BBC “Reveals” After the Facts how British Special Forces Supervised and Spearheaded Libya Rebels to Victory


BBC “Reveals” After the Facts how British Special Forces Supervised and Spearheaded Libya Rebels to Victory

By Global Research

BBC "Reveals" After the Facts how British Special Forces Supervised and Spearheaded Libya Rebels to Victory

In a failed attempt to appear unbiased  and objective, the BBC now “reveals”, almost a year after the information was relayed by several alternative media, that British Special Forces played a key role in steering and supervising Libya’s “freedom fighters” to victory.  Known and documented many of these so-called rebels were mercenaries under contract to NATO.

British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground – and on the quiet – special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters: 

This is the previously untold BBC account of the crucial role part played by British and Allied Special Forces in leading the insurrection largely integrated by Al Qaeda’s affiliated operatives:  

In the end, though, British special forces were deployed on the ground in order to help the UK’s allies – the Libyan revolutionaries often called the National Transitional Council or NTC. Those with knowledge of the programme insist “they did a tremendous job” and contributed to the final collapse of the Gaddafi regime. Multiple radios indicate sophisticated coordination of forces The UK’s policy for intervention evolved in a series of fits and starts, being changed at key points by events on the ground. The arguments about how far the UK should go were thrashed out in a series of meetings of the National Security Council at Downing Street. Under the chairmanship of Prime Minister David Cameron, its key members were Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards Defence Secretary Liam Fox Foreign Secretary William Hague Mr Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, was a key voice in urging action following start of the Libyan revolution last February, say Whitehall insiders

The existence of E Squadron is well-known within the special forces community but has not hitherto been discussed publicly. It was formed five years ago to work closely with the intelligence service MI6, and is mainly involved in missions where maximum discretion is required, say Whitehall insiders.

Last March’s debacle, in which six members of the squadron were caught in Libya, was highly embarrassing. The reason for their presence, escorting two people from MI6, gives a clue to the facilitating role they often play in foreign intelligence operations in risky places.

According to special forces people, E Squadron is a composite organisation formed from selected SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment operators. It is not technically part of the SAS or SBS, but at the disposal of the Director of Special Forces and MI6.

The squadron often operates in plain clothes and with the full range of national support, such as false identities, at its disposal.

… The first significant involvement of British forces inside Libya was a rescue mission mounted just a couple of weeks after the rising against Gaddafi broke out. On 3 March, Royal Air Force C130 aircraft were sent to a desert airstrip at Zilla in the south of the country to rescue expatriate oil workers. Many had been threatened by gunmen and bandits.

…. Accompanying the flights were about two dozen men from C Squadron of the Special Boat Service (SBS), who helped secure the landing zone. It was a short-term and discreet intervention that saved the workers from risk of abduction or murder, and caused little debate in Whitehall.

Events, though, were moving chaotically and violently onwards, with the Libyan armed forces breaking up and Benghazi emerging as the centre of opposition. The government sought to open contacts with the National Transitional Council both overtly and covertly.

It was the undercover aspect of this relationship that almost brought Britain’s wider attempt to help the revolution to grief. The Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, sought to step up communications with some of its contacts in the opposition. It was decided to send a pair of the service’s people to a town not far from Benghazi to meet one of these Libyans.

… In planning this operation, SIS chose to use a highly sensitive arm of the special forces, E Squadron, in order to look after its people. Six members of E Squadron, which is recruited from all three Tier 1 units (SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment) duly boarded the Chinook to “mind” the intelligence people.

They were equipped with a variety of weapons and secure communications gear. In keeping with E Squadron’s sensitive role, they were in plain clothes or black jumpsuits (accounts vary), and carried a variety of passports.

The Libyan revolution, like many others, was accompanied by a good deal of paranoia about foreign mercenaries and spies, and the British party could not have appeared more suspicious. They were detained and taken to Benghazi, the men on the ground having decided that to open fire would destroy the very bridge-building mission they were engaged in.

When, on 19 March, Colonel Gaddafi’s tanks were bombed as they entered Benghazi, the conflict entered a dramatically different phase. High-profile military action was underway  and the leaders of the UK, US, and France were increasingly committed to the overthrow of the Libyan leader.

Yet key figures in the Downing Street discussions were convinced that air strikes alone would not achieve the result they wanted. At sessions of the National Security Council, Gen Richards and Mr Fox made the case for planning to provide training and equipment for the revolutionary forces of the NTC.

At a meeting near the end of March, we have been told, authorisation was given to take certain steps to develop the NTC’s embryonic ground forces. This involved the immediate dispatch of a small advisory team, and the longer-term development of a “train and equip” project. Ministers were advised, say those familiar with the discussion, that this second part of the plan would take at least three months to implement.

The first and most basic task of the advisory team was to get the various bands of Libyan fighters roaring around in armed pickup trucks under some sort of central coordination. As reporters had discovered, most of these men had little idea of what they were doing, and soon panicked if they thought Col Gaddafi’s forces were attacking or outflanking them.

There were a number of legal issues preventing them giving more help. Some Whitehall lawyers argued that any type of presence on the ground was problematic. Legal doubts were raised about arming the NTC or targeting Col Gaddafi.

Once the air operation was put on a proper Nato footing, these issues became even more vexed, insiders say, with the alliance saying it would not accept men on the ground “directing air strikes” in a way that some newspapers, even in late spring, were speculating was already happening.

The British government’s desire to achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi while accommodating the legal sensitivities registered by various Whitehall departments led to some frustration among those who were meant to make the policy work.

Miusrata rebels used sophisticated range-finders to adjust artillery fire and co-ordinate Nato air strikes “It just seemed to me an unnecessarily muddled way of going about a business that we all knew the underlying aims of,” said one. “It was almost as if we have lost the ability to define a clear objective and go for it.”

However, the accidental bombing of NTC columns by Nato aircraft in early April provided those who wanted more direct assistance with a powerful argument. British and French officers on the ground were permitted to coordinate more closely with the NTC for the purposes of “deconfliction” or preventing such accidental clashes from happening again.

Under the deconfliction rubric, British advisers made their way to places like Misurata, then under siege, where the RAF was focusing its air strikes. The stage was set then for months of bombing which, as it progressed, both exhausted the stocks of precision weapons available to some Nato allies and the patience of many politicians for what was going on. Insiders say that, discreetly, they were soon doing more than deconfliction, actually coordinating certain Nato air attacks.

Taking as his cue the March approval in principle for a training programme,Gen Richards had started a series of low profile visits to Doha, the capital of Qatar.

This Gulf emirate had taken a leading role in backing the NTC, and its defence chief was by June brokering an agreement with the UK and France to provide material back-up as well as training for the NTC.

France was to prove more forward-leaning than the UK in this, and by August was providing weapons to NTC units in the Nefusa mountains of western Libya. The UK, meanwhile, had agreed to focus its efforts in the east of the country. It was as part of this new effort that British special forces returned to Libya.

Although plenty of people in Whitehall still remembered the March debacle, it was agreed to allow a limited number of British advisers to take a direct part in training and mentoring NTC units in Libya. Sources say the number of men sent from D Squadron of 22 SAS Regiment was capped at 24. They were performing their mission by late August.

