The Obama Story : Origins and Prosecution and below What Really Happened in Libya
"No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do....Those that yesterday were
friends of our enemies, have the gall today, to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi." - Nelson Mandela
Examine the Evidence and then decide for yourself. Was Obama Placed or Elected?
In the short video below, the reference to taking down "American Supremecy" and "Global Marxism" may be psy-ops or just naivite. I personally don't agree with this interpretation, but the evidence revealed is remarkable. Let's not judge the source or conclusions here. See the complete video and just look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions.
Scroll Down ... a detailed Analysis and Expose of the attack on Libya, and Obama's part in those war crimes.
Obama's sheltering and support fo Wall Street crime, criminal bailouts and more is carefully documented in these three full length films below. Because of the movie "The Obama Deception" this webmaster, was not surprised by what happened in the Obama adminstration, which was a complete reversal of everything he promised.
a. Excellent movie Inside Job with Matt Damon outlines exactly how housing bubble and bail outs was orchestrated, with the criminals getting top positions in Obama White House. I was unable to find an embedded source for this movie so please click link above. Top documentary.
may have to search for available link for this video)
b. movie The Obama Deception - Alex Jones 10 million views
2. Lies in 2004 Democratic Convention Speech where we all met Obama. We will also examine evidence that the media sold his speech in real time with spliced in images to convince us of his value. (this is under construction)
3. Obama's attack on constitution, executive orders, emergency declarations.
5. Obama's continuing coverup of 9/11 crime and complicity in pushing political agenda behind the crime. There is no example of him even acknowledging the many serious questions about 9/11 and Patriot Act.
She is on board of directors now June, 2013 of Chicago Council of Foreign Relations, and was on same board in 2007. The wife of a little known Senator on board of CFR? These two are globaist insiders and were placed.
Reccommendations... Impeachment for treason, prosecution for conspiracy with wall street to hijack American economy, crimes against humanity including dangerous vaccines, DU in Libya, illegal drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, up of over 800 military bases world wide and threats against Iran, (one of few countries that allows complete International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections... Israel does not.) and Venezuela. Prosecution for Murder of Head of State and murder of Gaddafi's son and three grand children. Prosecution for Murder of Navy SEALS in Chinook "crash" that silenced witnesses to fake Osama Bin Laden raid and death. Prosecution for arms shipments to Mexican gangs. Prosecution for arming gangs in Syria. And more as time goes on.
In other words, life in prison.
Below Tracy Chapman
song , "Why" calls out
Orwellian Double Speak
Evidence: CIA Assets... Obama, both his parents, his step father, and his grandmother. Both parents die in "accidents" to hide the truth.
In 1983-84, Barack Obama worked as Editor at Business International Corporation, a known CIA front company.
WMR has discovered CIA files that document the agency’s connections to institutions and individuals figuring prominently in the lives of Barack Obama and his mother, father, grandmother, and stepfather.
President Obama's own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world's most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama's stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno.
Barack Obama, Sr., who met Dunham in 1959 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii, had been part of what was described as an airlift of 280 East African students to the United States to attend various colleges — merely “aided” by a grant from the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation, according to a September 12, 1960, Reuters report from London. The airlift was a CIA operation to train and indoctrinate future agents of influence in Africa, which was becoming a battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union and China for influence among newly-independent and soon-to-be independent countries on the continent.
The airlift was condemned by the deputy leader of the opposition Kenyan African Democratic Union (KADU) as favoring certain tribes — the majority Kikuyus and minority Luos — over other tribes to favor the Kenyan African National Union (KANU), whose leader was Tom Mboya, the Kenyan nationalist and labor leader who selected Obama, Sr. for a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Obama, Sr., who was already married with an infant son and pregnant wife in Kenya, married Dunham on Maui on February 2, 1961 and was also the university's first African student. Dunham was three month's pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr. at the time of her marriage to Obama, Sr.
KADU deputy leader Masinda Muliro, according to Reuters , said KADU would send a delegation to the United States to investigate Kenyan students who received “gifts” from the Americans and “ensure that further gifts to Kenyan students are administered by people genuinely interested in Kenya's development.'”
The CIA allegedly recruited Tom M'Boya in a heavily funded "selective liberation" programme to isolate Kenya's founding President Jomo Kenyatta, whom the American spy agency labelled as "unsafe."
Mboya received a $100,000 grant for the airlift from the Kennedy Foundation after he turned down the same offer from the U.S. State Department, obviously concerned that direct U.S. assistance would look suspicious to pro-Communist Kenyan politicians who suspected Mboya of having CIA ties. The Airlift Africa project was underwritten by the Kennedy Foundation and the African-American Students Foundation. Obama, Sr. was not on the first airlift but a subsequent one. The airlift, organized by Mboya in 1959, included students from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland.
Reuters also reported that Muliro charged that Africans were “disturbed and embittered” by the airlift of the selected students. Muliro “stated that “preferences were shown to two major tribes [Kikuyu and Luo] and many U.S.-bound students had failed preliminary and common entrance examinations, while some of those left behind held first-class certificates.”
CIA-airlifted to Hawaii, Barack Obama Sr., with leis, stands with Stanley Dunham, President Obama's grandfather, on his right.
Obama, Sr. was a friend of Mboya and a fellow Luo. After Mboya was assassinated in 1969, Obama, Sr. testified at the trial of his alleged assassin. Obama, Sr. claimed he was the target of a hit-and-run assassination attempt after his testimony.
Obama, Sr., who left Hawaii for Harvard in 1962, divorced Dunham in 1964. Obama, Sr. married a fellow Harvard student, Ruth Niedesand, a Jewish-American woman, who moved with him to Kenya and had two sons. They were later divorced. Obama, Sr. worked for the Kenyan Finance and Transport ministries as well as an oil firm. Obama, Sr. died in a 1982 car crash and his funeral was attended by leading Kenyan politicians, including future Foreign Minister Robert Ouko, who was murdered in 1990.
CIA files indicate that Mboya was an important agent-of-influence for the CIA, not only in Kenya but in all of Africa. A formerly Secret CIA Current Intelligence Weekly Summary , dated November 19, 1959, states that Mboya served as a check on extremists at the second All-African People's Conference (AAPC) in Tunis. The report states that “serious friction developed between Ghana's Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah and Kenyan nationalist Tom Mboya who cooperated effectively last December to check extremists at the AAPC's first meeting in Accra.” The term “cooperated effectively” appears to indicate that Mboya was cooperating with the CIA, which filed the report from field operatives in Accra and Tunis. While “cooperating” with the CIA in Accra and Tunis, Mboya selected the father of the president of the United States to receive a scholarship and be airlifted to the University of Hawaii where he met and married President Obama's mother.
An earlier CIA Current Intelligence Weekly Summary , secret, and dated April 3, 1958, states that Mboya “still appears to be the most promising of the African leaders.” Another CIA weekly summary, secret and dated December 18, 1958, calls Mboya the Kenyan nationalist an “able and dynamic young chairman” of the People's Convention party who was viewed as an opponent of “extremists” like Nkrumah, supported by “Sino-Soviet representatives.”
In a formerly Secret CIA report on the All-Africa Peoples Conference in 1961, dated November 1, 1961, Mboya's conservatism, along with that of Taleb Slim of Tunisia, are contrasted to the leftist policies of Nkrumah and others. Pro-communists who were elected to the AAPC's steering committee at the March 1961 Cairo conference, attended by Mboya, are identified in the report as Abdoulaye Diallo, AAPC Secretary General, of Senegal; Ahmed Bourmendjel of Algeria; Mario de Andrade of Angola; Ntau Mokhele of Basutoland; Kingue Abel of Cameroun; Antoine Kiwewa of Congo (Leopoldville); Kojo Botsio of Ghana; Ismail Toure of Guinea; T. O. Dosomu Johnson of Liberia; Modibo Diallo of Mali; Mahjoub Ben Seddik of Morocco; Djibo Bakari of Niger; Tunji Otegbeya of Nigeria; Kanyama Chiume of Nyasaland; Ali Abdullahi of Somalia; Tennyson Makiwane of South Africa, and Mohamed Fouad Galal of the United Arab Republic.
The only attendees in Cairo who were given a clean bill of health by the CIA were Mboya, who appears to have been a snitch for the agency, and Joshua Nkomo of Southern Rhodesia, B. Munanka of Tanganyika, Abdel Magid Shaker of Tunisia, and John Kakonge of Uganda.
Nkrumah would eventually be overthrown in a 1966 CIA-backed coup while he was on a state visit to China and North Vietnam. The CIA overthrow of Nkrumah followed by one year the agency's overthrow of Sukarno, another coup that was connected to President Obama's family on his mother's side. There are suspicions that Mboya was assassinated in 1969 by Chinese agents working with anti-Mboya factions in the government of Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta in order to eliminate a pro-U.S. leading political leader in Africa. Upon Mboya's death, every embassy in Nairobi flew its flag at half-mast except for one, the embassy of the People's Republic of China.
Mboya's influence in the Kenyatta government would continue long after his death and while Obama, Sr. was still alive. In 1975, after the assassination of KANU politician Josiah Kariuki, a socialist who helped start KANU, along with Mboya and Obama, Sr., Kenyatta dismissed three rebellious cabinet ministers who “all had personal ties to either Kariuki or Tom Mboya.” This information is contained in CIA Staff Notes on the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, formerly Top Secret Umbra, Handle via COMINT Channels, dated June 24, 1975. The intelligence in the report, based on its classification, indicate the information was derived from National Security Agency intercepts in Kenya. No one was ever charged in the assassination of Kariuki.
The intecepts of Mboya's and Kariuki's associates are an indication that the NSA and CIA also maintain intercepts on Barack Obama, Sr., who, as a non-U.S. person, would have been lawfully subject at the time to intercepts carried out by NSA and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
“Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. Additional statements, which could not be delivered during the interactive dialogue, owing to time constraints, will be posted on the extranet of the universal periodic review when available.”
In a footnote of that report, there is a list of countries that praised Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya (state of the masses), in support of the General Assembly Human Rights Council’s decision to bestow this award upon Colonel Gaddafi...
Denmark, China, Italy, The Netherlands, Mauritania, Slovenia, Nicaragua, The Russian Federation, Spain, Indonesia, Sweden, Norway, Ecuador, Hungary, South Africa, The Phillippines, Maldives, Chile, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, Burundi, Zambia, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Zimbabwe.
Three people were killed, two American. The official CIA website still continues the lie of blaming Libya. The history that guides the many tens of thousands of military and intelligence agents is false as is the official history that guides US policy and brain washes people on the "History Channel". There will be agents who read these words. It is time to get on the honest side of history.
Nine days after the disco bombing, President Reagan used this false flag attack as excuse to bomb Libya in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi, killing 67 people including Gaddafi's adopted daughter. Reagan gave this address of US policy, another study in mind control lying which is a striking precursor to the Libya Speech of Obama.
Perhaps because of this known fact about inside job of 1986 disco bombing, Germany was only NATO country to avoid involvement in recent beheading of Libya.
The embargo against "the terrorist state" was lifted when Libya paid $1.5 billion as compensation for the crime they never commited.
"On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that."
"I have never thought in dealing with this question [Pan Am 103] that it is correct for any particular country to be the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge at the same time'" - Nelson Mandela
According to one online timeline, (an obviously skewed disinformation website, because of its strict conforming to official story, lack of independent news inputs, and use of smear words like "crazed"), 7 days after an alleged Facebook posting calling for protest in Libya, "rebels take control of Benghazi", using a city of 700,000 people as a human shield, and CNN starts reporting from Benghazi.
So 7 days after a Facebook posting, a city of 700,000 is commandeered?
We can wonder how an organized rebellion could manifest from nothing to a fighting force within a few days? We will learn the CIA and NATO were already present before alleged Facebook posting. As you read below, you will see that CNN was offering disinformation propaganda from the very start. Independent journalists have now left Libya as they have been targeted. (Aug 26, 2011)
Just one week before Obama's Mar 29, 2011 speech, the following was announced...
This, and objections from many other countries stands in stark contrast to Obama's claim of "international community" "saving" Libya, repeated 27 times in his speech. There is no international community that is censuring Libya, except NATO, a group of armed thugs who are recolonizing oil nation after oil nation, using deciet and utter brutality.
Please take the time to listen to this 14 minute video which gives some context of Gaddafi's altruistic role in Africa. Website The oration is forceful. Control volume manually.
Much of the information in above video may have come from this article which also includes statements from Nelson Mandela.
'For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn't have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC (in South Africa) both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid.
This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997.
For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo [Based on false claims of terrorism as outlined above].
Mandela didn't mince his words when US President Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome' one –
‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do', said Mandela. ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies, have the gall today, to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi. They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.'
"Those who say I should not be here are without morals. I am not going to join them in their lack of morality."
"The reason Muammar Qaddafi is a target is because he has been a thorn in the side of anti-revolutionary forces since he took power in Libya, overthrowing the King and nationalizing the oil industry so that the people could benefit from their oil resources.
