Sirte – the Apotheosis of “Liberal Intervention”
There is no cause to doubt that, for whatever reason, the support of the people of Sirte for Gadaffi is genuine. That this means they deserve to be pounded into submission is less obvious to me. The disconnect between the UN mandate to protect civilians while facilitating negotiation, and NATO’s actual actions as the anti-Gadaffi forces’ air force and special forces, is startling.There is something so shocking in the Orwellian doublespeak of NATO on this point that I am severely dismayed. I suffer from that old springing eternal of hope, and am therefore always in a state of disappointment.
The “rebels” are actively hitting Sirte with heavy artillery and Stalin’s organs; they are transporting tanks openly to attack Sirte. Yet any movement of tanks or artillery by the population of Sirte brings immediate death from NATO air strike.
What exactly is the reason that Sirte’s defenders are threatening civilians but the artillery of their attackers – and the bombings themselves – are not? Plainly this is a nonsense. People in foreign ministries, NATO, the BBC and other media are well aware that it is the starkest lie and propaganda, to say the assault on Sirte is protecting civilians. But does knowledge of the truth prevent them from peddling a lie? No.
-
24th August 2011“The war propaganda has entered a new phase, involving the coordinated action of satellite TV stations. CNN, France24, the BBC and Al Jazeera have become instruments of disinformation used to demonize governments and justify armed aggressions. These practices are illegal under international law and the impunity of the perpetrators must be stopped.”
.
“(UN) Resolution 110 of 3 November 1947 regarding “measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war,” condemns “propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
.
http://www.voltairenet.org/Journalists-who-engage-in-war
27th August 2011
I hope people will take an active interest in the current plight of independent journalists, still stranded in Tripoli. They have been incarcerated in a rebel-controlled Hotel in Tripoli since leaving the Hotel Rixos with other (mainstream) journalists a few days ago. Their version of events in Libya is markedly different from the mainstream consensus. Before incarceration, they reported on death threats from some of the mainstream journos.
Public pressure might get them out – and their voice is bad needed now. Needless to say, it’s not a cause that’s been taken up by mainstream media.
See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinhOEkOB84
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26164
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26205
http://www.voltairenet.org/Voltaire-Network-denounces-attempt
Public pressure might get them out – and their voice is bad needed now. Needless to say, it’s not a cause that’s been taken up by mainstream media.
See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinhOEkOB84
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26164
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26205
http://www.voltairenet.org/Voltaire-Network-denounces-attempt
Why we must leave NATO
Every time you hear a NATO spokesman telling lies about their mission to protect civilians, remember the tortured of Uzbekistan.
24th August 2011
Suhayl, quite correct re. Al Jazeera. I should add that it is just a re-brand of the BBC’s Anglo-Arab radio network.
.
Mary, I share your revulsion for the butch Romanian NATO PR bitch and the assorted BBC/Sky harpies.
.
I spend my time flipping between RT and Press TV to get a handle on what appears to be going down – Craig, Webster Tarpley was on Press TV last night (what a hero)
.
Meanwhile good piece from Pravda re. Western media whores:
.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/24-08-2011/118842-western_journalism-0/
.
Mary, I share your revulsion for the butch Romanian NATO PR bitch and the assorted BBC/Sky harpies.
.
I spend my time flipping between RT and Press TV to get a handle on what appears to be going down – Craig, Webster Tarpley was on Press TV last night (what a hero)
.
Meanwhile good piece from Pravda re. Western media whores:
.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/24-08-2011/118842-western_journalism-0/
( Um. As if Pravda was impartial or immune )
-
24th August 2011I’m not sure how firm the SNP commitment is to remaining outside of NATO. There are voices in and around the party advocating some relaxation of this position, probably in response to unremittingly hostile media reporting of this stance. Salmond is still occasionally upbraided by the BBC for his description of the ‘humanitarian bombing’ of Serbia as illegal and ‘an act of unpardonable folly’, in spite of being one of the few who had the right way of it (it was alo condemned by Amnesty International and the Red Cross). NATO is a criminal gang, just a very well equipped and funded one, so it it is ever astonishing to see moral inversions like this twat:
.
http://www.betternation.org/2011/08/post-libya-can-the-snp-remain-anti-nato/
.
I hope the party’s attitude remains that expressed (mildly) by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn and quote in the blog.
