De Arabische lente, Libië & de NWO

[eefjewentelteefje]

U heeft gelijk dat er een niet democratisch gelegitimeerde internationale en machtige elite bestaat. Deze groep dient echter niet meer macht toegeschreven te worden dan het werkelijk heeft. Ook al is het moeilijk te bepalen hoeveel macht deze groep heeft. Ze worden immers niet democratisch gecontroleerd! Daarnaast bestaan er natuurlijk meer tegenstellingen dan die tussen de elite en de bevolking. De bevolking is geen homogene massa, hierin bestaan ook tegenstellingen, verschillende belangen etc.

[zonbron]

Syrië: Interventie onvermijdbaar
door Tony Cartalucci
Een aanzet tot de Derde Wereldoorlog ?

Syria: Intervention Inevitable
And the greater World War.
by Tony Cartalucci


We are presented with what we are told are isolated crises.
In reality, from Desert Storm to the Eastern European color
revolutions, to the "War on Terror" to the current "Arab Spring,"
we are witnessing one linear campaign for world domination -
the creation of what George Bush Sr. called "the New World Order."


Regime change in Syria was a foregone conclusion as early as 1991. General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech in California California relayed a 1991 conversation between himself and then Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz indicated that America had 5-10 years to clean up old Soviet "client regimes," namely Syria, Iran, and Iraq, before the next super power rose up to challenge western hegemony. The "next super power" includes ironically Russia, recovering from the treasonous attempted sellout by oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and of course a rising China.

Setting the Stage

The entire "Arab Spring" was a preplanned, meticulously engineered foreign-funded operation that began as early as 2008, with the West's imperial network of "civil society" and NGOs in place for decades. The New York Times has recently admitted as much in their article, "US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprising," implicating the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, Movements.org, and Freedom House for their roles in recruiting, training, and supporting the unrest.

As this plot unfolds, we see in hindsight that each destabilization was triggered and nurtured with a specific order in mind. Tunisia and Egypt were collapsed on either side of Libya while the tremors of destabilization shook the entire region in general, including in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The newly "reordered" Middle East would be extorted into backing Western military intervention in Libya, which was targeted next. The vulnerable governments of Tunisia and Egypt began serving as conduits for weapons and supplies to reach US-backed rebels in their bid to oust Qaddafi. Likewise, the grand prize in the Middle East being Iran, Syria is being systematically picked apart first to further weaken and isolate Tehran.

Iran itself has been under siege for years by covert operations including US special forces and intelligence operating inside Iran, training, arming and supporting terrorist organizations in activity against the government of Iran, as well as assassinations and sabotage of Iranian infrastructure. All of this has been meticulously documented, planned, and prepared amongst the pages of Brookings Institute's "Which Path to Persia?" report.

The corporate-financier funded think-tanks have reached the general consensus that their unipolar world order of "international law," and "international institutions" have primacy over national sovereignty and the time has come to assert such primacy or lose it. This was stated quite clearly within the corporate lined Brookings Institute report titled, " "Libya's Test of the New International Order" back in February 2011. In it they overtly state that intervening in Libya "is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people's region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law."

The globalist International Crisis Group, whose trustee Mohamed ElBaradei played a direct, hands-on role in overthrowing the government of Egypt on behalf of foreign interests, recently reiterated Brookings' sentiments in an article titled, "The Rise and Fall of International Human Rights," where once again "international law" and "international citizenship" is held above national sovereignty. The "responsibility to protect (R2P)" is cited as the impetus to assert such "international law." Considering that R2P is called on after foreign-funded sedition and violence is created within a target nation, we can see "international law" as the poorly dressed euphemism for imperial invasion that it is. The term "international" in fact describes the evolution of the Anglo-American empire as it absorbs and dismantles nation-states across the globe.



The Syrian port of Tartus (highlighted in orange) is set to
serve as a Russian naval base, upgraded this year and to
host Russian warships by 2012. This will allow Russia to
counteract NATO's aggressive encirclement of its borders.

The Build-up Against Syria

Syria is not only a defiant nation unwilling to participate in "globalization," it is also an integral part of both Iran's and Russia's growing counterbalance throughout the region, in direct contrast to Western hegemony. The Syrian port city of Tartus is being renovated and is set to host heavy Russian warships in a bid to establish a significant presence in the Mediterranean. This would counteract NATO's expansion along Russia's borders as well as keep in check Western fleets north of the Suez.