While France and Qatar were ready to provide weapons directly, the UK was not. However, this made little practical difference since the SAS was operating closely with Qatar special forces who had reportedly delivered items such as Milan anti-tank missiles.

Anti-tank missile in Sirte, of the type believed to have been supplied by Qataris There were some suggestions from Whitehall that the training itself should be conducted outside Libya in order to remain within the narrow interpretation of the UN resolution, but the SAS was apparently soon present at a base in southern Libya.

… During the months that this project had taken to come to fruition, the slow grinding down of Gaddafi’s forces by air attack had continued. Soon after the foreign trainers arrived, NTC units swept into Tripoli.

…. The SAS had meanwhile strayed beyond its training facility, with single men or pairs accompanying the NTC commanders that they had been training back to their units. They dressed as Libyans and blended in with the units they mentored, says someone familiar with the operation.

There had been concerns that they would be spotted by the press, but this did not happen. “We have become a lot better at blending in,” says someone familiar with the D Squadron operation. “Our people were able to stay close to the NTC commanders without being compromised.”

Instead, as the revolutionaries fought their way into Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte, they were assisted by a handful of British and other special forces. Members of the Jordanian and United Arab Emirates armies had fallen in behind the Qataris too.

When, on 20 October, Gaddafi was finally captured and then killed by NTC men, it followed Nato air strikes on a convoy of vehicles carrying leading members of the former regime as they tried to escape from Sirte early in the morning. Had British soldiers on the ground had a hand in this? Nobody will say yet.

In keeping with its long-standing policies on special forces and MI6 operations, Whitehall has refrained from public statements about the nature of assistance on the ground. The Ministry of Defence reiterated that policy when asked to comment on this story.

Speaking at a public event late last year, though, Gen Richards commented that the NTC forces “were the land element, an ‘army’ was still vital”. He also noted that “integrating the Qataris, Emiratis and Jordanians into the operation was key”. He did not, however, allude to the presence of more than 20 British operators on the ground.

British sources agree Qatar played a leading role – and accept it put more soldiers in than the UK – but question whether the number was this large. Around the more secret parts of Whitehall, the suggestion is that the number committed on the ground by all nations probably did not exceed a couple of hundred.

As for Britain’s decision finally to deploy an SAS squadron, “they made a fantastic difference“, argues one insider.

It is part of the essence of troops of this kind that they often operate in secrecy, providing their political masters with policy options that they might not wish to own up to publicly.

But given that the UK’s earlier relationship with Col Gaddafi and his intelligence services caused great embarrassment, it could be that attention will one day focus more closely on British assistance to the NTC, particularly if the Libyan revolution comes unstuck.” BBC“ UK’s secret mission to beat Gaddafi”: (emphasis added)

What is disturbing in this January 2012 scoop BBC is that the facts were known to the Western media in March 2011 and were deliberately withheld until the war was over. Global Research reported on the presence of U.K. Special Forces as far back as early March 2011:

US and allied special forces are on the ground in Eastern Libya, providing covert support to the rebels [...] This was recognized when British SAS Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region. They were acting as military advisers to opposition forces. (Michel Chossudovsky, Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d’Etat in Libya?, Global Research, March 7, 2011.)

As for the MI6 and the British Special Forces, agents were captured early in March by the rebels who had mistaken them for enemy spies. British intelligence was allegedly on the ground to establish connections with the rebellion, which the were apparently not aware of. (Julie Lévesque,Libya: Media Propaganda and “Humanitarian Imperialism”, Global Research, April 10, 2011.)

It has been reported that dozens of British agents and commandos from MI6, the Special Air Services (SAS) unit, and the Special Boat Services (SBS) units were also operating inside Libya.(Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, NATO’s Secret Ground War in Libya, May 16, 2011.)

The Western mainstream media’s modus operandi is to create the impression of fair and unbiased reporting when it comes to war coverage: but this reporting is “after the facts” once countless innocent civilians have been killed under NATO’s “humanitarian mandate”. 

Only once the targeted leader has been killed or ousted, do we see reports documenting the covert role played by the Western military alliance. The mainstream media only reports long after the facts, once the Westerns puppet governments are installed.

Before Qaddafi’s assassination, you could not read BBC reports acknowledging a “British campaign to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi’s regime”. It was called a “humanitarian intervention”.

Now it’s Syria’s turn to be the victim of a similar “regime change” supported by an intense media propaganda campaign.

Julie Lévesque and Michel Chossudovsky contributed to this report.

 

 

About these ads

The Cult of Killing and the Symbolic Order of Western Barbarism: How the Media Worships Violence and “Ritualized Atrocities”


The Cult of Killing and the Symbolic Order of Western Barbarism: How the Media Worships Violence and “Ritualized Atrocities”

The Lynching of Mouamar Gaddafi -

Crusader

Jean-Claude Paye (GR),- The display of the lynching of Mouamar Gaddafi exposes our societies for what they are. It mesmerizes and dismantles our capacity to think and critically assess a historical process.

By  focusing public attention on what constitutes a “ritualized atrocity” these gruesome images confirm that the US Empire actually represents an unprecedented regression, a step backwards in the history of humanity. 

They show that the objective of the war on Libya was not only conquest, leading to the plundering of oil or of Libyan assets, but also, just as was the case in the Crusades, the destruction of a symbolic order,  leaving room for the sheer enjoyment of an act of killing,  as displayed by the media, in a capitalist World Order run amok.

When watching the broadcast images of the lynching of Mouammar Gaddafi, our political leaders manifested a strange pleasure. “Strange Fruit[1], these images remind us of the images of the hanging of Saddam Hussein organized on the day of the Eid al-Adha, the feast of the sacrifice.

These two instances inscribe us into a religious structure which, through the substitution of the human sacrifice to the one of the ram[2], restores the primitive image of the Mother goddess. It turns the Old Testament upside down. Such book-free religion is reduced to a fetish[3]. It has neither Order, nor Law. It merely bids public opinion to enjoy the spectacle of death.

Through images, the will to power becomes unlimited. Transgression is no longer bounded as in the sacrificial rite, neither in space, nor in time, it is everywhere. It echoes the continuous violation of the order of Law that can be observed since the 9/11   attacks.

Confinement within tragedy

kadhafi-mort

The way Gaddafi’s body was treated is a token of the tragedy the Libyan people went through. The treatment of his remains was the object of a double exception, a double violation of the symbolic order that rules society. Instead of being buried on the same day as required by Muslim rites, his corpse was displayed for four days in a cold room, before being buried in a secret location in spite of his wife’s request to the UN that she may retrieve the body.

This double decision by the new Libyan authorities places the Libyan people in a situation that the Greek tragedy explored long ago. As they deny the family the right to bury the body, the new political leaders do away with the symbolic order. As it deletes any connection between human and divine law, the National Transitional Council merges the two and grants itself the monopoly of the sacred, thus placing itself above the political level.

The NTC’s decision to deny the family the right to funerals and to display the corpse aimed at suppressing the signifier of the body and retaining only the image of death. The order to derive orgasmic pleasure from the image of the murder suffers no boundary. The fetish perpetuates compulsive repetition. The urge feeds itself and moves from one image to the next, from the image of death to the image of killing without any distinction. Its function is to increase the will to power.