-
24th August 2011“But there should be no need for us to try to paint Qaddafi (or Assad, or King Abdullah, or the Sultan of Bahrain) in a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ light (and they are all ‘bad’, I would argue) just because NATO’s motives are pecuniary and imperialist.”
There is no need. And not much point either.
The real question is whether Qaddafi was attempting to overturn the governments of other countries. Or, rather, whether he had the capacity to do so. Clearly he did not. So he was not a threat to international peace. Nor is Assad.
NATO, on the other hand, is either directly or through the offices of its leading members, involved now ,or has been recently, in attempts to overturn governments in Asia, Africa, America and Europe. It has attacked several countries, killed millions of people and underwrites terrorist campaigns in several countries as well as assisting governments, such as Colombia’s, Honduras’s and Haiti’s, in terror campaigns against political opponents (generally unarmed).
NATO in other words is not a beast worthy of our support or taxes, both of which it, in effect, enjoys.
Qaddafi, in sharp contradistinction, never has had our support and certainly not our material support.
The point is that there is no justification for our supporting NATO’s actions which were illegal, as well as being dishonest and immoral. As to their motivation: clearly the Organisation is aimed at world domination, which is to say the substitution of a single dictatorship over the whole world.
Qaddafi’s sins, which are best considered in the Libyan context, are, by comparison unimportant. And to citizens of the NATO countries they are not simply unimportant but beyond our capacity to review: the great bulk of information that we receive from or about Libya is filtered through media which grinds axes for pay.
Given that most people have no direct experience of and no reasonably reliable way of discovering the situation in Libya or Syria, for that matter, their judgments and the judgments of their governments are unlikely to be wise. And very likely to be guided by amoral considerations: Sarkozy’s electoral calculations, the cardinal principle of modern British Foreign Policy which is to do what Washington wants, and other similarly sordid reasoning.
All things for which in Lloyd George’s phrase, “You wouldn’t hang a dog” in good conscience. And yet NATO, in our name has killed hundreds in Libya, probably thousands and the bloodshed, I suspect, is only beginning, and will not get under properly weigh again until the cameras have departed and the notebooks have been snapped shut and the world is as complacent against the new tyranny as it was about the old, when Sheikh al Libi was being cut to pieces on orders from…NATO’s leading member.
For months it has been very clear that a peaceful alternative, not only to the killing but to the use of violence to solve political problems, was very likely to have proved successful in getting any changes anyone in Libya desired. NATO’s role has been to make sure that no such peaceful process was embarked upon.
It not only makes war for fun, but, sadistically, insists on preferring war to civilised compromise. It is a force in the world for barbarism, an evil much greater and more dangerous, because less challenged and less controllable, than any that there has previously been. And it is ours. It acts in our name and with our pretended “interests” on its lips.
Britain should have left it in the 1950s when it became clear to all disinterested observers that the USSR had not the tiniest intention of using military force against any of the NATO members. And that, to the contrary, NATO existed to threaten the USSR and to enforce a crippling arms race upon the people’s of eastern Europe and the USSR.
-
24th August 2011Chris2 (and all),
.
Ellen Brown wrote a very well informed piece on the reasons behind the Libyan “adventure” back in April:
.
Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?
.
“Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. “I don’t know!” was the response. “I guess they don’t know what else to do!” Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
.
“What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.”
.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Libya-All-About-Oil-or-A-by-Ellen-Brown-110414-179.html
-
25th August 2011
@ Ruth and Suhayl,
I said ” NATO’S VAVV”.The “v” for victory – the way to it – via a manipulated war.
There could have been no road this far without NATO bombing a path for the rebels to move forward. If it were that there was this majority that wanted Gadaffi out – then a couple months of NATO bombing would have achieved that end. Bomb – advance – be repelled by government troops – bomb – be repelled – advance again. If is fundamentally – NATO’S WAR!
There was false information circulated recently about the true position in Tripoli and then within 24 hours Obama was back on air to say that the fight was not over ( i.e. there is still significant support for Gadaffi after almost 6 months of bombing and the fight goes on). This simply is not the mirror of what transpired in Egypt or Tunisia. Where there were genuine people’s opposition in the streets demonstrating for the removal of the leaders, in Libya the ones in the street in significant numbers were the Libyan people demonstrating in support of Gadaffi. Clearly, the process is one of removal from power with overwhelming military force. The Libyan people, as had the people of Iraq, have precious little to expect but the plundering of their resources by the Western powers that led the charge for the oil etc. – France, Italy, Britain, the US. A sad state of affairs and the literal ditching of the rule of international law.