Syria has long served this purpose, with the Tartus facility having originally been opened in 1971 through an agreement with the Soviets. When Paul Wolfowitz was referring to Soviet "client regimes" in his 1991 conversation with Wesley Clark, this sort of challenge to Western hegemony was what he was referring to.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clark was again passed plans drawn to implement regime change throughout the Middle East, specifically to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing "Axis of Evil."

In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, "We're not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we're trying to do in countries around the globe. What's different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people."

Toner's remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.

In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

Senator Lieberman maybe US should intervene in Syria next.
VIDEO Lieberman on Syrian intervention.

The ripple effect of course are the uprisings themselves, facilitated by yet more aid, equipment, and the complicity of the corporate owned media, disingenuously portraying the events as "spontaneous," "genuine," and "indigenous." Recent calls have been made by US Senators Mark Kirk and Richard Blumenthal for a "non-military intervention" in Syria, while warmongering puppets Nicolas Sarkozy of France and US Senator Joe Lieberman used Libya's bombardment as a warning aimed specifically at Assad of Syria.

The Intervention Is Beginning

Now, in calls that echo the build-up to Libya's bombardment, US Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have made a joint statement that Assad has "lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria." They continued by stating, "Rather than hedging our bets or making excuses for the Assad regime, it is time for the United States, together with our allies in Europe and around the world, to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government."

The level of deception behind these comments is almost unimaginable, after the US State Department openly admitted to funding, training, organizing, and supporting this unrest to begin with. Compounding the intellectual dishonesty from which these three senators have made their treasonous comments from is the fact that each of them, in addition to their role as "elected representatives," are members of unelected, shadowy organizations that receive funding directly from US tax payers as well as corporate-financier interests to undermine and destroy foreign governments. McCain and Graham are both members of the International Republican Institute, openly implicated by the New York Times for their role in funding the "Arab Spring." Lieberman is a member of the Neo-Conservative war profiteering lobbying firm deceptively named, the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)."

FDD features many Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatories including William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Paula Dobriansky, as well as CFR members Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer, along with the disingenuous "War on Terror" paid propagandist Bill Roggio of the "Long War Journal." Shockingly, this cabal of warmongering liars, many of whom are responsible for reckless and disingenuous war propaganda films such as "Iranium" openly admits to being funded in part by the US State Department. It is amongst unelected, unaccountable organizations like the IRI and FDD that US foreign policy reaches foregone conclusions, with propaganda like "Iranium" left to sell these conclusions to an unwitting, immensely ignorant public.

The chatter amongst the corporate funded think-tanks such as the Brookings Institute has reached a crescendo in their calls for Assad to step down. As in Libya, the calls are based on unverified, purposefully ambiguous reports of violence squarely blamed on the ruling regime. Regardless of reports of armed groups working amongst the protesters, the corporate owned media and the think-tanks that hand them their talking points maintain that the protests are peaceful and that crackdowns are "repressive."

In Brookings' latest piece, "In Syria, Assad Must Exit the Stage" the cycle of violence initiated by "mysterious gunmen" targeting funerals is cited as the line Assad had crossed which now requires his departure from power. The article states, "With the cycle of ever-increasing protests met by regime violence and then more funerals intensifying in all areas of the country, it is time for Assad, the "Hamlet" of the Arab world, to consider his future. It is time for him and those who influence him abroad to search for a swift and orderly exit." As evidence begins to trickle out confirming Assad's accusations of armed elements amongst the protesters, as well as possible foreign gunmen being employed to create broader unrest, just as in Libya, the West rushes forward to initiate irreversible intervention.

The Greater World War

With the broad level of openly engineered destabilization aimed not only at the Middle East but at Moscow, Beijing and their peripheries as well, there is little chance the West will call off their gambit now. There is no retreat or return to normalcy for a world now locked in increasingly aggressive confrontation between the Anglo-American empire and the remaining nation-states. It is an all or nothing gambit being executed by a financially and strategically precarious West rushing to complete an agenda at least 2 decades in the making. Syria and ultimately Iran will not escape this campaign without confronting and confounding the real force behind the destabilization.

Video George Bush New World Order
World government is most certainly a conspiracy, but by no means
merely a theory. Here Bush calls for a "New World Order."

This is not an isolated, regional conflict, this is the first step toward greater world war. The destabilization extends from Tunisia to Thailand, from Belarus to Beijing. There are rumblings of confrontation and the positioning of strategic pieces well beyond the current "Arab Spring."