Controlling what must be seen

Croisades

Thus the profanation of the corpse is only one element in its underlying “fetishism”. What matters is to be found in the lynching of Gaddafi as shown, again and again, through images filmed on mobile phones and relayed by the media. They intrude in real time into our daily lives.

We are part of the scene because in the scopic drive, lynching becomes a sacrificial act only because of the onlooker. The pictures show people filming and deriving pleasure from the filmed object. They exhibit the moment of the look. It is not the object which is presented as an offering any more but the meaning which is displayed so as to control what must be seen.

Lynching as an image is a Western tradition. When they photographed their victims, the members of the Ku Klux Klan already produced the human sacrifice as a show. The treatment granted to Gaddafi is part of this “culture.” However, it is different in one respect. The staging of the KKK’s actions was highly ritualized. It mimicked some underground social order.

Here, the mobile phone pictures are free of any signifier. They become more real than reality. They occupy the real which, de facto, exists only as annihilation. They show the bursting of society and so the power of imperial action. These images show a world which is continuously collapsing. They put us in a state of dread and create psychosis. They destroy whatever relation there was to fellow human beings. monades whose approval is required.

While language sets us in a collective space, images are intended for single individuals. They prevent any social relation, any symbolization. They are the paradigm of a monadic society. Thus, these images tell less about the conflict itself than about the state of our society and the scheduled future of Libya: permanent war.

The sacrifice of a scapegoat

These pictures show the killing of a scapegoat. They update the notion of mimetic violence as developed by René Girard in his reading of the New Testament.[4] Through the repetition of the sacrifice, they introduce us to a compulsive violence without object. If the scapegoat attracts violence, contrary to what Girard claims, he can’t stop it. Peace can only be brief. It is only the preparation of a new war. Each sacrifice leads to another. The destruction of Libya must be followed by the one of Syria, of Iran… Violence becomes infinite and foundational.

As in Christian statements, the commentaries of the media about the pictures of the murder of Gaddafi transform the scapegoat into a victim. If Gaddafi is lynched, it is because he “wanted to die that way”. He is not the victim of an exterior attack, he is said to have obeyed an inner law. His execution is not supposed to be the result of his resistance, but the accomplishment of a personal destiny. This Christian procedure has also been highlighted by René Girard. The figure of Christ shifts the notion of scapegoat to the one of victim who gives himself up in order to “redeem” the original sin.

So, free from all this symbolic debt, from any social body, these images and their commentaries contribute to the systematic inversion of the symbolic Law, as well as to the permanent state of emergency, installed after the 9/11 attacks. Political power is sacralized and replaces the symbolic order.

Regression from language to the image of union with the mother goddess

Such images take us back to a time when human sacrifice was an important aspect of social life.  They consist of a return to the primordial fantasy of fusion with the mother[5]. Ethnological studies, as well as psychoanalysis, have showed that human sacrifice results in a return into a maternal structure. Love and sacrifice are the attributes of a social life which does not distinguish between political and symbolical orders. They are the paradigms of a matriarchal society which achieves the fusion of the individual and maternal power.

Those images belong to a long Christian tradition of reversal of the basis of the Old Testament. Abraham’s story is the moment of establishing the interdiction of human sacrifice. Christ’s death, on the other hand, is Isaac’s sacrifice in reverse. Instead of the ram taking the place of the offered son, it is the Messiah son who becomes a lamb.[6] In the Old Testament the death of the ram is that of the primitive god. It symbolizes a shift from an actual sacrifice to language: If there is a god, we find him in the words of the covenant (language)”[7]. That shift unveils the existence of a place that produces metaphors and thus transforms the real. The operations of shifting and metaphor, which form the heart of this story, are the essential procedures of the rules of language[8]. The law of language is the inscription of the non-identity of the word and of the object. In the Libyan conflict we are located outside language from the beginning. Gaddafi is a tyrant since this is what is said about him. The massacres committed by his regime do not have to be proven, but simply confirmed. The image of the dictator speaks for itself. It does not include any contradiction or face any reality. It is more real than reality.

The end of any symbolic order

The law of language involves accepting that language is first the language of the other. It signifies our acknowledging that we are incomplete. Such symbolization effected by the inscription of dependence on others makes it possible to enter into a process of mutual recognition and thus to build a human society.[9] It introduces a symbolic debt, a network of relationships in which individuals find where they belong and are not their own fathers. Contrary to the original sin, this debt unifies since it relates people on the basis of a common future and not of an origin, whereas the original sin is confined in the image of the Superego.

Gaddafi was not completely part of the globalized capitalist system. He still functioned according to traditional values such as the gift as an act that creates social bonds. He seemed truly affected by the desertion of his ‘friends’ Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Blair…[10] He must have thought that the exchange of gifts had set up a system of mutual recognition that guaranteed he would be granted some protection. He thus showed that he had not understood the nature of capitalism, a system in which all social relationships are abolished. While in former societies the exchange of objects is the basis for mutual relationships, in the capitalist system money and market values have become subjects. Gaddafi’s gifts could only be perceived by those who received them as somehow an advance payment on what they were entitled to. The dark gods of this society can only be those of the market.

Images of orgasmic pleasure

Through the law of language man steps away from nature, from the mother goddess that has neither inside nor outside. Instead of functioning as a founding moment,  murder is abolished to provide access to speech. The human order that emerges is different from the divine order. Individuals are no longer all powerful children, they are cut off from maternal power.

Images of the lynching of Gaddafi, by contrast, take us back to origins and to omnipotence. They inscribe us into a religious structure prior to the separation operated by the prohibition of sacrifice. They reintroduce us to incestuous violence, to the destructive haptic drive.[11]The imperative order to share in orgasmic pleasure overrides any political consideration. The most significant illustration is provided in the interview in which Hillary Clinton receives the images like some offering: she shares her exhilaration in front of the lynching: ‘We came, we saw, he died!’ she said on CBS.[12]

The violence inflicted onto the Libyan ‘Leader and Guide’ was also the moment other Western leaders chose to express their pleasure at how successful their initiative had been. ‘We are not going to cry on Gaddafi’, said Alain Juppé.[13]

Bruised body as an icon of violence

Statements by our political leaders after the broadcast of these images confirm that the   elimination of Gaddafi was the true objective of this war, not the protection of people. The text by Barak Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, published in The Times, The International Herald Tribune, Al Hayat and Le Figaro on 15 April, mentioned that “[our objective] is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.”[14]. So, his violence would lie essentially in the fact that he did not give up power while it was inconceivable that he should stay. His image is supposed to embody tyranny since he did not meet the Western leaders’ love for the Libyan people. “He (Gaddafi) behaved in a very aggressive way. He received good conditions to surrender, he refused them”, M. Juppé added.

The media confirm that dictators always end up like this. The marks of violence expose the invisible. Lynching becomes the very proof that the tortured was a dictator. These stigmata show us what we couldn’t see: evidence of the massacres to be perpetrated by Gaddafi. They are a revelation of his intentionality, of that thing in the name of which NATO justified its intervention.