Libya's Revolution brought free health care and education to the people and subsidized housing. In fact, students in Libya can study there or abroad and the government gives them a monthly stipend while they are in school and they pay no tuition. If a Libyan needs a surgery that must be done overseas, then the government will pay for that surgery.
That is more than the soldiers of the United States military can say. While Libyans enjoy subsidized housing, members of the U.S. military risk foreclosure while they serve their country abroad.
Money from oil is directly deposited into the accounts of every Libyan based on oil income. As one Libyan told me recently, the idea is that if people have what they need, then they don't have to deny rights to or harm others and the Revolution believes that it is the responsibility of the government to provide the basic needs of its citizens.
Cynthia McKinney's role for now is to help shape the debate and I hope the viewer will appreciate her dedication to principle, not skin color.
Gaddafi was being demonised by the Reagan-Bush Sr. administration (the Rothschilds) in the 1980s when the CIA and Mossad led a campaign to destabilise Libya that mirrors what has happened in 2011.
Newsweek reported on August 3rd, 1981:
"The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a "disinformation" program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a "counter government" to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third - potentially the most risky - was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force."
Sound familiar? That was 30 years ago.
But so many people just buy the lie no matter what the era or generation. As Adolf Hitler said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.'
And his propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, said: 'The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.
Hitler also said, with equal relevance: 'What luck for the rulers that men do not think.'
NATO planes pepper-bombed Tripoli in support of the 'rebels' on the ground. Thousands of the very civilians that the UN resolution said should be protected were killed in the process. But we hear nothing of this in the mainstream media and precious little of the murder and executions of Gaddafi supporters by the 'rebels' throughout the conflict and after they entered Tripoli.
The emphasis is always on alleged executions and killings of rebel supporters by Gaddafi's forces. No doubt some of these claims are true, but where is the balance? There is none, and Syria is now being demonised to go through the same process of demonise, invade, conquer, control.
It is the same rhetoric, the same blueprint, which we have seen in every other country 'liberated' by the architects of tyranny. It really is goodbye Libya: rest in peace. The United States and its conscripted NATO allies are not going to walk away and leave Libya to the Libyans. It is an occupation force to pillage the oil resources and the banking system, as it was always going to be.
First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.
There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital cities. And we have heard from the beginning, credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.
In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.
The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.
And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands....
"Under the guise of “protecting civilians,” the United States led NATO into Libya and is attempting to assassinate the Libyan leader. Of course, Libya happens to be the largest oil producer in Africa , but many do not realize that Gaddafi was planning to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the U.S. dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth.
It is surely no coincidence that Iraq 's prior leader, Saddam Hussein, was trying to do the same thing just prior to U.S. invasion for all of those “weapons of mass destruction.”
Simply put, if oil-rich nations begin trading in something other than dollars it will significantly reduce demand for dollars and threaten the dollar's role as world reserve currency. Many experts belief this would lead to the quick death of the fiat greenback, which is now backed by nothing but faith in a government that is running an annual budget deficit of over $1.5 TRILLION.
"A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO's attacks.
NATO acted with impunity. The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians."
Comment on Speech
"President Obama's speech to the nation raised as many questions as it answered. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs were not consulted, but the Arab League was. So was the UN. This is the same UN that applauded Gaddafi's wild rants in New York just last fall. It is the same body that elected Libya to its Human Rights Council." - American Thinker Mar 30, 2011
As NATO and its backers contemplate their End Game they may want to consider some excerpts from the Libyan Tribal Council's manifesto issued on July 26 2011 Speaking for Libya's 2000 tribes, the Council issued a Proclamation signed by scores of tribal leaders from eastern Libya. (near Benghazi) .
“ By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn't been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO .”
“ What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders who are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries?”
“ The Tribal Council assures its continuing cooperation with the African Union in its suggestions aimed at helping to prevent the aggression on the Libyan people”.…
“ The Tribal Council condemns the crusader aggression on the Great Jamahiriya executed by NATO and the Arabic regressive forces which is a grave threat to Libyan civilians as it continues to kill them as NATO bombs civilian targets .”…
“ We do not and will not accept any authority other than the authority that we chose with our free will which is the People's Congress and Peoples Committees, and the popular social leadership, and will oppose with all available means, the NATO rebels and their slaughter, violence and maiming of cadavers. We intend to oppose with all the means available to us the NATO crusader aggressors and their appointed lackeys ”.
According to one representative of the Libyan Supreme Tribal Council,
“The tribes of Libya have until today not fully joined in repelling the NATO aggressors.
As we do, we serve notice to NATO that we shall not desist until they have left our country and we will ensure that they never return .”
30 April 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli
30 April 2011: The bombing of a Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi , his friend and 3 Gaddafi children.
13 May 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim Imams in Brega .
12 June 2011: The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.
22 July 2011: The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water.
23 July 2011: The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.
8th August 2011: The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten . Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 human beings, many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international laws, and a most grievous crime.
9 August 2011: The bombing of the village of Majer , resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32 women and 20 men.
True History... MUST SEE
Facebook/Twitter Networking in Libya a Complete Fabrication.
(Youtube like everything else is censored. This important video was taken down.)
Libya: The Humanitarian War. There is no evidence.
"In the last analysis, every domination system depends on military force, but it always needs an ideological justification."- Jean Bricmont
This document makes it possible to understand how international law and justice works, but mostly how its basic principles can be bypassed. The resolutions passed against Lybia are based on various allegations : notably on the statement claiming that Gaddafi had carried out jet attacks on his own people and engaged in a violent repression against an uprising, killing more than 6000 civilians. These allegations were spread before they could have been verified. Even though it was on the basis of this claim that the Lybian Jamahiriya government was suspended from the United Nations Human Rights Council, before being referred to the United Nations Security Council.
One of the main sources for the claim that Gaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), an organisation linked to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH). On the 21st of February 2011, the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, initiated a petition in collaboration with the organisation UN Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy. This petition was signed by more than 70 NGOs. Then a few days later, on the 25th of February, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir went to U.N. Human Rights Council in order to expose the allegations concerning the crimes of Gaddafi's government. In July 2011 we went to Geneva to interview Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir. Part One
Step by step the author shows how Libya was denied representation at the UN with USA manipulation for the entire crisis.
The Role of the UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libyaby Ronda Hauben
Journalists Question Security Council Support for Rebel Group
At the April 4 press conference marking the beginning of the Colombian Presidency of the Security Council for April, Nestor Osorio, the Colombian Ambassador to the United Nations was asked what on the surface would seem an unusual question by one of the journalists. The journalist said (1):
“In the wake of Security Council Resolution 1973 [authorizing military action against Libya–ed] are we to expect a more aggressive and proactive posture on the part of the Security Council in supporting rebel groups?”
The journalist gave several examples of such rebel groups as the IRA in the UK , ETA in Spain and perhaps the Corsican rebels in France . Another journalist added the example of the FARC in Colombia .
The question referred to the fact that with SC Resolution 1973, the UN Security Council had taken on to support an armed insurgency fighting against the government of a member nation of the UN.
The Colombian Ambassador responded that SC Resolution 1973 had not been adopted to support the rebels in Libya , but a rebel group which started out as civilians who had now become the core of the armed rebellion. The reason the Security Council had taken up the issue of Libya , he said, was because a member of the Security Council, Lebanon , had brought the issue to the Security Council. Ambassador Osorio added that the Arab League had asked for concrete action from the Security Council on Libya .
Is it, as Ambassador Osorio proposed, that the issue of Libya was taken up by the Security Council because Lebanon , a member of the Security Council, brought the issue to the attention of the other members? Is it that the Security Council was just deferring to the expertise of the Arab League, which the Colombian Ambassador presented as the relevant regional organization with respect to Libya ?
The Colombian Ambassador's remarks raise the question of how the Security Council made the decision to approve SC Resolution 1970 against Libya , the first of two resolutions on the issue. Was it as the Colombian Ambassador claimed because of a recommendation from the appropriate regional group, or was there a more complex process at work? Also, significantly in this situation, there were actually two conflicting recommendations to the Security Council from two groups, one from the Arab League, which is not a geographical regional group but is organized on some other basis, and the other from the geographic regional group that Libya is part of, from the African Union.
What were the factors that influenced the Security Council decisions first, to pass Security Council Resolution 1970 authorizing stringent sanctions, including a referral of Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and then, subsequently, to pass SC Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone and other military action? Ultimately these decisions set the basis for the NATO military alliance to join with the armed insurgency fighting against the government of Libya .
While it is difficult to determine the specific underlying reasons for Security Council action, this article will demonstrate that the explanation provided to journalists at the Colombian press conference differs significantly from the actual sequence of events that occurred at the Security Council with respect to Libya . By failing to account for the actual sequence of events that occurred, the Colombian Ambassador's response left unanswered the critical question. How had the Security Council come to authorize military action against a member nation of the United Nations, in support of an armed insurgency against the government of that nation? Such a course of action is clearly contrary to the UN Charter provision not to intervene in the internal affairs of a member nation of the UN (Article 2 Section 7).
How the Issue of Libya was Brought to the Security Council
Looking back at the sequence of events by which the issue of Libya was brought to the Security Council, leads to an important observation. It was not a Security Council member nation which started this process. Nor was it the Arab League. Rather it was a party that one could argue had no legitimate basis to speak at the United Nations, especially not to the Security Council.
This party, was, by that time, the former Chargé d'Affaires to the United Nations for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ibrahim Dabbashi. Dabbashi had taken the unusual actions of first announcing to the press that he had defected from representing the government of Libya at the UN, and then requesting an emergency meeting of the Security Council about the situation in Libya . His request to the Security Council began a process which, in less than a week, resulted in passing the stringent sanctions against Libya and the referral of its officials to the ICC that are included in SC Resolution 1970. SC Resolution 1970 then set the stage for SC Resolution 1973 passed three weeks later which authorized military action against Libya .
February 21 is an important date in this set of events. It is on February 21 that Dabbashi announced his defection from the service of the government of Libya at the United Nations. While an appropriate course for a defecting government official from a country would be to resign his official position as a Deputy Ambassador for Libya at the United Nations, this is not what happened.
It is also on February 21 that another important event occurred, though not at the UN. Another Libyan official, Nouri al Mesmari, officially announced his defection from his Libyan government position. Living in France under the protection of the French government, he gave an interview to the French newspaper Liberation about his defection.
What is significant about Mesmari's action is that his defection puts Dabbashi's defection in a broader context. A widely circulated article in the Italian newspaper Libero, an article which has not been refuted or denied, provides this context.(2) Mesmari left Libya in October 2010 for Paris , four months before the alleged suppression of demonstrations cited as one of the pretexts for the NATO aggression against Libya . Mesmari had been an important Libyan official with vast knowledge of and contact with the foreign service officials of Libya and vast knowledge of Libya 's contacts with government officials in other countries.
Libero reported that after Mesmari went to Paris in October 2010, he was in contact not only with French foreign intelligence officials, but also with elements of the Libyan opposition. His actions help to shed light on the events in Libya in February 2011. Learning about some of the activities Mesmari was part of between October 2010, and February 2011, several commentators propose that Mesmari, along with other opposition activists, and officials in the French intelligence, helped to foment the uprising in Benghazi that took place in February 2011.(3)
Unlike the Egyptian non violent protests, the uprising in Benghazi very quickly became an armed uprising against the government of Libya . Western media accounts of this rebellion, and Arab news media like Aljazeera, reported a series of unverified allegations by those involved in the rebellion itself, with little or no evidence presented to verify the accuracy of the reports. To this date, there is no evidence for the widely reported “use of mercenaries” or “bombing his own people.” (4)
Mesmari was granted protection by the French government. In his February 21 interview with the French publication Liberation about his defection, he accused the Libyan government of genocide. He gave no evidence to support his claim.
Similarly, when Dabbashi held a press conference at the Libyan Mission to the UN on February 21, he claimed that the Libyan government was guilty of genocide. He, too, offered no evidence for his allegations. He called for the overthrow of the Libyan state headed by Muammar Gaddafi. Similarly, the lawyer for the Libyan mission spoke to journalists at the February 21 press conference. He indicated to journalists that he was from Benghazi . He, too, called for the overthrow of Gaddafi, the long time head of the Libyan state (a position called ‘Guide').
Following is the content of the letter that Dabbashi, as a defector from the official government of Libya , sent to the Security Council. The letter is dated February 21, 2011 (5):
“In accordance with rule 3 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, I have the honour to request an urgent meeting of the Council, to discuss the grave situation in Libya and to take the appropriate actions.”
The letter is listed as an official document of the Security Council, and given the document identification symbol S/2011/102, dated February 22, 2011.
It is worth noting that Rule 3 of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure provides for a member nation of the United Nations to request a meeting.(6) Under Rule 3, Dabbashi, as a defecting Deputy Ambassador of Libya, was not entitled to take part in any Security Council procedures, especially not to request a meeting of the Security Council to take punitive action against the government he has defected from and is seeking to overthrow.