The rest of the world, including the people of the West who will bear the brunt of the West's failure or success with equal destitution, must recognize and reject this megalomania-fueled self-serving campaign. We must begin generating a new consensus based on individual and national sovereignty, reclaim the responsibilities we have pawned off to these mega-corporate-financier interests along with the terrible power they now wield because of our continued complicity, apathy, and ignorance. After Syria and Iran, comes Moscow and Beijing. It is unlikely such conflicts will remain confined to far off regions of the world pictured on our TV screens - just as unlikely those that initiated this confrontation will pay with their own blood and treasure before we the people are all thrown into the crucible of war and consumed entirely.

Bron + meer Links
Landdtroyer

[zonbron]

VN trekt zich terug uit Tripoli, leger beschiet haven Misurata

De Verenigde Naties (VN) gaan hun personeel uit de Libische hoofdstad Tripoli terugtrekken. Dat is het gevolg van een aanval op de VN-gebouwen door een woedende menigte. Inmiddels hebben troepen van Kadhafi de haven van de rebellenstad Misurata onder vuur genomen.


De betogers reageerden boos op het feit dat de voorbije nacht de zoon en drie kleinkinderen van kolonel Kadhafi zijn omgekomen bij een luchtaanval van de NAVO. Het transatlantische bondgenootschap opereert met een VN-mandaat.

De VN verhuist nu twaalf van haar internationale personeelsleden naar Tunesië. "Daar blijven ze aan de slag", aldus een VN-woordvoerder. De bedoeling is om terug naar Tripoli te keren eenmaal de situatie is gekalmeerd.

De VN coördineren de humanitaire hulp in Libië. Op 17 april werd hierover een akkoord afgesloten met de Libische regering. In de rest van het land, onder meer in Misurata en Benghazi, blijft de VN aanwezig.

Ambassades
Woedende manifestanten staken de afgelopen avond ook de ambassades van Italië en Groot-Brittannië in brand. De Verenigde Staten veroordelen de aanvallen, en zien ze opnieuw als een teken dat het regime van Kadhafi faalt in zijn verplichtingen tegenover de internationale gemeenschap.

"We hebben verslagen gezien waaruit blijkt dat Britse, Italiaanse en Amerikaanse diplomatieke faciliteiten in Tripoli werden aangevallen. Het Verdrag van Wenen vereist nochtans dat het regime de ambassades beschermt", luidt het. Groot-Brittannië heeft de Libische ambassadeur in Londen al het land uitgewezen.

Excuses
De Libische overheid heeft vannacht excuses aangeboden voor de verwoestingen bij een aantal Europese ambassades. De politie zou een menigte boze mensen niet in de hand hebben gehad, nadat bekend was geworden dat de zoon van Kadhafi was omgekomen.

De onderminister van Buitenlandse Zaken Khaled Kaim liet weten dat Libië de schade zal inspecteren en zal herstellen. Hij stelde dat onder meer de ambassade's van Groot-Brittannië en Italië het doelwit waren van de betogers. Ook een aantal panden van de Verenigde Staten zou zijn beschadigd.

Meer... HLN

[zonbron]

Middle East: The Rest of the Story

De controversiële Lindsey Williams behandelt volgende onderwerpen:

-The Middle East Crisis.
-Future Price of Crude Oil.
-Future Price of Gasoline and Diesel.
-Future Grocery Prices.
-Explosive Growth to US Crude production.
-Elite Plans through 2012.
-China and the US.
-The Future of Islam.
-Riots in the Middle East.
And Other Information never told before.

Video

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Red Panda

Hij zou zichzelf mentaal beter eens laten behandelen.

Te oud daarvoor, kromme takken kan je niet meer recht laten groeien.

[zonbron]

Mr. Obama moet de acties van de V.S. in Libie NU rechtvaardigen, zijn tijd is op...

Boehner gives Obama Friday deadline on Libya


Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, assails President Obama on jobs creation, following a GOP political strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 14, 2011. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Stepping up a simmering constitutional conflict, House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama on Tuesday that unless he gets authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification by Friday for committing troops to Libya.

Sunday marks the 90th day since the president notified Congress that U.S. troops had been committed to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, which is designed to protect the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.

“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter.

The White House has repeatedly said it has complied with the law by alerting Congress to the initial deployment, and by testifying at more than 10 hearings and providing 30 follow-up briefings about the pace and extent of U.S. troops’ commitment.