An identity is established between the massacres attributed to the colonel and his blood-drenched body. The marks on the living body, then on the corpse are not perceived as the sign of the “liberators’” violence, but of the blood Gaddafi shed.

The violence of the murder shows us that it is about revenge. It testifies that its authors are victims and that this assassination belongs to a sacred order.

The exhibition of a boundless power

The images of the sacrificial act make it possible for our leaders to exhibit boundless power. The French Minister of Defence  Gérard Longuet, disclosed that on a NATO request the French air force had ‘stopped’, i.e. bombed Gaddafi’s escaping convoy.[15] He thus acknowledges violating the UN Council Security’s resolution.

On the same occasion Alain Juppé also acknowledged that the aim of the invasion was indeed to give power to the National Transitional Council: ‘the operation must come to an end today since our objective, i.e. help the NTC in liberating the territory, is now achieved.[16] The success of the NATO offensive was accompanied by numerous statements by the winners that they systematically but rightly violated the UN resolution. Bernard Henri Levy, French diplomat, philosopher, writer, film director and strategist, also testified in his book La guerre sans l’aimer that “France directly or indirectly provided significant amounts of weapons to the Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Mouammar Gaddafi’.[17] Those various statements recall those by Tony Blair, when acknowledging there had been no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but that nonetheless the war against Saddam Hussein was fully justified since it put an end to a dictator’s rule.

Victim and sacrifice: the values of a return to barbarism

The murder of Gadaffi, this enactment of the victims’ revenge, results in his not being tried. This death coincides with the interests of oil companies and Western governments. Their close relations with the colonel’s government will not be exposed. Substituting such images of lynching to a trial at the International Criminal Court means that instead of being stopped by speech, violence becomes infinite.Libya like Afghanistan and Iraq will become a theatre of permanent war while our political systems slip into a permanent state of exception which accompanies the emergence of an absolute power that acts beyond any Rule of Law.

A military intervention in the name of Western leaders’ love for the peoples who are victims of a ‘tyrant’[18], glorified by the display of this tyrant’s sacrifice, reveals a relapse into barbarism.

The treatment of the sacrifice of Gadaffi as an icon corroborates the Christian reference of a war waged in the name of love for victims. The destruction of Libya by NATO forces lies in the long tradition of the Crusades, those wars against the symbolic law waged in the name of the God-man.[19] Those wars already resulted from a reorganization of Western Europe under the authority of the Pope.[20] Nowadays, this conflict, even more than the Iraq war, results in a complete subsumption of European countries under the US Empire.

The war for democracy is the post-modern version of the Holy War. The latter was sacred, not because it was waged against ‘infidels’ but because it was preached by the Pope, the infallible vicar of the God-man. Today, the sacred nature of the attack results from the naturally democratic nature of the US initiator, whose president received the Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his mandate, before any political act. This prize consecrates the president of the United States as a Christian icon, as the embodiment of peace and democracy. In this secularized version, man is no longer sacralized as the image of God, but as his own image, as the image of his peaceful and democratic nature.

Jean-Claude Paye via Global Reasearch

Tülay Umay

Article in french :

Le lynchage de Kadhafi: L’image du sacrifice humain et le retour à la barbarie., November 11, 2011

Translated by Christine Pagnoulle

Notes

[1]  Song composed in 1946 by Abel Meeropol to denounce the ‘Necktie Parties’ (lynching) that took place in the south of the USA and to which white people took part while wearing their most beautiful outfits. This song was sung by Billie Holiday, and has known a huge success on its release.

[2] When lifting a knife to strike his son, Abraham found a ram instead of the child for the sacrifice. It is the ram that must die, the father-animal, the primitive father, that is to say a fantasy line of ancestors, but also an archaic divinity, a ferocious image of God restlessly claiming sacrifices. See Jean-Daniel Causse, « Le christianisme et la violence des dieux obscurs, liens et écarts », AIEMPR, 17th international congress Religions et violences, Strasbourg, 10-14 July 2006.

[3]  Paul Laurent Assoun, Le fétichisme, Que sais-je ?, PUF, 1994. « Le fétiche ou l’objet au pied de la lettre », in Éclat du fétiche, Revue du Littoral 42.

[4] Réné Girard, La Violence et le sacré, Le Seuil 1972.

[5] The primordial significant of the desire for one’s mother is normally pushed back through the substitution of the Name-of-the-Father introduced in the symbolic order. Sacrifice is a return to the natural state of unification with the mother. In Catherine Alcouloumbré, « La métaphore paternelle », Espaces Lacan, Séminaire 1998-1999.

[6]  Bible chrétienne, II, Commentaires, Èditions Anne Sigier, 1990, p. 318, in Nicolas Buttet, L’Eucharistie à l’école des saints, Éditions de l’Emmanuel, Paris 2000, p. 38.

[7] Jean-Daniel Causse, « Le christianisme et la violence des dieux obscurs, liens et écarts », AIEMPR, 17e congrès international Religions et violence ?, Strasbourg 2006, p. 4.

[8] They are the mirror of two fundamental linguistic operations, that of substitution and that of combination, i.e. the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic axis. See Vincent Calais, La théorie du langage dans l’enseignement de Jacques Lacan, L’Harmattan, Paris 2008, p. 59.

[9] Hervé Linard de Guertechin, « A partir d’une lecture du sacrifice d’Isaac (Genèse 22), Lumen Vitoe 38 51987), pp. 302-322.

[10] « Kadhafi préférait mourir en Libye qu’être jugé’, La Libre Belgique et AFP, 31 November 2011.

[11] « Le sacrifice se centre sur le noyau sacrificiel originel : l’endocannibalisme » in Pierre Solié, Le sacrifice fondateur de civilisation et d’individuation, résumé adhes.net,http://www.adhes.net/Documents/Extraitsdelivres/PierreSoli%C3%A9/LESACRIFICE.aspx

[13] « La mort de Kadhafi marque la fin de l’engagement de l’OTAN en Libye », LeMonde.fr avec AFP, le 21/10/2011.
http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/10/21/la-mort-de-kadhafi-marque-la-fin-de-l-engagement-de-l-otan-en-libye_1591699_1496980.html

[15] « L’aviation française a stoppé le convoi de Kadhafi, affirme Longuet », TF1,
http://videos.tf1.fr/infos/2011/l-aviation-francaise-a-stoppe-le-convoi-dans-lequel-se-trouvait-6778966.html

[16] « La mort de Kadhafi marque la fin de l’engagement de l’OTAN en Libye », LeMonde.fr, Op. Cit.

[17] « Les coulisses de la guerre selon BHL », La Libre Belgique, le 7/11/2011,
http://www.lalibre.be/culture/livres/article/698459/les-coulisses-de-la-guerre-selon-bhl.html

[18]  Jean-Claude Paye, Tülay Umay, « Faire la guerre au nom des victimes », Réseau Voltaire, le 9 mai 2011, http://www.voltairenet.org/Faire-la-guerre-au-nom-des

[19] Maurice Bellet, Le Dieu pervers, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris 1979, pp 16-17.