Monday, February 21 was an official UN holiday (Presidents' Day in the US ) and the United Nations was not open. On the next working day at the UN, on Tuesday, February 22, the Security Council held a closed meeting on the situation in Libya, under the title “Peace and Security in Africa – Libya”.(7) At the meeting the Security Council heard a report on developments in Libya from Lynn Pascoe, the Under Secretary General for Political Affairs at the UN. In addition to the 15 members of the Security Council, 74 other nations of the UN were present at the closed meeting without any right to vote. So was Dabbashi.
The Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham also attended the February 22 Security Council meeting, along with Dabbashi. In informal comments after the meeting, Shalgham indicated that he had been in contact with a relative in Tripoli and was told that the alleged atrocities that the media was claiming had happened in Tripoli were not true. Similarly, speaking to the press, he indicated that he had been in contact with government officials in Tripoli who said that they, too, disputed the claims of atrocities taking place in Tripoli and planned to invite journalists from Al Arabiya and CNN to see for themselves that the allegations were inaccurate.(8)
After he made his presentation to the Security Council, Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe spoke to the press at a stakeout. He was asked if he had any evidence of atrocities in Tripoli . He responded that the UN people on the ground there had no such direct evidence. (9)
Describing the February 22 closed meeting of the Security Council, the Reuters News Agency said that most of the Libyan delegation had defected. Reuters reported that the Security Council met at the request of Dabbashi, who “was no longer working for the Libyan government”. It would appear to be a serious breach of UN protocol for a defecting official who had formerly been the representative of a nation that is a member of the UN, to be able to request a Security Council meeting and to have the Security Council grant the meeting and allow the defecting official to participate in the meeting. Similarly, to allow the defecting diplomat to make unverified allegations at the meeting against the government of a UN member nation would only compound the serious violation of the UN Charter represented by this abuse of UN processes.
Here is the Reuters report (10):
“UNITED NATIONS | Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:42pm GMT (Reuters) – The U.N. Security Council held closed-door discussions on Tuesday on the crisis in Libya, with Western envoys and Libya's own breakaway delegation calling for action by the 15-nation body…
The council met at the request of Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who along with most other staff at Libya 's U.N. mission announced on Monday they were no longer working for leader Muammar Gaddafi and represented the country's people. They called for Gaddafi's overthrow.”
Taking into account Mesmari's activities with French intelligence officials and Libyan opposition figures, there is the basis to assume that there were powerful forces acting behind the scenes at the UN supporting Dabbashi's activities and encouraging the Security Council to allow this abuse of its processes.
False Media Reports about Libya
Among the media reports at the time were unverified allegations that Libyan government planes were shooting at civilians in Tripoli and that there were many dead in various parts of Libya . Also there were reports that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela . Gaddafi and the Libyan government disputed these reports, with a video demonstrating Gaddafi was in Libya . This video was shown around the world demonstrating the inaccuracy of the false allegations being made about Libya . Also, the Libyan media disputed that there had been any such shooting of civilians from planes in Tripoli . Later Russian media provided reports of Russia 's surveillance of aircraft activity of Libya during this period. That surveillance did not show any firing from aircraft.(11)
Despite having defected, Dabbashi continued to have access not only to the Security Council processes, but also to official UN press stakeouts to speak to reporters as if officially the representative of a member nation of the UN. At these press stakeouts Dabbashi attacked the Libyan government, accusing it of genocide, without offering any proof for his claims. He also continued to call for the overthrow of the government of Libya .
Then on Friday, February 25, the Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham announced his defection and denounced the Libyan government during a Security Council meeting.
The President of the Security Council invited the defecting Ambassador to take part in the meeting under Rule 37 of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure. Rule 37 specifies that it is a member nation that can be invited to participate. A defecting Ambassador or diplomat has no basis to take part in a UN Security Council meeting. The Rule reads (12):
“Rule 37 Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Charter.”
An Ambassador who defects, by that act, is ceasing to represent the UN member nation. According to the rules of protocol (2005) online at the UN website, once an Ambassador ceases to represent his member nation, one would expect him to submit his resignation to the Secretary General. Thus it is not appropriate for him to be invited to take part in a Security Council meeting under Rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. This Rule applies to an official representative of a member nation of the UN, not to someone who claims that he no longer represents that nation. Following is the relevant section of the rules of protocol (13).
“Section X Termination of Service at Permanent/Observer Missions:
Before relinquishing his/her post, a Permanent Representative/Observer should inform the Secretary-General in writing and, at the same time, communicate the name of the member of the mission who will act as Chargé d'Affaires a.i. pending the arrival of the new Permanent Representative/ Observer. It is of special importance to note that a Chargé d'Affaires a.i. cannot appoint himself and can hold this function only after being appointed by the Permanent Representative/ Observer or by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State concerned.”
It would appear to be outside the procedure provided for by Security Council rules for a defecting Ambassador to be part of a Security Council meeting as the representative of the government he claims he no longer represents, and denouncing the member nation he has defected from.
At the Security Council meeting on February 25, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke to the Security Council about the situation in Cote d'Ivoire and Libya . In his remarks on Libya , the Secretary General claimed he was basing his reports on accounts from “the press, human rights groups and civilians on the ground.” He acknowledged that there was no conclusive proof for his allegations, but dismissed this lack of verifiable information by saying that action should be taken along with efforts to get more reliable information. This action is contrary to other situations where the Secretary General recognized the need for an impartial fact finding group and appointed such a group to obtain the needed information to determine what course of action to take to promote a peaceful settlement of the situation.
After the Secretary General presented his unverified allegations, the defecting Libyan Ambassador was called on to speak. By February 25, Shalgham, too, had defected. (One could imagine that pressure for his defection may well have been a fear of the referrals to the ICC of Libyan officials being planned by some Security Council members.)
Contrary to an earlier promise to journalists that if he no longer supported the Libyan government, he would resign, Shalgham did not formally resign. Instead, he continued to use Security Council processes to encourage the Security Council to impose sanctions and ICC referrals on the government of Libya .
In his presentation to the Security Council meeting on Friday, February 25, Shalgham made a virulent denunciation of the Libyan government, complete with analogies to Hitler. Shalgham ignored the conflicting accounts of what was happening in Benghazi and instead painted a picture of peacefully demonstrating civilians unjustly subjected to a massacre.(14) Shalgham presented no proof for his allegations nor was he asked to present any. Instead, he was consoled by the Secretary General and members of the Security Council, with several Security Council members, embracing and comforting him.
The following day, Saturday, February 26, a day long emergency meeting was held at the Security Council. While the Security Council was discussing a resolution about Libya , Shalgham is reported to have sent a letter to the Security Council to influence the votes of its members.
One journalist offered the following as the content of the letter Shalgham sent to the Security Council(15) :
“With reference to the Draft Resolution on Libya before the Security Council, I have the honour to confirm that the Libyan Delegation to the United Nations supports the measures proposed in the draft resolution to hold to account those responsible for the armed attacks against the Libyan Civilians, including trough [sic] the International Criminal Court.”
According to journalists waiting outside the Security Council meeting on Saturday February 26, some Security Council members indicated that their aim was to induce more defections of Libyan officials by including referrals to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Security Council resolution they were proposing. This is using the ICC as a political tool rather than as a means of punishing actual crimes.
Libya is not a member of the treaty creating the ICC. Though the UN Charter provides for the Security Council to create tribunals it has no provision to force a nation not a member of a treaty organization creating a tribunal to be subject to its jurisdiction. When Security Council members are asked under what authority they refer a national of a state not a member of the ICC to its jurisdiction, they cite a provision in the ICC treaty. But a provision of the ICC treaty cannot be substituted for some provision of the UN Charter. No provision of the UN Charter has been cited as providing the authority for the Security Council referrals of non treaty members to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Late in the day, on Saturday February 26, the Security Council passed Resolution 1970, imposing strong sanctions against Libya and referring Gaddafi and several others to the ICC. No proof of any wrongdoing was presented and no reference was made to any investigation into the allegations.
When the French Ambassador Gérard Araud explained why he voted in favor of SC Resolution 1970, he referred back to Shalgham's “moving statement” at the meeting on Friday Araud said(16):
“Yesterday, the Permanent Representative of Libya (sic) made to this Council a moving appeal for assistance. France welcomes the fact that the Council has today unanimously and forcefully responded to that appeal”.
In explaining his vote in favor of Security Council Resolution 1970, the Indian Ambassador explained that he was not inclined to support the referral to the ICC, but he was responding to the letter sent to the Security Council by Shalgham urging the Council to do so. The Indian Ambassador said:
“(W)e would have preferred a calibrated and gradual approach. However, we note that several members of the Council, including our colleagues from Africa and the Middle East , believe that referral to the Court would have the effect of an immediate cessation of violence and the restoration of calm and stability. The letter from the Permanent Representative of Libya (sic) of 26 February addressed to you, Madame President, has called for such a referral and strengthened this view. We have therefore gone along with the consensus in the Council.”
Similarly the Nigerian Ambassador explains:
“We have taken into consideration the letter dated today from the Permanent Representative of Libya (sic) supporting the measures as we have proposed.”
The Brazilian Ambassador also refers to the appeal by the defecting Ambassador in explaining her vote for Sec. Council Resolution 1970:
“In our deliberations today, Brazil paid due regard to the views expressed by the League of Arab States and the African Union, as well as to the requests made by the Permanent Mission of Libya to the United Nations.”(17)
At the meeting, Dabbashi was given the floor to speak on behalf of Libya .
Dabbashi denounced Gaddafi and thanked the Security Council members for granting his request for harsh measures against Libya and members of its government.
The Secretary-General as the last speaker on the Security Council agenda, spoke about how he welcomed the sanctions and saw them as a means for a new governance regime in Libya . He said:
“The sanctions that the Council has imposed are a necessary step to speed the transition to a new system of governance that will have the consent and participation of the people.”
This sequence of events can only be seen as a violation of the Security Council's obligations under the UN charter. The provision of the Security Council rules used to invite the defecting former Libyan government officials into Security Council meetings were provisions providing for officials representing the government of Libya to speak. The defecting officials were now former government officials and as such had no authority to speak for the official government of Libya , and no authority to appear at Security Council meetings as officials of Libya.(18)
The actions of such officials were not the actions of a member government. Unspoken was the process of how they had defected and through what arrangements with US and other western government agencies they had gained the ability to remain in the US and to participate in Security Council procedures. The Security Council was providing support and aid to members of a group attempting to carry out a coup against the government of Libya . Such an action is contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter requiring the non-intervention in the affairs of member nations.
The Security Council supported these defectors acting to overthrow the government of Libya . Also it failed to make any effort to initiate an independent investigation of what was happening in Libya . Apart from the biased western or Qatar supported media reports (reports from Aljazeera only represented the Libyan opposition viewpoint when it reported on the Libyan conflict.), the Security Council did not seek out any other source of information. UN personnel in Libya were not requested to investigate the allegations.
No legitimate Libyan government official was invited to take part in Security Council proceedings. When the Libyan government tried to appoint legitimate government officials to replace the defector delegation, the US government would not approve the visa requests for the replacement delegates, in violation of the Host Country obligations of the US . In this way, the US prevented the Libyan government from being able to present its case before the Security Council.
By March 3, 2011, the Spokesman for the Secretary General acknowledged that the Secretary General had received notice from the Libyan government withdrawing the credentials of Dabbashi and Shalgham. (19) Yet for a period of time, they had continued to speak to reporters at the official Security Council stakeout and their statements to the press were covered by the UN media services and were treated as official Libyan government statements available at the UN Security Council website.
Eventually the access of the two diplomats was converted from diplomatic passes into courtesy passes granted at the discretion of the Secretariat so they could continue to have access to the UN, but on a more restricted basis than the official diplomatic access.
When some journalists questioned the grounds on which these defector diplomats continued to have access to official UN and Security Council procedures such as requesting a meeting of the Security Council, the spokesman for the Secretary General said that someone who has presented credentials to the Secretary General is the representative of a nation (20):
Disagreeing with the Spokesman's response, one journalist pointed out that the “Request for a meeting of the Security Council normally is by request from Member States, not from Ambassadors sitting in missions. Ambassadors ask for a meeting of the Council on the basis of a letter from the Foreign Ministry and, in this case, presumably there is no such letter emanating from the Foreign Ministry of Libya. So, on what basis, legal basis, is the Security Council meeting?” asked the journalist.
Instead of acknowledging the accuracy of the explanation that it is member nations that are represented at the Security Council, not an Ambassador, particularly not an Ambassador who has defected, the Spokesperson for the Secretary General answered: “I think you know what I am going to say…ask the Security Council. Next question.”
Part IV – Libya Prevented from Presenting its Case at the UN
While the defecting Libyan diplomats have been supported and protected to have continual access to United Nations facilities, the opposite has been the case for the Libyan government.
One good example of this departure from protocol obligations is demonstrated by two documents. The first is Security Council Resolution 1970 (S/RES/1970(2011).