But the administration has never sought approval from Congress.

“We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya,” White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Tuesday evening, adding that the administration also will present its legal analysis of the War Powers Resolution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but makes the president commander-in-chief. Those dual roles have caused tension throughout the nation’s history.

...

washingtontimes

[zonbron]

Steeds meer juridische druk op Mr. Obama...

Obama facing lawsuit over US role in Libya

ELEANOR HALL: Ten US congressmen, Republican and Democrat, are suing Barack Obama arguing that he exceeded his powers in authorising the operation in Libya.

They filed their lawsuit in the Federal Court and told reporters that they want to correct a power imbalance in Washington over who has the right to send Americans to war.

The Republican speaker is also warning the White House that it's fast running up against a 90 day deadline to win congressional approval or withdraw US forces.

In Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie reports.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Meet House of Representatives member, Democrat Dennis Kucinich from Ohio.

DENNIS KUCINICH: They spent $750 million on this war in Libya and what's that. We tell the people of the United States that that is not a war. We can't mince words here. You know, if it looks like a war it's a war.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: He's one of 10 congressmen - four Democrats and six Republicans - suing Barack Obama, asking a Federal Court judge to rule that the mission in Libya is illegal and must stop.

DENNIS KUCINICH: And to say that just because we don't have boots on the ground it's not a war, huh? I mean there is bombing that has occurred, we have had planes over there. We've got ships off shore that have been, that launched attacks. You cannot claim, you can't claim that this isn't a war.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Republican speaker John Boehner has sent a warning letter to the White House about the approach of a 90 day deadline under the War Powers Resolution for the president to seek congressional approval or withdraw US forces supporting the NATO mission.

Some Republicans are talking about cutting off funding.

Veteran senator Joe Lieberman says the White House has only itself to blame.

JOE LIEBERMAN: I don't think that the White House has done a good enough job at explaining why we're there and I think that is critically important now as there is an uprising to actually cut funding off.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: In a letter to Congress the president says US support for NATO in Libya amounts to intelligence, logistics, search and rescue, aircraft support for the no-fly zone and drone strikes.

The White House has also sent a 32 page report to Capitol Hill laying out the legal basis for the mission. Officials say there are no US troops on the ground and no sustained fighting and the president isn't exceeding his authority.

White House spokesman Jay Carney.

JAY CARNEY: We believe that the report that we will be sending up to Congress later today answers a lot of the questions that members have, continues a process of consultation that has been broad and deep.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Duke University Law Professor Scott Silliman is an expert on the War Powers. While he says it's unusual for military action to last for nearly three months without congressional approval, he doubts the courts will take it up, saying a political accommodation is far more likely.

SCOTT SILLIMAN: The Congress will get some assurances from the president that he will keep them informed with regard to continued US forces use in Libya and they will then pass a resolution or a statute which will then satisfy them with regard to the provisions of this War Powers Resolution. Again I think the members of the Congress and the president's staff know that the courts are very unlikely to intervene in this case. So they are both trying to politically manoeuvrer into the best position.

CRAIG MCMURTRIE: As a candidate and former lecturer on constitutional law, Barack Obama argued for congressional approval in times of war, but he isn't the first president to order military action without it.

The White House argues that it isn't required because the US role in Libya is now so minor.
(boots????)
It'll make for interesting conversation this weekend when the Republican speaker and US president swap the corridors of power for the greens and fairways of a leisurely round of golf. It is the first time they've played together.

This is Craig McMurtrie for The World Today.

ABC

[zonbron]

Obama mag blijkbaar spoedig naar de rechtbank...

Airing Date June.15, 2011

Rand Paul & Dennis Kucinich Talk About Obama Libya Lawsuit On CNN

Video

[zonbron]

R2P in actie.

Beelden van (jonge) Libische slachtoffers (RT TV)

WAARSCHUWING: Bijzonder grafisch, niet voor gevoelige mensen.

De link is niet aanklikbaar, C/P en verwijder de X in httpX.