Ruth – you say:-
” Libyans now feel they have a future. Without Gaddafi’s oppression there’s a sense of absolute relief. In Benghazi people have a sense of purpose working together to keep the city functioning. They’re very grateful indeed to France, UK and the US. Over many years they’ve asked for help to remove Gaddafi but instead Western countries just sold him more and more weapons making a successful rebellion alone impossible. People are very aware of what they want and if they don’t get it they’ll fight for it again. Commentators have mentioned the US setting up a base. If the US does that then they’ll run the risk of producing a new Gaddafi. The Libyan people won’t tolerate foreigners on their soil.”
I reply to you in the terms I have done to Suhayl. The question for me is – when the US and NATO liberate Libya from Gadaffi – who liberates Libya from the US and NATO?
Watch as the chaos and plunder unfolds.
6th August 2011
Zimbabwe Guardian
I said ” NATO’S VAVV”.The “v” for victory – the way to it – via a manipulated war.
There could have been no road this far without NATO bombing a path for the rebels to move forward. If it were that there was this majority that wanted Gadaffi out – then a couple months of NATO bombing would have achieved that end. Bomb – advance – be repelled by government troops – bomb – be repelled – advance again. If is fundamentally – NATO’S WAR!
There was false information circulated recently about the true position in Tripoli and then within 24 hours Obama was back on air to say that the fight was not over ( i.e. there is still significant support for Gadaffi after almost 6 months of bombing and the fight goes on). This simply is not the mirror of what transpired in Egypt or Tunisia. Where there were genuine people’s opposition in the streets demonstrating for the removal of the leaders, in Libya the ones in the street in significant numbers were the Libyan people demonstrating in support of Gadaffi. Clearly, the process is one of removal from power with overwhelming military force. The Libyan people, as had the people of Iraq, have precious little to expect but the plundering of their resources by the Western powers that led the charge for the oil etc. – France, Italy, Britain, the US. A sad state of affairs and the literal ditching of the rule of international law.
Ruth – you say:-
” Libyans now feel they have a future. Without Gaddafi’s oppression there’s a sense of absolute relief. In Benghazi people have a sense of purpose working together to keep the city functioning. They’re very grateful indeed to France, UK and the US. Over many years they’ve asked for help to remove Gaddafi but instead Western countries just sold him more and more weapons making a successful rebellion alone impossible. People are very aware of what they want and if they don’t get it they’ll fight for it again. Commentators have mentioned the US setting up a base. If the US does that then they’ll run the risk of producing a new Gaddafi. The Libyan people won’t tolerate foreigners on their soil.”
I reply to you in the terms I have done to Suhayl. The question for me is – when the US and NATO liberate Libya from Gadaffi – who liberates Libya from the US and NATO?
Watch as the chaos and plunder unfolds.
6th August 2011
a blogger named DeBar wrote this:-
“I do not support an international community which uses two sets of weights and measures to resolve international issues, I do not support an international community in which the proper forum for crisis management – the UN Security Council, simply does not work because it is a Chamber for trading interests among the powerful while the developing world is not represented equally.
I do not support an international community in which a clique of military powers band together and yet again invent a war based upon lies, I do not support an international community in which the rule of law is bent to favour the strongest and the greedy.
This is not my international community, I did not vote for it. Mine is not a community of bullies, mine is not a community of murderers who arm, aid and finance groups of terrorists to take power, interfering directly in an internal conflict by bombing the legitimate government forces so that their “terrorists” can advance, then claim victory. That for me is not a manly way to fight, it is cowardice.
It is sheer, yellow-bellied, snivelling cowardice, it is the law of the jungle, it is mob rule. Mine is not an international community in which nations can feel free to make or break the law, breach the UN Charter, breach the UNSC Resolutions, breach the Geneva Conventions, set up kangaroo courts and claim they represent right and reason and justice.”
In Libya – NATO – has created a situation where ‘the law of the jungle’ will prevail. Ah…yes…but it for “freedom” and “democracy”. Freedom to become a debt slave for the IMF and World Bank post-Gadaffi and a “democratic” right is bestowed not to choose a leader who – of course is prohibited by the West from standing in elections in his own country.
This is simply not about “democracy” and “freedom” – it is about oil, gold, water resources and anything else of value that Libya has.
“I do not support an international community which uses two sets of weights and measures to resolve international issues, I do not support an international community in which the proper forum for crisis management – the UN Security Council, simply does not work because it is a Chamber for trading interests among the powerful while the developing world is not represented equally.