The document states in its opening statement (21):
“Taking note of the letter to the President of the Security Council from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 26 February 2011.” (S/Res/1970(2011),p.1)
The problem of acknowledging this letter this way in the body of Resolution 1970 is that on February 25, the former Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham had informed the Security Council that he had defected.
By February 26 he no longer represented the Libyan government. Consequently there was no basis for the Security Council to refer to a letter from him, as a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
The Security Council should have found a way to hear from a member of the government of Libya , rather than substituting a defector Ambassador and his delegation for the official delegation of Libya .
Despite several efforts of the government of Libya to appoint a new Ambassador to replace the defector Ambassador and his staff members who had defected, neither the UN nor the US , the host country of the UN, acted in accord with their obligations to make this possible.
A letter from the Libyan government dated March 17 was sent to the Security Council President. It appears that this letter was not made an official document of the Security Council. Yet this letter provided the Libyan government explanation of what was happening. According to Article 32 of the UN Charter, the Security Council has an obligation to hear from member nations. The relevant portion of Article 32 states: “Any member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council….if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to that dispute.” (22)
This would be true as well, for a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.
The picture the Libyan government presents in the communication to the Security Council is one where there is an armed confrontation between armed insurgents and the State Authorities.(23)
This is a different description of the situation than any of the members of the Security Council publicly considered on February 26 when the Security Council passed Resolution 1970 or on March 17 when it passed Resolution 1973.(24)
In the letter of March 17, Libya explains that what is happening is a confrontation between terrorist groups and the State Authorities. It cites Libyan Law No. 38 of 1974, article 1, as the basis for the armed forces of Libya to “maintain security, if the general safety of the ‘Republic' or any part of it so requires.” The letter explains that “Libyan army camps that have been attacked have taken no violent action against the armed attackers until the latter have brandished their weapons.” This is in conformity with Libyan law, the letter notes.
The letter explains that “Article 2 of the same law provides that orders to fire may be given in the following circumstances:
“(a) If any member of forces is attacked.
(b) If rebels refuse to restore order, after having been warned and given the opportunity to do so.
(c) If rebels carry out an armed attack against persons or property.”
The letter from the Libyan government describes how the government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect Libyan residents and citizens by confronting the armed insurgents.
The letter also says that Resolution 1970 and the draft of Resolution 1973, the resolution being considered for adoption on March 17, and subsequently adopted, “exceed the mandate” of the Security Council.
The letter says that “what is at issue is not a conflict between two States, as provided for in article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations.” The Council therefore has no authority to adopt resolutions in such cases. The Charter, the letter explained, “provides that States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State.”
Also in the letter, Libya referred to the mission to Libya by the African Union that was planned for March 20 to negotiate a political solution. The letter called the adoption of resolutions under Chapter VII premature, until an evaluation of the situation had been made by the African Union.
The Security Council made no mention of the letter or the points it raised when it went ahead and passed Resolution 1973 on the evening of March 17.
Only an AP article mentioned that there was such a letter and referred to some of its contents, including the challenge Libya presented to the section of Resolution 1970 referring Gaddafi and his family members to the International Criminal Court (ICC).(25)
After the March 17 Security Council meeting, the US and then NATO began bombing Libya .
A letter dated March 19 from the government of Libya has been made one of the documents of the Security Council. In the letter the Foreign Minister refers to previous letters that he sent to the Security Council which are not found in Security Council records. In the March 19 letter, he writes(26):
“In my previous letters to you, I emphasized that an external conspiracy was targeting Jamahiriya and its unity and territorial integrity. I pointed out that the Security Council had been drawn into implementing this conspiracy by its adoption of Resolution 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) under which a ban was imposed on all aviation in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. By taking this decision,” the March 19 letter explained, “the Security Council has paved the way for military aggression against Libyan territory. France and the United States have bombarded several civilian sites, thereby violating all international norms and instruments, most notably the Charter of the United Nations, which provides for non-intervention in the affairs of member states.”
Libya asked the Security Council to hold an emergency meeting “in order to halt this aggression, the purpose of which is not to protect civilians, as is purported, but rather to strike civilian sites, economic facilities, and sites belonging to the Armed Peoples on Duty.” The UN Security Council discussed this request at a meeting on Monday, March 21 and decided not to grant the Libyan government's request.
As of February 21, the Libyan government has been deprived of the ability to have a representative to the UN. In March, when the Libyan government tried to appoint another Ambassador, the US government did not grant a visa.(27)
Instead the defecting diplomats continue to have access to the UN and to use their presence at the UN to attack the legitimate government of Libya .
An article published by Al Ahram, is unusual in that it presents an account of some of the abuse of Security Council procedures that occurred in passing Resolutions 1970 and 1973 against Libya . The article was written by Curtis Doebbler, the American Human Rights lawyer. Doebbler writes (28):
“The West focused its propaganda machinery on the UN with a vengeance. And it was no mere ordinary propaganda campaign but a full-blown orchestration of history for the books. First, Libyan diplomats were induced and threatened to step down from their positions and promised that if they supported the opposition they would be ‘taken care of.' This resulted in the Libyan diplomats at the UN not only resigning, but doing so and still maintaining a type of diplomatic status that allowed them to advocate on behalf of the armed rebels who were challenging the government of Libya for control of their country.”
“This was accomplished by the spurious actions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who issued special passes to the former Libyan diplomats after their government had withdrawn their credentials. Bypassing the UN General Assembly's Credentials Committee and well-established protocol, the UN secretary-general for the first time in the world body's history personally favoured one side in what was by now a civil war.”
Among Security Council members there have been a number of complaints that the resolution they allowed to pass (1973) did not authorize the kind of NATO bombing of Libya in support of the rebels that has been carried out. Because of the veto power of the US , France and the UK , the Security Council appears to have no means of oversight over NATO to stop what they believe to be an abuse of Security Council processes.
In the context of the sequence of events that took place at the Security Council in February and March, the question asked at the press conference in April, “…are we to expect a more aggressive and proactive posture on the part of the Security Council in supporting rebel groups?” is about a serious change. The precedent set by the Security Council's supporting an armed insurgency against the government of a UN member nation is a significant and dangerous precedent. It is an important issue to be seriously examined.(29)
1) I.K. Cush of Global Breaking News, Press Conference for the Colombian Presidency, April 4, 2011 http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/04
2) “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November” by Franco Bechis
3) See the account in Libero of Nouri al Mesmari's defection and connections with foreign intelligence forces.
4) “‘Airstrikes in Libya did not take place' – Russian military,” News, Russia Today (RT) Moscow , March 1, 2011. RT report was made by journalist Irina Galushko.
Radio Netherlands , “HRW: No Mercenaries in eastern Libya ”, March 2, 2011
5) Ibrahim Dabbashi, Letter to Security Council dated February 21, 2011, S/2011/102, February 22, 2011
6) Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council refers to Article 35 of the Charter referring to ‘nations that are Members of the UN' or ‘nations that are not Members of the UN'. Nowhere does it provide for defecting officials to request a meeting of the Security Council.
7) Closed meeting Security Council, no notes but the occurrence of the meeting is noted as 6486th meeting (closed) Peace and security in Africa Feb. 22, 2011
8) Video by Nizar Abboud of UN Ambassador of Libya , Shalgam, Feb. 22, 2011
English responses begin at approx. 1:53.
9) B. Lynn Pascoe, “Informal comments to the media by B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, on the situation in Libya ,” Feb. 22, 2011
12) Provisional Rules of Procedure Security Council Rule 37
13) Manual of Protocol, United Nations Protocol and Liaison Service
14) Abdel Rahman Shalgham at the Security Council 6490th meeting, Feb 25, 2011, United Nations S/PV.6490
15) Letter Shalgham sent to Security Council as quoted on Inner City Press blog
16) Gérard Araud at the Security Council, 6490th meeting, Feb 26, 2011, United Nations S/PV.6491
See this transcript for other statements at that meeting quoted in the text.
17) The reference to the African Union was mistaken. The African Union called for dialogue and was opposed to the sanctions and referral to the ICC before the Security Council took its votes on Resolutions 1970 and 1973. See for example, Ruhakana Rugunda, “African Union Statement on the NATO Invasion of Libya: It's Time to End the Bombing and Find a Political Solution in Libya ”
18) See for example International Labour Conference, 5C, Provisional Record, 100th Session, Geneva , June 2011, Reports on credentials, Second report of the Credentials Committee, Representation of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
19) March 3, 2011, Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General
20) Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, February 22, 2011
21) Security Council Resolution 1970
22) United Nations Charter Article 32 can be found in Chapter 5 at
23) Letter sent to Security Council dated 17 March 2011 from Secretary of the General People's Committee of Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to President of the Security Council. (English translation of document previously circulated in Arabic).
24) Ronda Hauben, “UN Security Council March 17 Meeting to Authorize Bombing of Libya all Smoke and Mirrors”, March 30, 2011
25) Edith Lederer, “UN Rejects Emergency Meeting Sought by Libya ,” AP, March 22, 2011
26) Letter dated 19 March 2011 from the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2011/161
27) Turtle Bay blog “TurtleLeaks: No visa, no entry! How the U.S. bars diplos from the U.N.”
28) Curtis Doebbler ,“ Libya : Who wins?”, Al Ahram, 7 – 13 April 2011, Issue No. 1042
29) According to General Assembly Resolution 396(V), December 1950, Recognition by the United Nations of the Representative of a Member State ,
when a controversy arises with more than one authority claiming to be the government of a Member State , it becomes a question for the General Assembly to consider in light of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN and the circumstances of each specific case. See
See General Assembly Resolution396(V), December 1950, Recognition by the United Nations of the Representative
of a Member State , when a controversy arises with more than one authority claiming to be the government of a Member State , it becomes a question for the General Assembly to consider in light of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN and the circumstances of each specific case. See, General Assembly Resolution 396(V), December 1950, Recognition by the United Nations of the Representative of a Member State
It was Gaddafi's Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master's exploitation ask the master's help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors' with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that's how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi's Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatization like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken'.
REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That's why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn't have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn't mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome' one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do'. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.'
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That's why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela's 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela's enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And what if Gaddafi's Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president's turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi's Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn't exist. This isn't a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract' that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.'
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi's Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau's conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don't even say hello to each other and therefore don't know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote' – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn't know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau's democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau's criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can't be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.'
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite'. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru's constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person's family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world's best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy' – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau's perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn't be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.' To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don't have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes' votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples', which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes' to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl's Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today's events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao's China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn't have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn't say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China's dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d'Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara's victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn't won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa's strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi.
The Financial Times has featured an editorial penned by Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass titled, “ Libya Now Needs Boots on the Ground ,” where the arch globalist states that Libya's rebels are in no way capable of rebuilding Libya properly and will require an “international force” to maintain order. Haas breathtakingly admits that the NATO intervention to “protect civilians” was in fact a political intervention designed to bring about regime change. With NATO leading the offensive against Tripoli, a relatively calm city until now, the alleged cause of “protecting civilians” rings hollower than ever.
Haas goes on to explain that NATO's “success” is what requires this international assistance in the predictable form of an occupation force to deal with looting, “die-hard regime supporters,” and tribal war. Haas also implores Obama to reconsider his decision to rule out American boots on the ground and to do so quickly.
Of course, NATO didn't just spend the last 5 months conducting 7,000+ airstrikes on Libya to “protect civilians” and then ride off into the sunset. This was a war of conquest from the very beginning, with globalists openly declaring it would determine the “primacy of international law ” over the nation-state. In fact, the initial uprising itself was gestated in Washington and London where opposition leaders were provided resources and safe-havens to conduct their sedition, with globalist stooges like Ibrahim Sahad literally sitting in front of the White House calling for NATO to bomb his homeland. NATO, its members, particularly the US, UK, and France, and the globalist corporate-financiers behind them, fully intend to rebuild Libya according to their own aspirations shoehorned into a national consensus imposed upon the Libyan people under the guise of “democracy” and “civil society.” We are watching a modern empire expand its boundaries into yet another sovereign nation.
Readers may remember an April 2011 article titled “ Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists' War ” with the ever increasingly appropriate subtitle, “How the Devil Pays.” In it a caption attempts to sum up Libya's future by stating, ”if these rebels really think the West is going to hand them Libya and its riches, they have another thing coming. The Neo-Con arm of the globalist agenda is already seeding the ground to deal with “extremists” coming to power after the “Arab Spring” runs its course. That means Libya's oil & future will be left in the hands of NATO troops, not the Libyan people.”
The article continues:
“While the dichotomy of Western politics is merely for public consumption, what each camp states publicly can be put together as a composite giving us a clearer picture of the overall globalist agenda. Neo-Conservative war monger Daniel Pipes, a PNAC signatory, CFR member, and co-conspirator in many of the darkest chapters of recent American history, was recently sharing his “doubts ” over the final result of the “Arab Spring.” He believes that ultimately extremists will prevail in many cases and only complicate US relations with certain countries.