Extremely graphic footage: Libyan children killed by NATO bombs
httpX://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKY2F8jy4U

[zonbron]

Playboy Saif's web of connections to the rich and powerful

...
He also rubbed shoulders with then business secretary Lord Mandelson at a shooting party in Buckinghamshire in 2009.
The playboy also became adept at using his flawless English accent, albeit spoken with a slight stammer, to cultivate the most influential guests at his regular Royal Suite at Claridges hotel or the lavish parties he threw in St Tropez and Monaco.
Prince Andrew, former British trade envoy, developed a relationship with the richest and most powerful of Gaddafi’s nine children.
With such connections, in 2003 Saif was able to negotiate personally with MI6 to assure Britain that his father’s regime would give up its nuclear weapons programme in return for being allowed to do business once again with the West.
...
Saif, meanwhile, struck up an acquaintance with Oleg Deripaska, the controversial Russian who made a killing by taking control of his country’s aluminium industry in the 1990s.
Deripaska was a guest at a summer party at the Rothschild house on Corfu in 2008 when Mandelson and George Osborne, the then shadow chancellor, were guests. Saif, too, stayed with the Rothschilds on Corfu and also met Mandelson there.
Saif’s relationship with Nat Rothschild and Deripaska is believed to be the motivation behind Libya’s decision to invest $300million in Deripaska’s aluminium business last year.
It goes without saying, perhaps, that should Saif choose one day to reveal the secrets of his connections and business dealings in open court, some of his influential friends could be embarrassed.
...

Dailymail

[zonbron]

Wat ging er fout met Libië ? Libië en de goudstandaard, een mogelijke verklaring...

Do You believe Reuters Song "Libya has NO DEMOCRACY?"

ELOQUENT FACTS OF THE SOCIALIST LIBYA:

* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - $ 0.14.
Video

[Johan Bollen]

vanuit die hoek had ik het nog niet bekeken. De WSJ vandaag

The military campaign over Libya has delivered a serious blow to a project long nurtured at the heart of the European Union: a European military capability independent of the U.S., defense analysts and officials say.

Libyan rebel fighters stood Thursday on an SA-5 SAM missile at the Burkan air defense military base, which was destroyed by a NATO airstrike.

For years, the EU sought to build what came to be called its Common Security and Defense Policy as some nations, led by France, wanted the freedom to act militarily without Washington's interference.

For Paris, this meant creating a military command structure and forces separate from the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This vision has never come close to fruition, not least because the U.S. and U.K. saw it as duplicating NATO's role.

Ironically, it was the first-ever NATO military operation to be led by Europeans, with the U.S. deciding to take a back seat, that suggests that ambition may never be fulfilled.

Nu blijkt de NATO operatie in Libië ook nog eens slecht voor Europese onafhankelijkheid volgens VS media. In de VS zullen ze dat niet betreuren.

[zonbron]

Opmerkelijk. En nog uit datzelfde WSJ artikel

Only a minority of European countries wanted to get involved in Libya—even though it was a relatively uncontroversial mission with a United Nations mandate in Europe's "backyard." This exposed the deeply divergent views within Europe about the utility of military force, with Germany the most powerful skeptic. That makes a common defense policy very difficult to realize.

"The idea that Libya now ushers in a golden dawn for European security and defense—far from it," said Giles Merritt, director of the Security and Defence Agenda, a Brussels-based discussion forum.

[corse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L6vA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q&NR=1

[zonbron]

De heropbouw kan beginnen...

Thursday, September 1, 2011
Globalists to Rebuild Libya
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The war is far from over - in fact, Libya's rebels have yet to actually take Tripoli, with entire sections of the city still being contested. Furthermore, entire cities, including Sirte, Bani Waled, and Libya's entire interior still stand completely under the Libyan government's control and have repelled rebels continuously over the last two weeks even with brutal NATO bombings and the expressed desire to purposefully starve their populations into submission. Despite this, the corporate media has committed to an endless mantra of "the victorious rebels" and are focused, however unrealistically, on quickly "rebuilding Libya." Not surprisingly, this "rebuilding" will be done according to Wall Street and London's designs, not those of the Libyan people.

Photo: Puppets amongst puppets. Gerbril and Jalil are pictured here flanked by their European sponsors, without whom they and the contrived "National Transitional Council" would not exist. With Tripoli still contested, these two "leaders" have been making the majority of "their" dictates from Doha and Paris.

The Atlantic Council, a Fortune 500-funded think tank whose entire existence consists of perpetuating the collective interests of the global corporate-financier elite (including Shell, BP, Chevron, Exxon and a myriad of military industrial corporations), encapsulates the "coached" nature of Libya's rebuilding in an article appropriately titled, "Rebuilding Libya." In the opening sentence, it is conceded, however weaselly worded, that fighting is still ongoing in Tripoli. Additionally, the article, written by Washington insiders, also concedes that the rebels represent "only a spectrum of Cyrenaican (i.e. Eastern Libyan) interests aligned with the NATO countries."