I do not support an international community in which a clique of military powers band together and yet again invent a war based upon lies, I do not support an international community in which the rule of law is bent to favour the strongest and the greedy.
This is not my international community, I did not vote for it. Mine is not a community of bullies, mine is not a community of murderers who arm, aid and finance groups of terrorists to take power, interfering directly in an internal conflict by bombing the legitimate government forces so that their “terrorists” can advance, then claim victory. That for me is not a manly way to fight, it is cowardice.
It is sheer, yellow-bellied, snivelling cowardice, it is the law of the jungle, it is mob rule. Mine is not an international community in which nations can feel free to make or break the law, breach the UN Charter, breach the UNSC Resolutions, breach the Geneva Conventions, set up kangaroo courts and claim they represent right and reason and justice.”
In Libya – NATO – has created a situation where ‘the law of the jungle’ will prevail. Ah…yes…but it for “freedom” and “democracy”. Freedom to become a debt slave for the IMF and World Bank post-Gadaffi and a “democratic” right is bestowed not to choose a leader who – of course is prohibited by the West from standing in elections in his own country.
This is simply not about “democracy” and “freedom” – it is about oil, gold, water resources and anything else of value that Libya has.
-
26th August 2011“Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) of the UN Security Council were very clear in their terms: No foreign military personnel, no mercenaries, no weapons to the parties in conflict and inspection of vessels ferrying arms and soldiers. NATO has breached all four counts and now is liable for prosecution under international law.”
.
“Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) of the UN Security Council stated very clearly and categorically that there were to be no foreign troops on the ground in Libya, there were to be no mercenaries, neither were foreign powers to arm the parties to the conflict, as well as imposing the obligation on parties surrounding this to investigate vessels shipping in personnel or arms. NATO has not only failed on all four counts, it has categorically breached them all. NATO is guilty of breaching international law, and there will be consequences.”
.
“Quite apart from its obvious breaches of international law, NATO is liable for war crimes – strafing civilian structures such as the water supply system, to “break the population”, strafing civilian structures with military hardware, murdering civilians in their homes by precision-bombing children, strafing civilians using Apache helicopters from the USA (isn’t there a law in the US about that?).”
.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/24-08-2011/118852-nato_trouble-0/
27th August 2011
“…it is not that “Gaddafi lost” that sickens me, it is that countless Libyans have lost their lives or their quality of life, and that so much of their labour to improve their country has been reduced to rubble. Gaddafi didn’t build the infrastructure; Libyans did.” Clark.
.
Yes, exactly. Very well expressed, Clark. NATO seems to have destroyed the infrastructure (eg. bombing waterworks, etc.), so that they have set Libya back decades and so that they then can go in and get billions of dollars for ‘reconstruction’ contracts. The pigs are already lining-up at the trough. This seems to be their current modus operandum.
.
Also, did some of those now in charge of the NTC not recently oppose Saif Gaddafi’s attempts at reform (which may have been cosmetic attempts, yet…)? Were they not part of ‘the old guard’? Which makes one rather cynical about their new-found love of ‘liberty’, blah, blah, blah.
.
Yes, exactly. Very well expressed, Clark. NATO seems to have destroyed the infrastructure (eg. bombing waterworks, etc.), so that they have set Libya back decades and so that they then can go in and get billions of dollars for ‘reconstruction’ contracts. The pigs are already lining-up at the trough. This seems to be their current modus operandum.
.
Also, did some of those now in charge of the NTC not recently oppose Saif Gaddafi’s attempts at reform (which may have been cosmetic attempts, yet…)? Were they not part of ‘the old guard’? Which makes one rather cynical about their new-found love of ‘liberty’, blah, blah, blah.
Zimbabwe Guardian
Libya: Africa rise against western imperialism
NATO has been bombing houses and killing families and children in their hundreds in Libya. It has also struck pipelines of the Great Man Made River and this means that the Libyan people will die of thirst because they have no other source of drinking water.
The bombing of the Libyan Coast means that the Libyan people will die of hunger after fish packaging factories and milk processing factories have also not being spared.
Colonel Gaddafi is probably the only other leader after President Mugabe who has dared to look his enemy in the eye and declare he will fight to his last breath for the rights and sovereignty of his people on the African continent.
Their vision of an independentAfricawho is free to trade on equal footing with other nations has made them monsters to Western governments and corporations who specialize in raping developing countries for their resources.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment