin in the older days.

For illustration, just consider some controversial cases of both successful and unsuccessful hi-tech assassinations in the past 2 decades, as shown below:

1.  Cristina Kirchner, current president of Argentina, with thyroid cancer in 2011
2.  Ollanta Humala, current president of Peru, with cancer in the gut in 2011
3.  Hugo Chavez, former president of Venezuela, with prostate Cancer in 2011
4.  Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, with cancer of the larynx in 2011
5.  Nestor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, with colon cancer in 2010
6.  Fernando Lugo, former president of Paraguay, with lymph cancer in 2010
7.  Evo Morales, current president of Bolivia, with cancer in the nasal cavities in 2009
8.  Dilma Vana Rousseff, current president of Brazil, with cancer in the lymphatic system in 2009
9.  Alexander Litvinenko, former Russian secret service officer, with polonium-210
poisoning in 2006
10. Yassar Arafat, former chair of the PLO, with brain hemorrhage in 2004
11. Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Hamas, with the poisonous shutdown of the brain  in 1996.

Of course, there can be other examples, so the ones above are illustrative, not exhaustive. At first glance, all these cases seem isolated incidents, but, upon closer examination, reveal a growing and disturbing trend of hi-tech assassinations in contemporary global politics, in that all these individuals with the diseases were major opponents of the policies of some powerful states.

For example, the first 8 cases above (cases #1-8) involve some recent leftist opponents of American intervention in South America. This led Mr. Chavez to thus wonder, back in 2011, “Would it be so strange that they [in the U.S.] have invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” and then added: “I don’t know but…it is very odd than we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was [presidential] candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina….It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some [leftist] leaders in Latin America. It’s at the very least strange, very strange,” as reported by Tom Phillips on December 29, 2011.

His friend Fidel Castro in Cuba, who himself had survived hundreds of hi-tech assassination attempts by the U.S. in the past half of a century, therefore gave him some advice: “Chávez, take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat…a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.” 

On the day of Chavez’s death, Vice President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, said in an address to the nation that “there’s no doubt that Commandante Chavez’s health came under attack by the enemy,” in that “Chavez’s cancer was an ‘attack’ by his enemies” (meaning the U.S.), as reported by Tracy Connor for NBC News on March 06, 2013. Then, General Jose Ornella, head of Venezuela’s presidential guard, “echoed the concern of Vice President Nicolas Maduro that some sort of foul play was involved in Chavez’s cancer. ‘I think it will be 50 years before they declassify a document (that) I think (will show) the hand of the enemy is involved,’ he said. The general didn’t identify who he was talking about [or what the classified document was exactly], but Maduro suggested possible U.S. involvement…,” as reported by Fabiola Sanchez for the Associated Press on March 06, 2013.

Shortly after the death of Chavez, Kurt Nimmo wrote on March 6, 2013: “For the naysayers who dispute that the CIA was responsible for the cancer death of Hugo Chavez, note the device in the following video. It is a dart gun developed in the 1970s (or possibly earlier) by the CIA. In the video, the weapon is described as inducing heart attacks. Cancer is not mentioned. However, we know that the CIA used Dr. Alton Oschner, the former president of the American Cancer Society, to run covert cancer research for the agency.” If they could invent devices like this back in the 1970s, just imagine how much more they could do now in the 2010s!

In addition, Lubov Lulko wrote in January 05, 2012 that there were different technologies to inflict cancer on opponents, like “alpha radiation, electromagnetic waves, or chemicals” which can “cause emergence and development of cancer,” as part of the larger efforts by some powerful states to “invent new kinds of biological, chemical and electronic weapons” to kill their enemies.

Then, case #9 on the list (above) has to do with the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko by the Russian government under Putin, since “upon his arrival to London, he [Litvinenko] continued to support the Russian oligarch in exile, Boris Berezovsky, in his media campaign against the Russian government” under Putin, and “the main suspect in the case, a former officer of the Russian Federal Protective Service (FSO), Andrei Lugovoy, remains in Russia,” and “subsequent investigations by British authorities into the circumstances of Litvinenko’s death led to serious diplomatic difficulties between the British and Russian governments,” as reported in an article on Wikipedia.

And cases #10-11 on the list (above) has to do with the Israeli involvement, for the critics, in the assassination of Yassar Arafat, former chair of the PLO, with brain hemorrhage in 2004, and of Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Hamas, with the poisonous shutdown of the brain in 1996.

II. SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

Hi-tech assassinations can be both successful and unsuccessful, of course.
On the one hand, the practice of hi-tech assassination has its own successes. For instance, in the above 11 illustrative cases, 4 attempts were successful, namely, the cases involving Hugo Chavez, Nestor Kirchner, Alexander Litvinenko, and Yassar Arafat.

On the other hand, there are failures, in 2 major ways, as explained below.
Firstly, some attempts (like the 9 cases as mentioned earlier) have not been successful, for the time being at least — and the most notorious one concerns case #11, when Israel unsuccessfully attempted to silently kill Khaled Meshaal (with poison), but “one of Meshaal’s bodyguards, Muhammad Abu Saif, had chased the two Mossad agents who had carried out the operation and, with the help of a passing Palestinian Liberation Army officer, later captured them,” and “the failed assassination proved to be one of the greatest fiascos in the history of special operations, and a pivotal moment in the rise of Hamas,” and it had also humiliated Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister at the time (1996-1999) and also now (since 2009), since he was forced not only to provide “the antidote and the nature of the [toxins] used against Meshaal,” but also “to release the founder of Hamas [Sheikh Ahmed Yassin] from jail in a prisoner exchange deal,” as reported by Al Jazeera World on January 30, 2013.

And secondly, even the killings of the opponents do not necessarily bring the results as intended. For instance, the death of Nestor Kirchner has not made Argentina more pro-American; on the contrary, it only brought his widow Cristina Kirchner into power, who has sided with Chavez instead. The death of Yassar Arafat has not brought peace to the Middle East, nor has it made Israel safer from the Hamas, as the two sides recently had another military clash in December of 2012. The death of Alexander Litvinenko has not silenced the opposition against the presidency of Vladimir Putin; on the contrary, the opposition has grown even stronger nowadays, from 29% of the vote in the presidential election in 2004 to 37% of the vote in 2012. And the death of Hugo Chavez has made him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters, both at home and abroad, for his dual achievements (and visions) to give the poor (long treated with contempt and abused by the aristocrats in the region) a voice in the public sphere and to stand up against “yankee imperialism” for South American independence as a larger integrated bloc.  

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, eloquently wrote about Chavez in The New York Times on March 6, 2013, the day after his death: “No remotely honest person, not even his fiercest opponent, can deny the level of camaraderie, of trust and even of love that Mr. Chavez felt for the poor of Venezuela and for the cause of Latin American integration.”

At home, “Chávez’s social campaigns, especially in the areas of public health, housing and education, succeeded in improving the standard of living of tens of millions of Venezuelans,” as Mr. Lula wasted no time to point out.

Abroad, “Mr. Chávez was instrumental in the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations, a 12-member intergovernmental organization that might someday move the continent toward the model of the European Union. In 2010, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States leapt from theory to practice, providing a political forum alongside the Organization of American States. (It does not include the United States and Canada, as the O.A.S. does.) The Bank of the South, a new lending institution, independent of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, also would not have been possible without Mr. Chávez’s leadership. Finally, he was vitally interested in fostering closer Latin American ties with Africa and the Arab world,” as Mr. Lula thus praised him.

But this does not mean that Mr. Chavez has no faults of his own making. On the contrary, as Lula thus criticized him: “One need not agree with everything Mr. Chavez said or did….There is no denying that he was a controversial, often polarizing, figure….” And, for his enemies, especially those in the corporate world of big-business capitalism, Mr. Chavez can be regarded as a curse from hell.

Yet, for all those countless folks who completely crowded the streets of Caracas on March 06, 2013 and waited for many hours only in order to bid him farewell when his coffin passed through in a military procession, with many crying and mourning, and some even stayed into the night to see his body at the Fort Tiuma military academy — his death has made him larger than life in their hearts and minds, to the point that, as Lula aptly put it, “his ideas will come to inspire young people in the future, much as the life of Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of Latin America, inspired Mr. Chávez himself.”

Already, “within hours of Hugo Chavez’s death, makeshift altars were going up in homes and on street corners around Venezuela with candles, photos and offerings for the late president. Weeping beside his coffin, supporters are likening him to independence hero Simon Bolivar and even Jesus Christ. Ministers quote his words and precepts in reverential tones,” as reported by Andrew Cawthorne on March 8, 2013. And Chavez’s body will be “embalmed” and be “permanently displayed” inside “a glass tomb” at a military museum in Caracas, as reported by the Associated Press on March 07, 2013.

This then is the best thing that his enemies have done to him: his painful and untimely death makes him a martyr for his followers both at home and abroad, in the present and in the future.

Peter Baofu
source: english.pravda.ru