Despite both the rebels' tenuous tactical reality and their non-existent legitimacy, coupled with now open knowledge that their fighters are led by notorious terrorists drawn from the most extreme ranks of Al Qaeda, the Atlantic Council article soldiers on claiming Libya's "immense resource wealth, small population, and ability to attract foreign investment and expertise" will help its prospects for sustainable economic growth. The article takes special care to provide advice on how Western powers can avoid appearing to be engaged in "neo-colonialism" by carefully prodding along the development of this contrived puppet regime using "carrots and sticks." The article also suggests that those serving Qaddafi's government be utilized in building up the rebels' regime to avoid a prolonged power vacuum and the accompanying instability such a vacuum engenders - instability that is already prevalent in the wake of NATO's bombs and the following onslaught of the Benghazi rebels.

Meer...

activistpost

[zonbron]

Martelpraktijken in Libie in samenwerking van MI6 & CIA ? Cameron vraagt een onderzoek.

Libya rendition claims: David Cameron calls for inquiry

5 September 2011 Last updated at 15:35


Allegations that MI6 was involved in the rendition of Libyan terror suspects should be examined by an independent inquiry, David Cameron has said.

It comes after papers suggesting close ties between MI6, the CIA and the Gaddafi regime were found in Tripoli.

An anti-Gaddafi military leader says he wants the UK and US to apologise for organising his 2004 transfer to Libya.

An existing inquiry into allegations of UK security agencies' involvement in torture has said it will investigate.
'Deserves apology'

Abdel Hakim Belhaj says he was taken to Libya in a CIA and MI6 operation, after being arrested in Bangkok, and tortured and imprisoned.

bbc

[zonbron]

Libie, grondig verwoest...

Deze situatie wordt nu door de hypocrieten gebruikt om de Amerikaanse gungrabbers te verdedigen.

Kan het nog gekker?

Guardian - Libya's guns, gangs and the liberation of a masculine sickness
13 maart 2013 - In Benghazi or a US suburb, the gun is a devil whispering to masculine hearts. This picture is less about freedom than power

Libyans celebrate the second anniversary of the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Are the guns in this photograph weapons or toys? The young men flaunting them look like they could have been playing with plastic guns not so many years ago, but the armoury they display here on the streets of Benghazi in Libya is very real.

These youths, dressed half militarily, half casually – note the baseball cap, the low jeans – are driving round streets that apart from them, look empty. Well you wouldn't want to risk a stray bullet as these heroes celebrate the second anniversary of the uprising that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. While the khaki- and camouflage-clad pair in the foreground look more or less like some kind of trained soldier with an official role, the car behind them is manned by equally well-armed kids whose dress and behaviour – the hooded youth raises a pistol wildly – is more gangsterish than military.

[zonbron]

Besluit :


NATO’s War on Libya and Africa

NATO’s war in Libya was proclaimed as a humanitarian intervention — bombing in the name of “saving lives.” Attempts at diplomacy were stifled. Peace talks were subverted. Libya was barred from representing itself at the UN, where shadowy NGOs and “human rights” groups held full sway in propagating exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and racial fear mongering that served to sanction atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the name of democracy. The rush to war was far speedier than Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Max Forte has scrutinized the documentary history from before, during, and after the war. He argues that the war on Libya was not about human rights, nor entirely about oil, but about a larger process of militarizing U.S. relations with Africa. The development of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, or AFRICOM, was in fierce competition with Pan-Africanist initiatives such as those spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi.

Far from the success NATO boasts about or the “high watermark” proclaimed by proponents of the “Responsibility to Protect,” this war has left the once prosperous, independent and defiant Libya in ruin, dependency and prolonged civil strife.


Slouching Towards Sirte:
NATO’s War on Libya and Africa

Bron:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/slouchi...africa/5325699




A War for Human Rights?

The war in Libya never happened. At least that is what one might think, considering the dearth of serious analysis and critical reflection in Canada since our participation in NATO’s bombardment campaign ended a year ago. Yet in Libya, in many ways the war is still happening. If we (we as in all the federal political parties) thought we could bomb a country into democracy and respect for human rights, we were worse than just naïve. We were guilty of hiding our motivations, and guilty of ignoring the consequences of our actions.