[20] Paul Rousset, « Les origines et les caractères de la première Croisade », La Baconnière, Neuchâtel 1945.

source: nsnbc.me

FUKUS (France-UK-US): Neo-Imperialistic trash


FUKUS (France-UK-US): Neo-Imperialistic trash

FUKUS (France-UK-US): Neo-Imperialistic trash. 49652.jpeg

Why is it that France, from time to time, gets ideas above its station? Why is it that French Presidents, increasingly, start acting like failed Napoleons? Why is it that British Prime Ministers, while acting like war criminals, like to emulate the arch-war criminal, Churchill?

It is common knowledge that Napoleon, that French abomination who failed in his murderous attempt to spread French culture across Europe, liked to write letters to his lover, Josephine, asking her not to wash before they met so that he could smell the stench of her sweat, and…

 In plain English, a dirty little… Frenchman. It is also common knowledge that every time a Frenchman gets ideas above his station, Germany teaches him his place. In plain English, French foreign policy is as effective as the Maginot Line. Bluster, bravado, BANG!!

He who turns and runs away, comes back to run another day.

And as regards Churchill, the war criminal of the First World War, hated by London taxi drivers because he was known as a stingy son of a bitch; he sent millions to their deaths in 1914-1918 through utter incompetence (Gallipoli), his speeches were oiled with champagne and brandy, his legacy was the disintegration of the British Empire which he claimed to support. I say…this here is ours, and that there is yours, eh what? Bring me a ruler to draw a nice straight line on a map…

And here we have François Hollande and David Cameron on yet another imperialist venture, this time trying to arm the Syrian terrorists who wish to murder men, women and children, impose Sharia law and kick Russia out of the Mediterranean, in return for greyish promises from Cameron and Hollande and their master across the seas.

And here we have the dynamic duo yet again, after they attempted to destroy the Jamahiriya in Libya, now threatening to “go it alone” after failing to convince their European Union peers to lift the arms embargo and provide the Syrian terrorists with weapons.

True, the Ministries of Defence in the UK and France will crow that they can provide tens of thousands of jobs and so wow, let’s supply Indonesia with hundreds of millions of dollars of military hardware as they slaughter the Maubere population in East Timor. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it happened. It happened and was documented in this column…

François Hollande and David Cameron indeed emulate Napoleon and Churchill, Britain’s version of everyone knows who… and like Napoleon and Churchill they both show a total disrespect for international law. You do not arm, aid and abet terrorists engaged in undermining the government of a sovereign state. It is illegal and it is proscribed as such under international law.

But then again, after Iraq, after Libya, who believes a word Paris and London say? And if they are not war criminals, then who is? But don’t worry, The Hague ICC will never prosecute them… why, they are above the law, aren’t they?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

 

Mali, Algeria, Libya and the New Front Line In ‘Energy Diplomacy’


Mali, Algeria, Libya and the New Front Line In ‘Energy Diplomacy’

By Patrick Kane

With the start of 2013 the ‘War on Terror‘ has burst back into the headlines. The attack on a BP gas plant in Algeria sparked declarations from David Cameron which identified North Africa as the new front line. Already the UK has backed military intervention in Mali and upgraded military support for Algeria and Libya. In Algeria, Cameron announced a strengthened ‘military partnership’ to combat terrorism and “improve security in the region”, and in Libya he pledged more British training for security forces and support for securing the country’s borders.

The reality of the never-ending War on Terror is that it is integrally bound up with an imperialistic drive for resources. Central to understanding David Cameron’s rapid reaction to events in North Africa is a government document published in November last year to little or no fanfare. That document is the UK’s Energy Security Strategy, released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change: the first time the UK has ever produced such a strategy. The document rings the alarm for the UK’s future energy security, stating, “Declining reserves of fossil fuels in the North Sea are making the UK increasingly dependent on imports at a time of rising global demand and increased resource competition”, which is leaving the UK “increasingly exposed to the pressures and risks of global markets”.

The point is illustrated with some dramatic statistics: UK oil production, which currently provides for 70% of UK oil demand, is “expected to decrease by 5% per year”, meaning that within 20 years the North Sea oil supplies will have run out, leaving the UK completely dependent upon imports, whilst global demand for oil is predicted to increase by 15% by 2035. There will be even more competition for gas supplies, with global demand forecast to rise by 55% by 2035. Again, declining North Sea supplies mean that the UK will go from importing about 50% of the gas it uses currently “to nearly 70% by 2025″.

At international level, the document identifies the importance of “energy diplomacy” in securing UK supplies of oil and gas for the future. Energy diplomacy, it says, includes “maximising commercial opportunities” for UK corporations, forcing open new markets to guarantee them unrestricted access to valuable energy resources. Here we get to the crux of the strategy: it is not the ordinary UK citizen that is being protected- for evidence look no further than the exorbitant energy bills crippling Britain’s poor- but the interests of UK corporations which supply the energy.

This ‘energy diplomacy’ is of course a euphemism for militaristic British foreign policy. This includes the provision of military aid and weapons sales to regimes which control strategic energy reserves regardless of how repressive and violent they may be, as well as the readiness to use military force against states or groups which threaten UK energy security interests or those of UK allies. Of course, militaristic British policy focussed upon securing energy resources at the expense of human rights is not new, for evidence just look at Nigeria. What we are witnessing currently is an increased sense of urgency to take control of strategic energy resources. The Ministry of Defence in 2010 laid out its analysis of future strategic threats to the UK, and predicted that in coming years major powers are “likely to use their defence forces to safeguard supplies [of hydrocarbons]“. It identified North Africa as a strategically important area where a key focus of European states’ engagement will be on securing access to energy resources.

The military cooperation agreements announced last month with Algeria and Libya are part of UK ‘energy diplomacy’ aimed at securing access to strategic resources in North Africa. Both countries are identified in the UK Energy Security Strategy as producers of gas and oil which are important trading partners and hence countries which are important to the UK’s energy security. Algeria now supplies 5% of the UK’s gas needs, whilst Libya is not only an important trading partner, but is a country whose oil supply is so important to the global oil market that the price of oil rose by 10-20% when armed conflict erupted there in 2011. Before the conflict in Libya had even finished, it was reported that BP had begun talks with rebel leaders aimed at securing access to the country’s oil wealth, and the French foreign minister publicly stated that it was “fair and logical” for French companies to benefit after French military intervention in the country.

In Mali, France’s UK-backed intervention is in support of a regime which violently seized power in a coup d’etat last April which led to the country’s suspension from the African Union. Could the large, as yet unexploited uranium and oil reserves thought to be contained in the deserts of Northern Mali and Eastern Niger explain the eagerness to back such a regime?

For a clear example of the link between Western commercial energy interests and militarism in North Africa, just look over the border from Mali at Niger. Last week, the president of Niger announced that French special forces have been deployed to the country to protect the huge Arlit uranium mine owned by French multinational Areva, in response to instability in the region. French companies used to have exclusive access to uranium supplies in Niger, however a change in government policy in 2007 ended the exclusivity, meaning they now face competition from Chinese and Indian companies.

The truth behind the War on Terror is that it is part of Western powers’ imperialistic quest to secure natural resource reserves for their corporations. We should all fear for the peoples of energy-rich regions as the global resource grab plummets new depths.