Of course, Pipes most likely didn't miss the memo and is fully aware that the “Arab Spring” is a US funded gambit, one his fellow “Neo-Cons ” lining the National Endowment for Democracy and the fraudulent Freedom House are admittedly involved in. At the very least, he must have picked up the New York Times and read as much. So what exactly is Pipes trying to tell us? He is saying that as soon as the Libyan rebels secure Libya, or the Muslim Brotherhood takes hold of Syria, or Yemen, or wins out in a co-opted counterrevolution against International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt , the blinders Western propagandists seem to be wearing will suddenly drop and point out that indeed the globalists have installed extremists “by accident.”
To rectify this, Libyan rebels will be betrayed just as quickly as Qaddafi was. They will be removed from power, and replaced by Western stooges protected by NATO ground troops, conveniently already being put on the ground in Libya, and will stay there permanently. The globalist “ Neo-Con ” think tank Foreign Policy Initiative has stated , “The best way to reduce the potential dangers posed by extremist infiltration is for the United States and its allies to remain engaged in Libya.”
This engagement most likely will take the shape of the other unending “engagements” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the years of cross-border raids into Pakistan. The oil money that once built water ways, public housing, and farms from Benghazi to Tripoli, will be funneled directly out of the country and into the corporate-financier's accounts. The corporate-financier oligarchs will have taken yet another nation-state down with the help of its own gullible population, and for their gullibility, they will pay for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children's children.
To understand the full scope of the global corporate-financier oligarchy's designs toward any given nation, we must simply look back at the brazen admissions made over the intended future stemming from the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's ( CFR ) planned economic reformation of the broken nation. The Economist enumerates the “economic liberalization” of Iraq in a piece titled “Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:”
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.
Anyone who would willfully make a deal with such people must have their discernment called into question. As Hugo Chavez of Venezuela said of Hosni Mubarak's decades of appeasing the globalists and his eventual ousting from power at the hands of US funded, trained, and supported protesters , “ that's how the devil pays .” Indeed it is, and it is an instructive lesson for others including the rebels of Benghazi to consider as they attempt to make their own deals with the globalists today.”
And indeed, as NATO rushes through to the finish line with a spectacular display of mass-murder and mayhem in Libya, and with the rebels dancing in the streets as NATO warplanes roar overhead, the time is soon approaching for Benghazi to pay back the West for their “help.”
As pundits in the duplicitous corporate media feign ignorance over the future of Libya, as if it is truly in the hands of the Libyan people as Obama cartoonishly portrayed in his latest teleprompter reading, the self-proclaimed “Transitional National Council” leader Gibril Elqarfally gave us cyrstal clear picture of Libya's future – one inspired by globalization. In a May 12, 2011 talk before the Brookings Institution , he claimed “what's taking place is a natural product of the globalizational process that started in the mid-80's.”
Elwarfally talks about a “new global cultural paradigm,” “new global values,” common values, shared by many “young people.” These young people, he says, are calling for human dignity, democracy, and inclusion at all levels of national government, repeating verbatim statements coming from geopolitical meddler Zbigniew Brzezinski and the myriad of US-funded NGOs that promote these “new global values.”
When asked by an audience member what Libya will look like in 2025, it turns out conveniently he was part of a study by Libyan professors and “Libyan practitioners” in 2007-2008 titled “Libya: Vision 2025.” Not surprisingly, this project was conducted with input from the IMF and involved Libya's placement within the “global scene.” Elwarfally laments that Libya's oil reserves are limited and that the solution is a transition to a service economy. He also claims Vision 2025's conclusion included an education shift, turning Libya into “a lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of the European Union.
Surely Africans are eager to once again be in the service of wealthy Europeans, who at one point owned tremendous swaths of their continent, some tycoons naming entire nations after themselves in the ultimate expression of imperial megalomania. Elwarfally, a man educated in Pittsburgh, and apparently a lifelong fan of globalization, stuns us with his frank comments and his disturbing vision for the future of not only Libya, but the role it will play in directing Africa's efforts and resources toward American and European corporate-financier interests.
While Qaddafi's comments are dismissed out of hand, a recent message sent to his followers amidst fighting in Tripoli declared, “the traitors are paving the way for the occupation forces to be deployed in Tripoli.” It seems no truer words have ever been spoken and the Libyan people, including the rebels, will have no one but themselves to blame if they allow such a way to be paved.
Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research ,
The Libya Speech by President Obama on Mar 29, 2011 was a mind control tool to hypnotize Americans into believing that crime is justice. He will change the English language so that fair is crooked and crooked is fair. He will again and again propagandize the listener with the following programming...
1. Heroic troops should feel proud no matter what they are told to do.
2. USA has "world community" support (lie will be repeated 27 times). We can examine if this is the fact.
3. Gaddafi is bad man who committed atrocities against civilians (framing and slander will be repeated 34 times). We can find out if this is true.
4. USA is Savior that protects innocent people.(will be repeated 32 times) . We can review what is actually happening.
5. The infamous hope mantra from Obama 2008 campaign. (9 times)
"Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to update the American people on the international [fake coalition, start count 1] effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.[As the story unfolds, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify 'us'?]
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform [He will repeat this as mind control method...In fact all of his speeches have this programming as have past presidents. It is ongoing mind programming.] who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. [The military acted with speed in 2003 where no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Should we assume their action now is more justified?] Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition [2nd] has been forged and countless lives have been saved. [the great Savior 1st] Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, [See Fukushima HAARP attack on HAARP Page ] leaving Iraq to its people [See Veterans Page ], stopping the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan...
Early in 2008, the Atlantic Council released a report over the signature of its chairman, retired U.S. Marine Gen. James L. Jones that began,
"Make no mistake: NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.... " If that report were released in summer 2010, it could easily read: "Make no mistake: we are losing in Afghanistan... "
After a firestorm of protest from Brussels,
the word "NATO" was changed to "the international community."
and going after al Queda around the globe. [There never was an al Queda. Radical Islamists were funded by CIA to create an 'enemy' to justify 'war on terror' so USA would have excuse for world wide aggression.] As Commander-in-Chief, [Savior 2] I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans. [Heroes 2]
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security [obey or else] and advocate for human freedom [where?]. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges [but US starts wars more than any other country so is US reluctant? How does force solve challenges?]. But when our interests [$] and values [me first] are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks. [Obama started a war without Congressional approval. This is what happened. But General Wesley Clark says it was already a written plan in 2001, so the Libya war plan was developed even before that.
Therefore, Bush and Obama are just puppets of something much bigger that spans administrations. One thread is the Council of Foreign Relations, a heavily funded Rockefeller think tank. See Rockefeller quote middle of Home Page.
Below we listen to Obama's Secretary of State HIllary Clinton describe the relationship between the Dept of State of the United States, and this privately funded organization CFR.
Members of WeAreChange Central Florida descended upon an event for Barack Obama where they exposed his wife Michelle Obama's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, an elite extra-governmental organization that steers a global agenda within the U.S. framework.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence in to an all powerful, one world government."
Rear Admiral Chester Ward
Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
[Back to Obama speech.....] Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. [which NWO infiltrated to place new puppets]
[We have been introduced to the good guy and his friends, the whole world, now we will meet the Bad Guy and the damsel in distress.]
For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant [smear 1] – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth [highest per capita income in Africa, free medical care, 80% literacy, and women can enter any profession, most progressive Moslem country.], murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. [He is referring to the fake terror events by CIA and Mossad that were blamed on Libya, reviewed in introduction. With Mandela and British organizations challenging this assertion, Obama is flagrantly continuing the policy of creating boogie men as excuse for hegemony.]
Last month, Gaddafi's grip of fear [smear 2] appeared to give way to the promise [hope mantra 1] of freedom. In cities and towns across the country,
Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. [smear 3] As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope [hope mantra 2] that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” [We can be sure no one ever said this] Faced with this opposition, [non existent demonstrations, but a funded CIA operation]
WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) — The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has deployed clandestine operatives in Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contract rebels fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
President Obama had earlier insisted that no American military ground troops would participate in the coalition action against Gaddafi, which is approved under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. But American officials told the newspaper that small groups of CIA operatives have been working in Libya for “several weeks”.
Gaddafi began attacking his people. [attacking the mercenaries] [smear 4]. As President, my immediate concern was the safety [savior 3] of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. [This was done to minimize witnesses. Who would have attacked embassy? The rebels?] We then took a series of swift steps [savior 4] in a matter of days [planned at least 10 years in advance- Wesley Clark] to answer Gaddafi's aggression. [smear 5]
We froze [stole] more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's [The Libyan people's] assets. Joining with other nations [fake coalition 3] at the United Nations Security Council [3 of 5 permanent members are France, USA and UK = NATO], we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled [?] Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. [smear 6. There were no crimes. See index] I [the savior]made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people [How can an outsider claim this, and who is an outsider to threaten by 'making it clear'?] and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world's [fake coalition 4, it wasn't the world, it was NATO] condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks [smear 7], launching a military campaign against the Libyan people [mercenary rebels]. Innocent people were targeted for killing. [smear 8] [In Hitler Orwellian 'double speak' up means down. It was the rebels who targeted people.]
"In a country with 6 million inhabitants, one third are black (the most oppressed group in the country). Would not it be easier for the rebels to call for their solidarity and ask them join the rebel ranks? But not only do black Libyans not join the rebellion - they flee in terror... continued
[The double speak becomes continuous here] Hospitals and ambulances were attacked [By rebels, and by NATO]. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. [I could find no record of a female journalist in Libya, and all deaths were in combat zones by unnamed fire.] Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. [unsubstantiated] Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. [NATO] Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. [smear 9]
Confronted by this brutal repression [smear 10 UN human rights status was excellent, see references far bottom.] and a looming humanitarian crisis [savior 4] , I ordered [savior 5] warships into the Mediterranean. European allies [honest for once, not international] declared their willingness to commit resources [war machine] to stop [start] the killing. [smear 11] The Libyan opposition [CIA contracted mercenaries], and the Arab League [puppets] appealed to the world to save lives [savior 6] in Libya. [but African Nations said, stop bombing.]
“If Gaddafi were trying to massacre civilians there would be thousands killed, not a couple hundred killed,” Kuperman remarked. Gaddafi said he would show no mercy to rebels, he did not speak about civilians. He even said rebel fighters who laid down their arms and surrendered would receive mercy, explained Kuperman. “He made clear he would not target civilians,” he said.
At my direction [savior 7] , America led an effort with our allies at the United States Security Council [and to the opposition of Russia, China, Germany, Brazil, India] to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect [savior 8] the Libyan people. [In double speak, black is white, so he authorized, not to protect, but to attack.]
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence [between CIA contracted mercenaries and legitimate government] without using force, the international community [fake coalition 5] offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing [smear 12], or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, [and no longer have law and order in their own nation] his forces continued their advance, bearing down [these are Libyans policing their own country right?] on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear. [smear 13]
At this point, the United States and the world [fake coalition 6] faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people [smear 14] . [He meant no mercy against mercenaries] He compared them [mercenaries] to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. [Obama knows what Gaddafi meant, so we see the smear here is worse than misrepresentation, it is a intentional misrepresentation of another persons actual words, used to murder thousands of civilians, which is itself another charge that can be used in Prosecution of as War Criminal] In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. [What?] Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, [How dramatic, great script. The legitimate government of Libya is coming to save their citizens fromoutside fundedand criminal group committing atrocities] Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre [smear 15] that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience [savior 8] of the world. [fake coalition 7]
It was not in our national interest [oil $] to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. [savior 9].
[With this statement Obama takes full responsibility and makes himself fully culpable for Crimes against Humanity for being Commander in Chief of the morph from "no fly zone" resolution 1973 to strike force for USA=NATO mercenaries. This will be used in his prosecution. The ideals of justice in the Magna Carte and Constitution and civil rights movement, and the now blossoming global call for a new system without centralized corruption known as "New World Order", didn't march slowly forward to be ignored. This long slow march of truth was not in vain. The greatest crimes in history of Earth will now became known to all. There is no peace without justice. Crime cannot pay.]
Libya's "Freedom Fighters" Found to Engage in Pillage According to a recent New York Times article, Human Rights Watch released materials citing cases of gross abuse by anti-Gadhafi rebels in a mountainous area located in the western part of Libya. Incidents are reported to have taken place in the towns of Qawalish, Awaniya, Rayaniyah and Zawiyat al-Bagul seized over the past month by the rebels from the government forces. In what appeared to be a series of reprisals against Gadhafi backers, the population of the towns was chased away from the places and the locals' property was extensively damaged.
Two currently deserted medical centers and scores of local businesses were looted by the rebels. HRW also said rebels were beating suspected Gadhafi loyalists and torching their homes, while much of the abuse being directed against members of the Mashaashia tribe who are known to be traditional supporters of the Libyan government.
The information supplied by HRW resonated with the audiences in the US and Europe, where the legitimacy and fairness of the military campaign which grew out of a fuzzy UN mandate and was launched to prop up the cause of Libya's “freedom fighters” are being increasingly called into question....