How the war was sold to the public needs to be revisited lest we treat war as merely a temporary spectacle of no consequence. We were told that Muammar Gaddafi threatened mass atrocities, even “genocide,” against Benghazi. We were told that he fueled his troops with Viagra, so they could go on a systematic spree of mass rape. We were told that he used the air force against unarmed, peaceful protesters. We were told that he imported African mercenaries to butcher his opposition. And we were told that our military intervention would save lives and was designed to protect civilians.

The problem is that none of that was true.

This was instead a series of “incubator baby” stories on steroids: exaggerate and repeat such fabrications often enough and some of it might seep into public “consciousness” as if it were fact.

We were also told that if we failed to act in “stopping” Gaddafi, that it would make us complicit and responsible for allowing his atrocities to happen. Failure to act, makes us responsible for the actions of others. Yet when we did act, we refused to be held accountable for our own actions. This “logic” is the kind of moral dualism that interventionists swear by. No one else is allowed to kill civilians: that’s our prerogative.

NATO member states, such as Canada, and their chief spokesmen never failed to label every armed action against Libyan forces as “protecting civilians.” What NATO’s “protection” actually involved should alarm and upset everyone.

On numerous occasions, NATO refused to protect innocent civilians and knowingly let them die. This was the case with over 1,500 African refugees who died at sea, fleeing Libya, while in close proximity to NATO vessels that monitored all traffic and blockaded Libya’s ports, with some vessels coming into direct contact. The European Council, the Italian government, Amnesty International, and a report by Goldsmiths all faulted NATO for violating international law in ignoring the pleas for help of refugees that were adrift and dying. This is a serious crime under international law. No one has been held accountable.

On other occasions, NATO jets and drones specifically and knowingly targeted civilians. These were the findings of both an Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya and even Amnesty International. In a case that occurred in Sirte on September 15, 2011, NATO missiles struck and killed 47 civilian rescuers. This is what is now referred to as “double tapping,” an established U.S. practice that was shockingly documented in the “Collateral Murder” video from Iraq and by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Civilian men coming to the aid of those who have been attacked have been redefined by the U.S. government as not being civilian, merely for being able-bodied men of combat age.

In other cases, NATO along with their allies on the ground, the Libyan insurgents that we illegally armed, announced phony ceasefires to allow civilians to leave targeted cities (yes, we targeted cities, and we demolished them too: e.g. Sirte). This was merely to allow the resupply of the insurgents, and NATO in some cases did not cease its bombardments. Nor were the aerial attacks as “precise” and “surgical” as was claimed (language we choose to make us sound like healthcare providers).

Our intervention not only prolonged and escalated Libya’s conflict, it enabled mass atrocities by the insurgents we supported. Mass detentions, abductions, torture, racist lynching, and the ethnic cleansing of whole towns have resulted. Never under Gaddafi had such widespread atrocities been reported. Yet we would not be accountable. Indeed, we don’t even like to talk about such matters.

We acted to bring about regime change. We specifically targeted Gaddafi and his family for assassination. And then, like Hillary Clinton, some of us gloated.

We make others suffer, so we can fancy ourselves as nurses bearing a cure. Benghazi was “saved,” but only so that Sirte could be reduced to rubble—jaw-dropping destruction that had many visitors draw parallels with Stalingrad and Grozny. We claimed this was for “human rights,” but our actions tell the opposite story. We did this to destroy independent African integration efforts, to return Africa to its proper place as our foreign reservation, with its petroleum, minerals, and construction contracts placed in our hands. You might not like to read such things, but that is no excuse for the absolute silence on Libya, and what we did there. Lest we forget.

-Maximilian Forte

Bron :

http://thepoliticalbouillon.com/en/a...-human-rights/

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Syrië: Interventie onvermijdbaar
door Tony Cartalucci
Een aanzet tot de Derde Wereldoorlog ?

Ondertussen zijn we reeds bijna 2 jaar verder, en nog steeds geen wereldoorlog.
BTW : ik las precies hetzelfde in 1991, tijdens de eerste Golfoorlog in Irak, de vraag werd ook gesteld "Een aanzet tot de Derde Wereldoorlog ?", met dezelfde argumenten en conclusies.
We zijn ondertussen 22 jaar verder en ik heb er niets van gemerkt, van die wereldoorlog. Of heb ik iets gemist?

Ik geef u hier een reactietje, want heel die draad is eigenlijk een monoloog.