Patrick Kane – Senior Programmes Officer for Resources and Conflict at War on Want.

This article was originally posted at Huffington Post

source: Information Clearing House

 

UK Chilcot Inquiry: “The Iraq War Was Unlawful”. Unanimous Legal Opinion of Foreign Office Lawyers


UK Chilcot Inquiry: “The Iraq War Was Unlawful”. Unanimous Legal Opinion of Foreign Office Lawyers

 

Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report

By Carl Herman

law

The UK Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report on Iraq war until perhaps 2014 or later, according to the UK’s most popular newspaper website.

Perhaps this delay is in part because the Blair government was advised before the war by all 27 attorneys in their Foreign Affairs Office that war on Iraq was unlawful. That would mean armed attack on Iraq would be an unlawful War of Aggression, with identical criminal implication on US armed attack on Iraq.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them(more documentation here).

Public understanding that current wars “on terror” are not even close to lawful would end these wars. War law forbids all armed attack unless under attack by another nation’s government.

As I wrote in 2010:

All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

Mr. Straw’s opinion is an Orwellian lie of the crystal-clear letter and spirit of the UN Charter that outlawed wars of choice in 1945. The UN Charter forbids all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, or in a narrow definition of self-defense upon an armed attack by another nation’s government. This is arguably the single most important and clear law on the planet, the victory of the generation who sacrificed during World War 2, and damning criminal testimony for anyone in government to claim that this law is vague.

Violation of the laws which prevent a War of Aggression and a Crime Against Peace, are also arguably to worst crime a nation can commit.

UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he ”changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars. A two-minute video of his mincing testimony is below as he pretends that war is still a lawful foreign policy option.

Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.

Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful. The US Senate Church Committee revealed CIA infiltration of US corporate media to disinform the American public to support US political agendas.

The cost of these unlawful wars is over a million Iraqi lives above those expected to have died in pre-war conditions and $3-$5 TRILLION in long-term US taxpayer costs (that’s $30,000 to $50,000 per average US household of $50,000 annual income; do the math to figure your family’s share).

US Senate and House Committee investigation has shown through all disclosed evidence that all of the justifications for war with Iraq were known to be lies at the time they were presented to the public. You are an irresponsible citizen if you do not verify these easily-understood facts from the disclosed evidence. A colluding corporate media for unlawful wars is a lame excuse for inaction when the facts are in front of you now.

source: globalresearch.ca

 

At last the Truth has come out!!! Nicolas Sarkozy DID take $50 million of Muammar Gaddafi’s cash, French judge is told!!!


At last the Truth has come out!!!  Nicolas Sarkozy DID take $50 million of Muammar Gaddafi‘s cash, French judge is told!!!

by JOHN LICHFIELD

 

The truth comes to light: Colonel Gaddafi gave French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 42 million pounds to Finance his campaign, 2007:

 

Documentary proof exists that France’s former President Nicolas Sarkozy took more than €50m from the late Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, a French judge has been told.

The claim, leaked today, was made just before Christmas by a Lebanese-born businessman, Ziad Takieddine, who has been a fixer for legal – and allegedly illegal – dealings between France and the Middle East for 20 years.

Expanding on claims already made by one of Mr Gaddafi’s sons and a French investigative website, Mr Takieddine told an investigative judge that he could show him written proof that Mr Sarkozy’s first presidential campaign in 2006-7 was “abundantly” financed by Tripoli. The payments, he said, continued after Mr Sarkozy became President.

In total, he said, they exceeded the €50m in illegal payments to Mr Sarkozy claimed by Mr Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam just before the demise of the Libyan regime – thanks partly to French and British airstrikes – in 2011.

Mr Takieddine’s claims were rejected today as “outrageous” and “self-interested” by sources close to Mr Sarkozy. Last year President Sarkozy denounced a similar claim by the investigative website Mediapart as “grotesque”.

Sarkozy: “I did not take Gaddafi cash

The Lebanese businessman is himself under formal investigation for allegedly organising and receiving illegal kick-backs on arms deals over two decades. He today admitted that his allegations against Mr Sarkozy were part of a proposed trade-off with the French judicial system.

He told the newspaper Le Parisien that he was ready to show investigators proof of Gaddafi’s alleged financial dealings with Mr Sarkozy if a judicial investigation was launched into Libya’s financing of French politicians. This implied that he was trying to minimise allegations against him, dating back to 1993, by igniting, or re-igniting, allegations which were more recent and more explosive.

“Yes, Libya financed Sarkozy,” Mr Takieddine told Le Parisien.

The claims, however self-interested they may be, are deeply embarrassing for Mr Sarkozy. Mr Takieddine had close business and personal relations for many years with a string of centre-right politicians, including the former President’s childhood friend, Brice Hortefeux, his close ally and former interior minister, Claude Gueant[acute one] and the current head of Mr Sarkozy’s centre-right party, Jean-Francois Copé. He is also known to have played a significant role in Mr Sarkozy’s dealings with Gaddafi to free Bulgarian nurses falsely imprisoned in Libya in 2007.

Mr Sarkozy already faces separate allegations that his party – possibly without his knowledge – took illegal campaign contributions from France’s richest woman, Liliane Bettencourt, in 2007. Last month, his official accounts for his failed re-election campaign last year were rejected by a campaign watchdog.

Allegations of illicit dealings with Gaddafi are especially sensitive for the former French president. With Prime Minister David Cameron, he organised and led the international support for the Libyan opposition which eventually led to Gaddafi’s downfall and death in October 2011.

Before that, however, Mr Sarkozy puzzled many of his own supporters by granting Gaddafi an obsequious and glittering state visit to France in December 2007. It later emerged that a number of contracts had been signed by France and Libya, including a deal to supply surveillance equipment to the Libyan intelligence services.

Mr Takieddine is under formal investigation for a number of alleged offences including receiving illegal kick-backs on French arms deals to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in 1993-5. In a meeting on 19 December to discuss these allegations with Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke, Mr Takieddine offered to steer the French judicial system towards written evidence of kick-backs to Mr Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign. He said there had been a series of meetings to organise the payments in 2006-2007 between Mr Gueant, then Mr Sarkozy’s chief of staff, and Mr Gaddafi’s private secretary, Bashir Saleh.

Written accounts of these meetings, Mr Takieddine told the judge, had been handed to the former Libyan Prime Minister, Al Baghdadi al-Mahmoudhi. After the Libyan revolution, Mr Mahmoudhi sought and received unofficial asylum in France. He has recently been returned to Tripoli by Tunisia, having left France after Mr Sarkozy lost the presidential election in June last year.

liberation-cover-2011-10-01

        liberation-cover-2011-10-01 (Photo credit: Patrick Peccatte)

Takieddine: Sarkozy Lord Of War

Takieddine: Sarkozy Lord Of War (Photo credit: blogcpolitic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Independent

independent.co.uk

 

The kiss of the “black widow” Obama announces the collapse of imperialism


The kiss of the “black widow” Obama announces the collapse of imperialism

December in Libya: Obama’s political epitaph, Cameron …

By  Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

 

Two years later, under the direction of the axis FUKUS (France, UK, U.S.) terrorists, Libya still living a nightmare of chaos shown by these demonic hordes, entering villages to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, rape, torture, robbery and install regimes of terror in the local communities living in peace before.