And so nine days ago, after consulting [but not getting approval] the bipartisan leadership of Congress , [some of whom called for impeachment] I authorized [Savior 10] military action to stop [Savior 11] the killing [smear 16] and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. [The Security Council didn't ask USA to do this. USA ordered 'its allies' in UN to create resolution.] We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save [savior 12] that city and the people [rebel mercenaries] within it. We hit Gaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone.
[USA destroyed Libya's means of defending itself, basically forever.] We targeted tanks and military assets [using depleted uranium armor piercing ammunition which will cause cancer and birth defects forever... See Veterans Page ]
that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. [whose supply? The roads that feed the general populace of Libya?] And tonight, I can report that we have stopped [savior 13] Gaddafi's deadly advance. [smear 17 He has made Gaddafi sound like an invader in his own land, double speak. And as the following months after this March Speech showed, Obama did not stop the legitimate Government of Libya until 8000 sorties had destroyed country.]
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. [He just said it was his decision] Instead, we have been joined [USA wasn't joined by anyone, it alreadyfunds and directs NATO] by a strong and growing coalition. [fake coalition 8] This includes our closest allies – nations like France, UK Canada Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey– all of whom have fought by our side for decades. [Its calledNATO. This is the big "international coalition" who helps USA invade countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for share of spoils] And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emerates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility [their responsibility as tiny minions to go along with Empire] to defend [savior 13] the Libyan people. [In double talk, defend means attack]
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners [NATO, fake coalition 8] to mobilize a broad coalition [ It's called NATO. Fake coalition 9. So the international partners mobilized international partners], secure[push through UN] an international [fake coalition 10] mandate [It was no mandate, because China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany abstained. These countries themselves have 50% of world population, and then we can add all of Africa. Why there was no veto will need to be examined in the coming Crimes against Humanity Trials] to protect [savior 14] civilians, stop an advancing army [smear 18 advancing in their own country?] , prevent a massacre [smear 19], and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies [NATO] and partners [NATO. Fake coalition 11 What partners are not NATO that could establish a No Fly Zone?].
"Putin said NATO went beyond the UN's March 16th mandate when it dropped guided missiles on Gaddafi's government offices in Tripoli. “What kind of no-fly zone is this if they are striking palaces every night?” Putin said in Ria Novosti. “What do they need to bomb palaces for? To drive out the mice?” Putin even went as far as suggesting that Libya's oil resources were a main object for NATO's interest in Libya." [went as far in suggesting?]
To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together,
UK to expel five Libyan diplomats March 30th, 2011 LONDON (BNO NEWS) — British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday announced that the United Kingdom (UK) will be expelling five Libyan diplomats, who “pose a threat to our security.”
May 1, 2011Britain announced Sunday it would expel Libya's ambassador after the UK's embassy was attacked in Tripoli. The attacks came just hours after a NATO airstrike killed Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's youngest son late on Saturday.
when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community [NATO. Fake coalition 12] more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. [Empire didn't see much resources in Bosnia to steal, and hadn't planned to take Bosnia decades in advance. But why did USA use Depleted Uranium in Bosnia? Were we saving people from cancer? We also have more SWAT teams at home now. They are fast too.]
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I [Savior 15] made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops[see link CIA was already there] into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners [fake coalition 13]. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. [Savior 16]
The Guardian has learned that a number of serving British special forces soldiers, as well as former SAS troopers, are advising and training rebel forces, although their presence is officially denied.
The Guardian has previously reported the presence of former British special forces troops, now employed by private security companies and funded by a number of sources, including Qatar. They have been joined by a number of serving SAS soldiers.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. [So Americans, don't worry about this anymore, it is in someone else's hands.] [and food embargo?] Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting [savior 17 strangling] Libyan civilians. [He means the mercenaries, because the water system and power of the civilians was taken out by bombing, so NATO has no interest in protecting civilians]
New reports coming out of Libya depict a NATO move towards genocide. Libya is in a desert and the US ledNATO is now bombing not only water facilities, but factories that produce water pipes needed to replace those destroyed by the bombs. 4.5 million Libyans are facing the prospect of having no drinking water . And remember these bombings are supposedly being conducted as a form of humanitarian aid designed to save the lives of innocents.
This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone [this is now double speak term for nightly bombing of ground targets and use of drones] and protecting [savior 18] civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners [fake coalition 14. He means our European minions] , and I [savior 19] am fully confident that our [possessive pronoun] coalition [fake coalition 15] will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining [would that be the armed civilians? The freedom fighters who will be called Gaddafi loyalists.] forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence [managing everything], logistical support [transporting everything], search and rescue assistance [for our CIA and NATO assets], and capabilities to jam regime communications. [Destroy communication for citizens of Libya] Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition [fake coalition 16. It is called NATO], the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. [Americas are getting a bargain! And how much has it cost so far Mr. President?]
But, not to worry. Before Obama's War, Libya produced 1.6 million barrels/day oil. And US recently stole $33-37 billion from Libya and there will be no one to oversee what USA does with this money, just like no one oversees FED or Pentagon. In fact, these billions are real money, not paper money which props up USA at this time. USA is also especially interested in seizingLibya's gold. "The reserves are substantial, ranking in the global top 25, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) data.
are jockeying for advantage in the new Libya, buoyed by news that damage to the energy infrastructure appears to be slight. [So, 'the people's oil which was the people's will now be up for grabs, just like Iraq, and the people won't get it. The looting is not even masked.]
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear : the United States of America has done what we said we would do. [Reminiscent of Bush Jr declaration of victory in Iraq 8 years ago in 2003.]
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community [fake coalition 17. With who? Russia, China, India? There is no international community responsibilities other than NATO because they are same thing. He repeats this 27 times to brain wash the listener.] to provide assistance [savior 20] to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry [because of USA food embargo] and medical care for the wounded [What wounded? Would that be the thousands maimed in bombing? When was the last time a piece of metal cut deeply into your body? These are real people filling hospitals].
We will safeguard [maybe Bernanke can help with this] the more than $33 billion that was frozen [stolen] from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. [The money will go to Western contractors like Halliburton, just as happened in Iraq. See Shock Doctrine Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klien on the Womens Page .]
U.N. to allow release of $1.5 billion frozen Libya funds (Reuters) Aug 25, 2011 The United States and South Africa struck adeal on Thursday to allow the release of $1.5 billion in frozen Libya funds for humanitarian aid and other civilian needs, U.N. diplomats said on Thursday.
It looks like the more telling news on Libya has migrated to the business pages. With jubilant reporting of Gaddafi's imminent downfall seizing headlines, it's the financial pages that have the clinical analysis. So, for instance, it is in this section that the Independent reports a "dash for profit in the post-war Libya carve up ".
Before Tripoli has completely fallen, before Gaddafi and his supporters have stepped down and before the blood dries on the bodies that have yet to be counted, Western powers are already eyeing up what they view us just rewards for the intervention.
There are no more illusions over how farNATO forces exceeded the UN security resolution that mandated its campaign. For months, NATO officials insisted it was operating within brief - an air campaign, designed to protect civilians under threat of attack. But now it is described as an "open secret" that NATO countries were operating undercover, on the ground...
... As alluded to by the Economist , each country's contribution to the NATO effort in Libya is expected to have some impact on how much of the spoils it gets in the looming post-war period.
After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi [smear 21] or to us [he considered this? Absolutely, as the entire operation is a robbery] – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it. [savior 21 Gaddafi is hugely respected in Africa. He never owned the 33 billion that USA stole. So how noble that USA will destroy the country and use the peoples' money to do whatever USA wants to be done with it, and how noble of NATO countries to be slobbering over the oil and business contracts they worked so hard for, to 'save the people'.]
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London,
At the said meeting a reporter asks Clinton about "who are we supporting in Libya?" Clinton's response at about 6 minutes and 20 seconds into the video, was as part of her answer, “We're still getting to know who these people are. ” [In other words, it doesn't matter who they are, we have already bought them.]
where she will meet with the Libyan opposition [Who flew these puppets to London? In what airplane did they fly? It is a No Fly Zone. How did they get to an airport that functioned? Who vouched that they were representatives of an actual organization that represented the entire 6 million Libyans? Who elected this 'opposition'? What makes them legitimate? ] and consult with more than thirty nations. [Many of them in opposition to colonization]. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. [smear 22. As outlined by McKinney in introduction, Libyans already had more benefits than Americans.] Because, while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives [savior 22, by destroying a sovereign country's water and electricity and using Depleted Uranium Ammunition],
A telecommunication official told Libyan state television that the three stations hit by NATO strikes provided communication services for citizens to contact the fire brigades, hospitals and emergency lines and communication between eastern and western Libya.
we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, [smear 23] but to its people.
[As we know, this Hitler type lying works, this smearing that we see constantly on 'news'. Most Americans think Gaddafi is 'crazed' evil dictator. Nelson Mandela doesn't think so. Meanwhile the Presidency is still seen as trustworthy, an authority to respect. If an unknown nobody wears a red tie and stands in front of a flag and travels to England with 500 staff in royal splendor, then such a "President" can lie about anything, knowing that the media will clap their hands. With this great authority, Obama is going to decide what another nation's people need, and free them from its own government, the competition, that had the audacity to stand up to European hegemony in Africa.]
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some [some?] Americans continue to have questions [don't ask questions, just obey] about our efforts in Libya. [sounds like the May 2009 speech where Obama said "some still question 911". He warned that asking questions was no longer acceptable] Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous [for puppet mercenaries]. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny [smear 24] has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. [!!!! Libya had free health care and education! But they won't now. Now they will be serfs as everyone is in West, working for corporations and enslaved by debt. This double speak is called Freedom]
The transition to a legitimate [illegitimate] government that is responsive to the Libyan people [USA empire] will be a difficult task. [ie the enforced slavery may take a while, especially because the Libyans were cared for, and are now wounded, angry and armed, and the world, meaning Africa, Asia, South America knows NATO is corrupt. ] And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community [fake coalition 18], and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves. [Just like Iraq, wherepeaceful protest against US occupation is violently suppressed]
“But certainly what has been coming from the Western media has been proven to be lies,” he declared.
Gaddafi opened up the armories to the people of Libya, more than a million rifles and other arms have been handed out to the people of Tripoli. [this must be exaggeration] The claim that has been made by the so-called ‘progressive' media of the United States is that Gaddafi is a hated dictator and that this is an indigenous rebellion. A dictator does not hand people guns and say: ‘Please, defend me!'”
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home. [Obama is placing himself as a moderate as if an illegal and immoral intervention is acceptable on any level, and in true Orwellian Double Speak, he attempts to discuss ethics]
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. [US can only use it if there are resources to steal] And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests [$] against the need for action. [Will we get enough heroin or oil?] But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right . [This is a lying war criminal who has NO concept of right or wrong. He is without morality. US bombs targeted Gaddafi family and killed children in a "no fly zone". Obama is a study in double speak. He is incapable of sincerity.] In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we [?] were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.[smear 25]
We had a unique ability to stop [start] that violence: an international [fake coalition 19] mandate for action, a broad coalition [NATO... fake coalition 18] prepared [he is honest here, NATO was already prepared] to join us, the support of Arab countries [two tiny bought off minions], and a plea for help [savior 23] from the Libyan people themselves. [smear 26, CIA mercenaries using controlled media.] We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. [So killing remotely is an argument for principle?]
To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities [Savior 24] to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. [Would that be what Wikileaks has just started to reveal?] Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. [The United States is different. It consistently funds atrocities. USA started wars in Viet Nam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and some say Kosovo, a testing ground for new weapons and mercenary tactics. USA funds many more, like East Timor and the death squads throughout Latin America.What western mining companies have benefited from gang armies in Congo?And,who armed them?]
Arms Trade Resource Center – ...The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa. The U.S. prolonged the rule of Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Soko by providing more than $300 million in weapons and $100 million in military training. Mobutu used his U.S. - supplied arsenal to repress his own people and plunder his nation’s economy for three decades, [is this true or not? By now, the reader must suspect allegations and be very discerning and investigative. Who funds this research center. I think it is trustworthy because it questions Empire] until his brutal regime was overthrown by Laurent Kabila’s forces in 1997. When Kabila took power, the Clinton administration quickly offered military support by developing a plan for new training operations with the armed forces...
There is a pattern, shown by American support of Zairian Soko, Shah of Iran, Marcos of Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, (installed by Henry Kissinger, another "Peace Prize" winner, now wanted in Spain for crimes against humanity. and a consultant of the Obama Administration) So what exactly is Obama bragging about? He is just continuing the lie that Empire can ever be fair or benevolent. It cannot. Empire can only colonize and abuse. There is never good in a top/ down paradigm.]
"The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” Kissinger responded. “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. [CIA funded] So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis.” [The strategy was already created and which is what placed both Bush Jr and Obama. It is called "Full Spectrum Dominance" as instrument of New World Order]
And as President, I refused [Savior 24] to wait for the images of slaughter [smear 27] and mass graves before taking action.