 An appropriate policy legacy Messrs. Obama, Cameron and Hollander also Hillary Clinton, William Hague and Laurent Fabius in 2012 is the fact that two years later, Libyans are risking their lives to know the truth, telling the outside world about what is really going on in the country earlier (in Al-Qaddafi) with the highest rates of development and living standards in Africa.

And what is happening is absolutely shocking. Growth rates and living standards of the indexes have plummeted to the point that there is no data available. The lies woven by NATO in general and in particular the trio FUKUS the casus belli in Libya are now famous: Al-Gaddafi was killing his own people, that he was bombing his own people, he was trying desperately to fight Al-Qaeda against the United States, the UK and France left back in Libya.

Green heroic resistance formed between loyalists to Muammar Al-Qaddafi, standing up for the Libyan system of government that saw local communities to solve their own problems, asking the central government to provide their needs, standing up for communities attempting to combat foreign-backed terrorist scourge that has affected the people of Libya, towns and cities. The Green resistance struggles today against these murderers, rapists and thieves, fight against intervention in Libya, FUKUS bred to steal money from Libya and resources and Green Resistance fighters risk their lives to bring us the truth.

The least we can do is spread the word. 

And the word, in December 2012, is as follows:

A Mankoosh terrorist leader was captured in Morocco in early December (dared not even stay in Libya) and is supposed to have been killed, the terrorist leader Bahr Addin is-Sulimani was supposedly settled by Green resistance fighters in the southern city of Sebha.

Libyan refugees (black, ethnic cleansing by NATO backed terrorists) of Taouerga were slaughtered by murderers FUKUS supported in Tripoli. Many of these incidents have taken place over the past year and a half and not a word of Obama, Cameron or Hollande, Clinton, Hague or Fabius. After all, there is nothing for them to say or do except hang their heads in shame. But they are too arrogant even to do so. His “free delivery” in Libya must be judged by the consequences of their stupid policy, criminal and murderer, and it will be opened … will.

Many Libyans have been liberated from concentration camps and rape and torture by the terrorists managed FUKUS. Many Axis Libyans kidnapped by terrorist filth FUKUS had their organs removed, often (almost always) without anesthesia, women and children were held as sex slaves and many were sold to brothels abroad. It is obvious that the Libyan “rebels” were the dregs of society, common criminals with the complicity of the U.S., UK and France, guns were given a free hand to carry out their fantasies on law-abiding citizens . Now put the recent paper claiming that Saudi Arabia has released their feces mental hospitals and prisons in Syria, the elements supported by it (who else?) Axis FUKUS in this context.

Read “Syria” in “Libya.” A group of about 50 terrorists were killed during Christmas on the border with Chad, Green Resistance reports that the entire herd of this dirt has been settled, not one of them survived infest other areas of Libya. Some sources say that once again had Western elements or elements by the Gulf Cooperation Council (Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Axis FUKUS friends in the Middle East doing their dirty work against other Arabs) from the scourge of terrorism.

What a nasty, disgusting comments about the foreign policy of the U.S., UK and France, and also how filthy and disgusting is that people in these countries sit and do nothing. As for the Gulf countries, as Al-Gaddafi, said, donkeys ridden by foreigners. I personally would go further, much further.

source: libia-sos.blogspot.ch/

 

 

FROM LIBYA 30/07/2012


FROM LIBYA 30/07/2012

 

Libya at the moment is a disaster and are suffering greatly. The Libyans now seek only peace and security.

Misuratah currently has the power of the country where there was the rise of a group of Jews and businesses in the war, that is where aggression is more professional and perverse led war workers from around the world, where torture , run and do most of the atrocities.

Armed groups of Misuratah catch people in the streets or they stop the car and take them away and are never heard of them.

For example we know directly that one man died yesterday from the blows he has received in Misuratah, or two days ago  a woman was killed while driving in Benghazi.

In Tripoli there are daily violations by these International Armed militias appear uncontrolled. The tribes requested that joins them to form an army, yet neither the NTC / USA or anyone is interested to return the order. They are mercenaries of the “rebels” who are not supposed to have “work” (apparently), armed to the teeth even with aircraft that keep the chaos in the country, especially in Tripoli. Are mostly in the neighborhood of Buslim and the airport, out to steal, kill, torture, and even fight over anything. Soar with aircraft and heavy weapons on the streets of the city while the supposed “government” does not say anything. Even those who are supposed to have come after the elections do not appear or do nothing.

Misuratah has taken all the guns of Tripoli and its banks are left with ALL the money from Libya and oil. Oil is Libya’s wealth is being stolen by the oil and Misurata. All the treasures of Libya will Misratah.

While constant chaos created by these “international armed militias.” The Libyans hoped that after the vote, to calm down a bit this aggression, but the reality is that everything has continued the same.

An example of a man last Friday in Tripoli, he left his car Volkswagen Passat to the mosque to pray at  two in the middle of the day, when his car went missing  and searched for it he found the men with his car, he was taken and never heard again of him or his car, right in Tripoli at noon. People are protected by law.

Tripoli is full of international militias and is completely destroyed. To make matters worse they burn garbage in the city, within the same city. They breathe the mist of smoke from rubbish and pumps.

Beni Walid NTC in the city. The majority of the city inhabitants are Warfala tribe, the largest in Libya and have created a channel for reporting how the city is what’s going on but was boycotted several times and journalists have been threatened by report phone. They say they were captured and murdered.

We promise “freedom” and yet if you talk about what they do not want to put you in jail if you talk about the Jamahiriyah put you in jail, if you show a green flag they put you in jail. Where is the freedom?.

Organ trafficking in Misratah is standard practice, as this man who has been interviewed and filmed explaining that he was locked in jail Misuratah, then went to the hospital, then released him. I felt so much pain and did not know what was wrong so I went to the doctor and saw that he was missing a kidney. Misuratah He asked what had happened in the hospital, but was told that they had not touched his kidneys until he managed to tell someone the truth. There is a line direct air traffic between Misurata and Malta.

Misuratah acts as independent from the rest of Libya, without the intervention of the tribes or NTC. Everything that happens in Misuratah is insane but a “mystery” who runs. They know that there are Jews, that is Al Qaeda, that there are companies of the war and everything else and we can suppose.  
While the North East of Libya, Benghazi is where it is assumed that started the uprising “rebel” are nothing, absolutely nothing and under constant threat. 

source: leonorenlibia.com

Libyan doctor confirms use of chemical weapons


Libyan doctor confirms use of chemical weapons

Dr Moussa Elrgeg from Gharyan Hospital, Libya, confirms victims suffering injuries from chemical weapons following days of bombardment by the Zintan tribe against the pro-Gaddafi Mashashia tribe.