[He repeatedly takes responsibility, because he does not think he will ever be caught. He is confident, above all laws, a good war criminal. However he will be arrested. The world is waking up. The UN resolution 1973 of No Fly Zone was grossly broken using USA intelligence.There are many images now of slaughter of civilians by NATO, but Western media is suppressing it, and alternative reporters have been killed and threatened.]
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest [Which is what? He never explains.] in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre [smear 28] would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders,
[This had already happened as seen in photo below. Note the nice luggage of refugees in photo. These are well off educated citizens of a stable nation running for their lives because of covert mercenary meddling by West, for their OIL. The reader probably has similar luggage. None of these people expected this.]
Tens of thousands of desperate refugees were packing the Tunisian border on Tuesday Mar 2, 2011, trying to get out of Libya.
putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. [The protests continue as the new regimes are just new puppet regimes]The democratic [in double speak "democratic means top/down control] impulses that are dawning[hope mantra 3]across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form[smear 29 He will use the word 'dark' again, and he, Obama, is the light? Gaddafi, the idealistic leader who gives free health care and education, helped end Apartheid and was to fund an all Africa Satellite and form an all Africa currency is considered 'dark' by Obama.]
of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. [at least he describes the New World Order well here and what we can expect as we demand accountability in Europe and North America]
The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, [See references below how UN Resolution 1973 was in fact not followed as Putin, above, noted] crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.
Thus, Obama is carrying on myth that UN is an independent credible organization. UN is a tool for centralized global control, under the thumb of USA who denied a visa so that Libya could have no representation in UN for the entire crises.
... As of February 21, the Libyan government has been deprived of the ability to have a representative to the UN. In March, when the Libyan government tried to appoint another Ambassador, the US government did not grant a visa.”
So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price [for gasoline] for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting [Savior 25] the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. [So then, your war is just a soft war Mr Obama? Not a hard war? Incredibly he is now painting himself as a moderate.]
Of course, there is no question [just obey] that Libya – and the world [The World excluding Germany, China, India, Russia, Africa and Brazil] – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. [He is lying. Will Africa be better off?] I, along with many other world leaders, [NATO leaders?] have embraced that goal [of getting rid of this obstacle to Empire, who has 3% of world's oil], and will actively pursue it through non-military means. [double speak] But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. [The entire speech is about regime change, a nice way of saying occupation. And 'mission' was broadened... 8000 sorties. All diplomatic attempts by Gaddafi were brushed away.]
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdulati al-Obeidi told reporters in Tripoli on Friday, “We are trying to talk to the British, the French and the Americans to stop the killing of people. We are trying to find a mutual solution.”
...The Obama administration and its allies and partners in the Libya operation have shown little interest in such offers. President Obama has described his demand for Gaddafi's departure as a political objective...
The task that I [takes full responsibility] assigned our forces – to protect [savior 25] the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. [Repeat a lie enough times... fake coalition 20] It is also what the Libyan opposition [contracted by CIA] asked us to do. [It is what the USA on ground told the USA in air what to do and these foreigners are called 'the rebels'... See Libyan Tribes Manifesto below]
If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. [So we won't use force right? Is this what he infered in this speech ?] We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. [Did that on Aug 21] The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform [heroes 2] would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq . [He is lying as he used past tense. USA is still going down that road now and is committed to that road indefinitely as was planned decades ago and as shown by 14 permanent bases immediately constructed after USa murderous assault on Iraqis. USA has no intention on leaving Iraq until the oil gone. Libya is same exact story]
Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops [heroes 3] and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. [With our 14 permanent military bases, the private oil companies and Haliburton and KBR are hopeful.]
But regime change there took eight years, [If it already happened, why are we still there?] thousands of American and [millions] Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
[So whats the endgame in Libya look like? Complete suppression? Because the Libyan people will resist occupation forever, right? Just like Iraq and Afghanistan and Viet Nam. There is no way to win when making someone a victim is the game. Colonization won't work in a communicating world. The blowback in Europe from angry Moslems will not be pretty. However, those at the top want violence as excuse for martial law. Our work is to wake up and remove them from power.]
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, [Has it?] what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations [hope mantra 4] of the Libyan people. [Savior 27] We have intervened to stop a massacre, [third of forth time with this lie? Smear 30] and we will work with our allies and partners [fake coalition 21] as they're in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. [Savior 28]
We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash [water, electricity, food, communications], assist the opposition [with more "contracts"], and work with other nations [fake coalition 22] to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power.
It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately [smear 31] to hang on to power. [smear 32] But it should be clear [obey] to those around Gaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. [As you hear the bombs you know history is not on the side of the sovereign days when you Libyans had your own nation. Now history is on the side of the bombs.]
With the time [rebuilding everything] and space [without loved ones, killed by NATO] that we have provided [Savior 29] for the Libyan people, they [mercenaries] will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be. [This is horrific double speak. When will Americans have same ability? When will American elections not be rigged? See American Blackout. When will money no longer buy representation?]
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader [Self appointed and self serving] leadership in the world [A definition of world that excludes Germany, India, China, Africa, Brazil or Russia], under my presidency. [Savior 30 ]
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. [Savior 31 The only super power is worried about this? Well, there were those guys in the caves who took down World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:30 pm on 9/11 that the reader may have never heard of becasue it not discussed by controlled media or in coverup 9/11 official report. Remember those guys in the cave that started the 'War on Terror' ? Please see the Womens Page for more info on 9/11]
10 second video. The Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:30 PM on Sept 11, 2001 which never was hit by a plane, with small fires allowed to burn all day. Watch how it falls. Did a man on kidney dialysis living in a cave tell the fire fighters to stand back? Who did this? And more importantly, who covered this up?
And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. [Heroes 4. Pledge allegiance to the uniform. He is actually using mind control.] I have made it clear that I will never hesitate [strong leader ] to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies [NATO], and our core interests. [Other people's resources]
That is why we are going after al Queda wherever they seek a foothold. [And we will invent a foothold where we want to defend our 'core interests', as we have done repeatedly all over the world. It is called Empire.] That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, ["Al queda" left years ago. Why is USA really there? Why did Unocal want and get a pipeline there? and who will defend it? Why did USA start up opium after Taliban ended it?]
even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq [Ended combat in Iraq? Every day, right now, we are killing civilians in Iraq so we can steal their oil. This statement of 'ending' it will give war resisters and anti-war veterans proof of fraud. See Veterans Page] and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country. [And left 50,000 troops indefinitely?]
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests [controlling other nations] and values [seeing ourselves as superior] are. [The USA has never been threatened but we have started more wars than all the other countries combined. However, Americans are waking up. The 2010 military budget equaled 94% of federal income tax? And Mr. Obama wants to gut services and chop social security to balance budget?]
Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security [This is prep talk for planned false flag global emergency as excuse for global martial law... this is what was planned with WHO pandemic swine flu, but it failed. We can be sure other global emergencies are in works..]
– responding to natural disasters [except Somalia or any place we want to see weakened. Have we ever aided Cuba with one hurricane for 50 years?], for example; or preventing genocide [Pot Pot Cambodia (USA) and Rwanda Genocide (NATO) would not have happened without being backed] and keeping the peace [control]; ensuring regional security [status quo empire], and maintaining the flow of commerce [so empire can extract as much as possible and enslave other nations with IMF debt].
These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. [For Obama the problem is.... "keeping, ensuring, maintaining" . Not inequity or disparity or lying or corruption. For Obama and Kissinger, the problem is how to maintain king of the mountain status, not how to bring sovereignty to all people. Obama is a colonialist.]
And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation [the most in debt with the biggest war budget and most brainwashed people], will often be called upon to help. [Savior 31. But it is not within our superior values to help. US only sacrifices if it helps our 'core interests". Did we help the people of Laos? ]
In such cases, we should not be afraid [Don't be a coward, be a man, follow your President] to act – but the burden of action [Lets congratulate ourselves for all of our sacrifice] should not be America's alone.
As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international [fake coalition 24] community for collective action. [But don't have Congress vote for collective action] Because contrary to the claims of some [who?], American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. [Repeating word Burden 3 times to make Americans feel we have carried so much weight for others. A lie.]
Real leadership [Like Obama?] creates the conditions and coalitions for others [others to work with NATO?] to step up as well; to work with allies and partners [fake coalition 25] so that they bear their share of the burden [4th time] and pay their share of the costs [Libya will have to pay to rebuild itself, just like Iraq. This is who will work with NATO]; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. [pure double speak]
That's the kind of leadership [savior 32] we
[Who is we? It is not Congress because they were bypassed. It is not NATO that USA controls. It is not Obama who is just a robot fulfilling plans laid decades before? Who is we? Who controls Council of Foreign Relations that Hillary bows to? Who times the orcheastrated events we witness?]
have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition [fake coalition 26], the risks [for civilians] of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya.
Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States [smear 34] – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country [Is he refering to Western meddling? Our attacks and crippling embargoes against any country that stands against Empire, like Libya or Cuba? ] – this American did not find enemies.
Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.” [No one would ever say that! Protecting the skies and forcing a food embargo on a country? This is all a lie.]
This voice is just one of many [fabricated lies] in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. [That would be the fully educated generation in Libya with highest income in Africa? This is nothing like the protestors of Egypt who are hungry because world food prices have been run up by commodity traders and manipulated oil price.]
Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries.
[It sounds like he is talking about the demand by youth for end of corruption and engineered disparity, but he will in next sentences redefine "change" as coming under the heel of empire as Iran had under the Shah and Iraq now has under military occupation. In this way he has co-opted the very essence of 'hope' which he had sold so well in his election campaign.]
And there will be places, like Iran, where change [Meaning youthful hopes?] is fiercely suppressed.
Obama just set his sights on Iran.... AGAIN.
"Coup 1953 of Iran is the CIA's (Central Intelligence Agency) first successful overthrow of a foreign government.
But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup [in Iran] has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil. .... The operation, code-named TP-AJAX, was the blueprint for a succession of CIA plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war - including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. In more than one instance, such operations led to the same kind of long-term animosity toward the United States that occurred in Iran.... "continue
Iranians threw Shah out in Iran's People Power 'Arab Spring' 30 years ago. They already had their overthrow of tyranny (US planted Shah who replaced democracy) and now Iran has large opposition demonstrations exactly like USA did in Wisconsin recently, and Seattle in WTO protests 1999. Protests are a sign of freedom and Iran has it. whereas now, in USA protests are NOT REPORTED because Lying Government / controlled media is terrified of snowball effect.
"Whenproperly translated the Iranian president actually calls for the removal of the regimes that are in power in Israel and in the USA as a goal for the future. Nowhere does he demand the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He called for greater governance for Palestine. The word map does not even feature. And the president makes plain that the Holocaust happened, but, he argues western powers have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialistic purposes. What the mainstream ran with is complete deception."
USA also lies about Iran nuclear intentions, while Iran allows IEAE inspections and is above board on its projects....
"The continuous efforts of the world's two militarist-aggressor states--the United States and Israel--to demonize Iran was addressed by Ahmadinejad in hisspeech to the UN General Assembly (September 23). Ahmadinejad spoke of the assault on human dignity and spiritual values by the selfish material interests of the US and its puppet states. Seeking hegemony "under the mantle of freedom," the US and its puppets use "the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit" to disguise that they are "the first who violate" the fundamental principles that they espouse and apply to others. " - Paul Craig Roberts
USA wants Iran oil. The question is whether Iranians would want an occupation like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? What is the reader's guess? Since none of these occupied countries were given a choice in taking "freedom" and are now killing USA troops as fast as possible, what is Obama's plans for Iran? Another occupation, as we can expect now in Libya "to maintain peace"?
This is the pattern and so, in the same speech he justifies the rape and looting of Libya he drops in the name Iran to prep everyone for the planned war "to save the yearning youth" of Iran.
The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
[What sectarian war? In Iran? Where? In Iraq 'sectarian' war is the excuse for continued USA presence. In fact, there is no sectarian war, there is a united front against USA occupation. How to keep the 'sectarian war ' myth alive? The way endless "sectarian conflict" is insured is by using false flag terrorism. If this is a new subject for reader, the reality is shocking. We can expect this to happen in Libya also. The USA will continue killing and claim it is sectarian inter-tribal conflict and this will justify a 'peace keeping force' (this was written Aug 25th). Will NATO use mercenaries, or risk NATO troops getting killed? Let us review the current policy of fomenting sectarian divisions in Iraq and Pakistan]
Kay Griggs, former wife of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel George Griggs, Chief of Staff, Marine Atlantic/Head of Psychological Operations, NATO, describes elements of de-stabilization programs....
"The evidence that the US directly contributed to the creation of the current civil war in Iraq by its own secretive security strategy is compelling. Historically of course this is nothing new - divide and rule is a strategy for colonial powers..."The Politics of Suicide in the Muslim World by Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq
Iraqi Terrorists Exposed as British Government Agent Provocateurs
"Lest we forget who the real Terrorists are… You might recall this incident in Iraq, back in September 2005. It's a rare instance where the perps of a false flag op were caught red-handed. Every time one hears of “terrorist” bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan, chances are it's US, Brit, or Mossad agents creating mayhem in order to justify the illegal occupations of these countries. Yet, the sheeple hardly give this a second thought — even after this incident was blown wide open in the MSM …continue here.
There are many many more articles on this. There are entire Departments and schools in Military devoted to false flag murder.
Video Below - Minister Farrakan to Obama on USA De-stabilization Policy [Powerful message - Starts out soft but principle makes him roar.]
[we return to speech]
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. [Interesting sentence.... is being able to dictate a consideration? Sounds like it.] Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. [We can send in mercenaries. That is what we did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya,and in fact all over the world.]
I believe that this movement of change [in this new double speak "movement of change" refers to New World Order ] cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside
[Exactly here he achievs the co-option. At first the 'movement of change' was youthful voices. But in this sentence 'movement of change is equated with....]
those who believe in the same core principles [$ and domination] that have guided us through many storms [what storms? Desert Storms?] our opposition to violence directed against one's own citizens
[It is opposite. the last thing Empire wants is a sovereign individual or community]
As we have studied, there is NO example of USA helping anyone without making a profit or gaining influence. USA core values, as shown by the financial plans of corporations in crushed Iraq, and now Libya, is a very far cry from 'youthful voices', but he spanned the gap with double speak.
It is vital for the reader to understand mind programming. The method is that if you listen enough times that 'slavery is freedom', you will believe it. Is the reader free? You work for 2 to 3 months per year to pay your federal income tax, and 94% of your tax will be to feed the military budjet based on fake "War on Terror", but you are free, right? You live in a 'free' country right? You live in a democracy right? You've been told this thousands of times. You have crossed your heart and said it. You have been told that slavery is freedom, and I'm sure the reader is thinking, "I am no slave". But you are being used. Let me please ask you again. Do you live in a free country?
How will your mind answer? Do you think you live in a free country where we are informed so we can make sound decisions? Or are we slaves of disinformation, sweating to pay for things we have no control over?
It is important to reprogram ourselves. We are slaves. We are slaves. We are slaves. Perhaps we should repeat that 10,000 times just to get things even, because until you realize that you have been used as theVeterans have, you will continue to be used. - Ray Songtree
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed [hope mantra 6] to be free [and created a Constitution which Obama is destroying. See index... No the revolution wasn't based on longing. It was based on principle. Obama sold us hope. He did this because he had no principles to offer. Ron Paul and Dennis Kuninich and McKinney and Farrakan don't sell hope. They stand by principle. ] , we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way.
[Young people are protesting, and CIA is moving in to co-opt. Remember what Kissinger said... crisis is an opportunity for a new world order. Does Obama support guerrilla fighters against outside empire the way Americans fought English Empire? If so, then he will like the Manifesto of 200 Libyan Tribes below]
Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. [Double speak. Where ever people want change, USA will promote instability to insert its own agents.]
Ultimately, it is that faith [hope mantra 7] – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. [So he equates himself, the leader against 'dark' Gaddafi as 'that faith'. Sound like another Savior 33]
[The arrogant attitude of superiority is that "America" is destined to lead everyone else and this justifies our huge military, where we 'lead' by covert and outright threats. Why are there US military bases on Venezuela borders now? Chavez is as good a leader as any in South America, but Venezuela has OIL!]
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict [which we fund] and change [Actual change is constant and intrinsic... but he defined change already. Change is domination by NWO, the opportunity for more centralization.] – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. [20% unemployment. So slaves, not only are you free, but you are strong at home.]
That must always be our North Star [Like the HAARP display over Oslo for Peace prize?] – the ability of our people to reach their potential [pay student loans, pay mortgages?], to make wise choices with our resources [Strip mine everything and drill no matter the risk], to enlarge the prosperity [the debt ceiling] that serves as a wellspring of our power [guns], and to live the values that we hold so dear. [ Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights... or... TSA, SWAT teams, wire tapping, dumbed down... what values are we living? Constitution or Patriot Act? Which?]
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people [?], as well as millions around the globe. [We killed millions in southeast Asia for what? World War I and II and the Bolshevics and Mao were all funded by Western bankers. What is he talking about?1.5 million in Iraq killed, for what?]
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia's infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s. Project Censored
We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light [hope mantra 7] of freedom and dignity. [Double Speak. Up equals down. He means New World Order which is no freedom and no dignity. Did he hypnotize you yet? He said it all many many many many times.]
Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times [the fooled an misused heroes], and the coalition [NATO fake coalition 27] that is carrying our [possessive pronoun] effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope [hope mantra 8] not only for our own country, but for all those yearning [hope mantra 9] for freedom [double speak] around the world. [where he wants to bring his brand of freedom... global] Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. [If you disagree with him you are going against God. Nice touch, used by every con man in every land in every era. Perhaps listening for Truth is more important than giving up our principles because someone invokes the name of God.]
Lets see if Obama did well by Hitler...
Adolf Hitler said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.'
And his propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, said: 'The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unlessone fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
Smeared Gaddafi 34 times, claimed USA and himself as Savior 32 times, mentioned a bogus 'international community" that excludes Germany, Asia, Africa, South America and Russia, that is really just USA controled and funded NATO, 27 times, and the Hope Mantra so that justice is always put off to the future and not based on principle 9 times.
Please consider this incredible amount of mind programming. And the entire purpose was to make night become day, and day become night. Gaddafi has been altruistic and is slandered to be a demon. USA is the most war mongering and murderous country in history and is portrayed as Savior.
Was that purpose of speech? It surely was not to inform, as it was all lies. So this is the Hitler technique, repeat the lie over and over and over again, so that every sentence includes a lie. In just over 100 sentences we see lies 34 times, 32 times, 27 times, and 9 times.
Did the hero save the damsel in distress from the Bad guy as the speech promises?
In Reality USA siezed Libya by the throat on completely fabricated charges. There was never violent suppression of demonstrations because there were no demonstrations.
The Obama Libya War Speech is comforting 'big daddy mind control' for those who have been conditioned to 'respect the President'. The cure for this disease is studying the truth, being shocked by the matrix of lies, rejecting belief in authority, and cultivating personal sovereignty. "I will never be a sheeple again!" "Not on my watch!." "Not with my taxes!" "Not in my community!" Replace "hope" with principle and we can save this world.
- Ray SongtreeAug 27, 2011
Would you like to create a new Curriculum of Honest History and Science for our schools. Become a member.
some LINKS to more Study
some links on Lockerbie 1988 Pan Am crash blamed on Libya
1. bionicboy.tripod.com/tragedy. html - The one given most credence is that Libya was behind the bombing - two .... 25/5/2000: An air accident investigator has told the Lockerbie trial there was a ... Protheroe testified in the specially built Scottish court in the Netherlands that he
2. Wikipedia , the official NWO disinformation rag, outlines the compensation Libya gave to victims in order to remove sanctions " On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that."
In other words, Libya always denied any involvement with Pan Am 103 crash.
3. Meanwhile, because of suppressed evidence, just like 911, there is a current Pan Am 103 jet crash truth movement in UK.
"On 2 September 2009, former MEP Michael McGowan demanded that the British Government call for an urgent, independent inquiry led by the UN to find out the truth about Pan Am flight 103. "We owe it to the families of the victims of Lockerbie and the international community to identify those responsible," In other words, many in UK know the Libya terrorist story was a lie.
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=24151 - Libya : Oil, Banks, the United Nations and America's Holy Crusade. by Felicity Arbuthnot. Global Research , April 5, 2011. Email this article to a friend. Print this .. ?
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=23833 - Putin Likens UN Security Council Resolution on Libya to a Medieval Crusade. Global Research , March 21, 2011. Russian Information Agency Novosti ...
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=23780 - UN Security Council Resolution on Libya : No Fly Zone and Other Measures. Global Research , March 18, 2011. Email this article to a friend. Print this article ...
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=23767 - Mar 18, 2011 – Global Economic Crisis ... Global Research RSS Feed ... Libya , Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations : Death and Destruction. ...
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=25494 - Jul 3, 2011 – France has become the first country openly to admit it has supplied the Libyan rebels with weapons – a measure banned by the UN Security ...
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=24154 - UN Praised Libya's Human Rights Record. Washington Attempted to Block Release of UNHRC Report. Global Research , April 5, 2011. Email this article to a ...
www. globalresearch .ca/index. php?context=va&aid=23847 - Obama's Bay of Pigs in Libya : Imperialist Aggression Shreds UN Charter. by Dr. Webster G. Tarpley. Global Research , March 22, 2011. http://tarpley.net/ ...
the global realm.com/.../ un - security-council-role-in- unleashing-an-ill... - Jul 28, 2011 – UN Security Council Role in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya . by Ronda Hauben Global Research July 20, 2011. Journalists Question ...
nwoobserver.wordpress.com/ 2011/04/.../ libya -the-price- of-freedom... -Apr 28, 2011 – Published: Apr. 27, 2011 – Global Research . Libya has the highest living standard in Africa. The “ United Nations Development Program ...
williambowles.info/.../ libyan - pm-urges- un -intervention-to- stop-nato... Jul 11, 2011 – NATO Prepares 'Humanitarian' Occupation Of Libya Thousands of NATO troops ... Global Research : NATO's Bloody War of Aggression in Libya ...
www.twf.org/News/Y2011/0308- Oil.html Mar 8, 2011 – While others clamor for a no-fly zone over Libya , the Libyan rebels' themselves ... Gulf Cooperation Council demands that the UN Security Council take all .... Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya ?," globalresearch .ca, March 7, 2011 ...
news-now.org/2011/.../susan- lindauer- libya 's-blood-oil- vampire-wa... Apr 2, 2011 – And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan .... Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: ...
"Queues of cars now wait for petrol in another oil rich country; other queues form, carrying containers for water. The multibillion dollar development of Libya's vast underground aquifers had been dubbed the “eighth wonder of the world. Libya`s water supply infrastructure has been been systematically bombed throughout the country.
Shops are without food.
The all is: “absolute disaster”, according to an eminent legal observer, very familiar with the country.
And with electricity largely off, those seeking knowledge as to whether friends and relatives are alive, injured, fled, dead, find internet, and phones dead.
As the terribly injured overwhelm hospitals, many are bombed, damaged or without power and pharmaceuticals.
No power: no incubators, life support machines or surgery.
Another country with a modern, developed infrastructure reduced to a pre-industrial age – with the rebuilding contracts reportedly already being divvied out – in the West....
A number of lunches later, on the 23rd August, NATO spokeswoman, Oana Lungesco, re-affirmed their “mandate to protect civilians.”
How this squares with hitting: “over five thousand [official figures] legitimate targets [in a] 24/7 operation [with] over twenty thousand sorties”, is confusing.
The actual number of strikes has not been reported. Its in the tens of thousands.
Equally so is how destruction of services essential to maintaining life, State institutions, schools, hospitals, archeological sites and treasures, attacking of all which is illegal under swathes of international law, are included in this “legitimacy.”
By September 1st, NATO operations from 31st March had reached: “a total of 21,090, including 7,920 strike sorties.”.....
“The international community will be watching and supporting” Libya, said Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, adding requirements to the new Libyan constitution. There is a “clear road map to democracy.” Afghan and Iraqi puppets, now joined by Libyan ones.
When it comes to the rebuilding of Libya, “investors can't call the tune”, was one theme, it must be “Libyan led.”
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague blew that lie. Britain, he said: “would not be left behind.” Much focus was on rebuilding the oil industry. Heaven forbid that too, follows the Iraq model, with the bereaved, dispossessed and invaded blowing up the pipelines – and contractors.....
“30 April 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli
30 April 2011: The bombing of a Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi, his friend and 3 Gaddafi children.
13 May 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim Imams in Brega.
12 June 2011: The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.
22 July 2011: The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water.
23 July 2011: The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.
8th August 2011: The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 human beings, many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international laws, and a most grievous crime.
9 August 2011: The bombing of the village of Majer, resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32 women and 20 men.
The persistent ongoing bombing of the civilian population in Zliten and Tripoli, death toll not yet established.
David Cameron has admitted that UK special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground, in defiance of the UN mandate.”
Today, Cameron has gone further, admitting that British forces played a: “key role.”
Who was Gaddafi?
A Story about Libya, the Great Man Made River, Psy-Op, and the use of Media. Audio only 25 minutes
We must cry to think that our tax dollars are paying to destroy other countries so we can steal their resources and enjoy the comfort of ignoring what we have done.
In destroying Libya's water infrastructure and even their water pipe factory, we can see the plan in Libya was to create a completely traumatized impoverished populace, dependent on NATO. More than that, in destroying archaeological sites, NATO= USA wants the cultural identity of the native people to be erased. Sovereignty must be destroyed in an oil colony.
But since we in the West will never hear what is really happening in Libya, we taxpayers now have
"plausible deniability" . With orchestrated controlled disinformation by mainstream media, our tax money can now go to crimes against humanity. We must do more than weep now. We must turn this around by educating our neighbors." - Ray Songtree