Posted by 

http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.co.uk

(****editor’s note: everybody believed that Qaddafi would use the CHEMICAL WEAPONS (Mustard gas) AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE!! What a joke! really, How pathetic can the West be to manipulate the whole International community and to make them believe “That a despotic, Crazy, Dictatorial, Mad man would use chemical weapons against his own people so that he can stay in power!” Now the WEST has put a more Democratic USA standard =>CRAZY, DICTATORIAL, MAD MEN, DESPOTIC IRRATIONAL ASSHOLES IN POWER WHO ARE UNEDUCATED HAVE NEVER SEEN A WOMAN NAKED AND RAPE THEM, THEY SAY THEY ARE FANATIC MUSLIMS BUT DRINK ALCOHOL TILL THEY BLACK OUT, TAKE DRUGS TILL THEY RUN OUT!!! TAKE BRIBES, STEAL, MURDER YOU NAME IT THEY DO IT! 

So would someone please tell me how these people sleep at night? (Mrs. Clinton, Rice, Obama, Cameron, Hague, Sarcozy, Levy and last but not least the Axis Power = Israel and last the Bilderberg family who decides who lives and who dies))

US sings to Syria: ‘We will, we will bomb you!’


US sings to Syria: ‘We will, we will bomb you!’

Syrians stand next to a destroyed and abandoned army tank on March 10, 2012, in the Syrian town of Rastan (AFP Photo/Str)

When they want something, the US and its allies will insist until they get it. That’s what they’re doing to Syria right now, where they NEED to give it a Libya-like treatment in order to further their Imperial Overdrive goals in the Middle East.

Just as rock star Freddy Mercury & Queen used to sing “we will, we will rock you!!”, today’s US/UK/EU/Israeli war cry mantra goes something like this: “We will, we will BOMB you!!”.  And if they can’t do the bombing “officially” themselves or through NATO as they’ve done in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia or Pakistan, then they’ll do the bombing through suitable proxies, especially their present favorite errand-boy Al-Qaeda. (***<=>It’s Parent’s are CIA + MOSSAD =Israeli Intelligence Mossad – one of the children is Al Qaeda)

We may be seeing examples of this in the horrendous attacks taking place inside Syria which the Western powers and media systematically blame solely on the Bashar al-Assad government, which from the very beginning of the “Arab Spring” warned his country and the world against Western covert operations and a powerful media PsyWar.

Common sense tell us that it would be monstrous and idiotic for al-Assad to purposely carry out such attacks that only play into the hands of the Western powers giving them further excuse for armed intervention.  The Houla massacre came just as UN Special Envoy to Syria Kofi Annan was beginning his mission inside Syria; now the el-Quebeir killing comes just as Annan is about to submit his report to the UN Security Council.  It makes no sense, so one must ask: who benefits from all this?

Clearly, the Annan Mission is being sabotaged and – oh, coincidence – his proposed plan is the only one that counts with Russian and Chinese support after these two countries blocked US, British and French attempts at imposing a Libya-like Resolution 1973 against Syria at the end of 2011 and early 2012, which would have predictably led to Libya-like results in Syria.

Annan proposes a six-point plan that includes cessation of hostilities and Syrian-led dialogue amongst ALL warring parties, unrestrained access of humanitarian aid, freedom for journalists to report what’s really happening and UN monitoring.  Naturally, that does not please Hilary, Obama, Cameron, Hague, John MacCain, Joe Liberman and their controllers at AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – for it thwarts Western invasion plans against Syria.

So the Annan Plan MUST be sabotaged.  And what better way to do that then to carry out covert dirty tricks false flag-like horrendous killings as we’ve seen in Houla, Hama, and now el-Quebeir, putting all the blame, naturally, on “the Assad regime’s repressive troops” giving it the goriest of Western media coverage?  

But who are fighting inside Syria?  We hear about a “Free Syrian Army”“Local Coordination Committees”, a Syrian National Council and – most notably – good old Al-Qaeda.  All wonderfully armed, trained, financed and supported by the Western Powers and Media and by groups like the UK-based “Syrian Observatory on Human Rights”, all suitably“appalled” and “outraged” over the killings and massacres.

What options does a country’s legitimate government such as Syria’s have when confronted with civil war?  Basically, two: they either fight the imported armed insurrection or they surrender and give up their country to the US, UK, NATO military, together with their darlings at ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, and Halliburton… They call it“democracy”, and we’ve seen where that leads to in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

So now the Western Powers are having a temper tantrum and want to see “regime change” in Syria one way or another.  If Russia and China blocked NATO bombings, well then let’s just bring in the Al-Qaeda “SWAT” Team and other “freedom fighting” thugs so they can do the bombing for us.

Isn’t it strange that over the past two years Hilary Clinton has publicly admitted on FoxNews and CNN that it was the US who “created, trained and armed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion of the 80’s”, and that “once the Soviets left, we just washed our hands and left the Taliban, Muhadejeen and Al-Qaeda with all those Stinger missiles and arms” running around Afghanistan?

Wasn’t it Tony Blair’s Foreign Secretary Robin Cook who told The Guardian newspaper in June 2005 that “Al Qaeda was created by the US and the name means ‘the file’” – the CIA file containing lists of all those cute Al-Qaeda operatives?  Too bad for big-mouth Robin as he promptly “died of a heart attack” just two months later in rather dubious circumstances…

Wasn’t it Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinksi – co-founder and ideologue of the Rockefeller/Rothschild Trilateral Commission – who told the French “Nouvelle Observateur” magazine in 1998 that he masterminded the CIA’s “Operation Cyclone” which in early July 1979 whipped-up Taliban fighters against the pro-soviet regime in Kabul, thus triggering the soviet invasion of Afghanistan; boasting with president Carter that the soviets now had their Vietnam War?.  All trained, financed, armed and supported by the US, Saudi Arabia, UK, Pakistan and Israel?

So, is it any surprise that over the past year and a half of “Arab Spring”, we hear many times that Al-Qaeda is involved in the worst fighting, even raising their flag over a police facility in “liberated Libya”?  Now we learn Al-Qaeda is working hard to “liberate” Syria… 

How much of the horrific killing is attributable to them and their insurrection partners which, in the final instance all goes back to their original controllers at the CIA, MI6 and Mossad?

Is it a mere coincidence that during the secretive Bilderberg meeting earlier this month in Chantilly, Virginia (USA) that brought together key global power brokers and decision-makers of this world, they also invited Bassma Kodmani, member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs at the Syrian National Council to attend?  

Surely Mr Kodmani must have met and chatted with other Bilderberg attendees like Henry Kissinger, the “black prince” Richard Perle of Destroy-Iraq-fame, and key think-tank bosses like the Council of Foreign Relations’ Robert Rubin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Hudson and Hoover institutes, the neo-con American Enterprise Institute and – oh, yes! – Thomas Donilon, Obama’s powerful national security advisor… 

The message is clear, gentlemen: this is Total War.  So, Syria, if we cannot bomb you to smithereens and impose regime change with UN and NATO backing as we did in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, then we’ll use our proxies at the Syrian National Council and call in our Al-Qaeda Global SWAT team killers.

Either way, Hilary, Obama, Hague and Cameron will rock‘n’roll to the tune of “We will, we will BOMB you!!!   
Who’s directing the orchestra you ask?   I think I see Bibi Netanyahu and the AIPAC and ADL boys playing the strings there, behind the curtain…

Adrian Salbuchi for RT

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentinawww.asalbuchi.com.ar

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

source: http://www.rt.com/news/us-syria-west-bomb-388/