Archive | August 24th, 2011

The Truth About the Situation in Libya: Cutting through Government Propaganda and Media Lies

By Brian Becker


Libya is a small country of just over 6 million people but it possesses the largest oil reserves in all of Africa. The oil produced there is especially coveted because of its particularly high quality.

The Air Force of the United States along with Britain and France has carried out 7,459 bombing attacks since March 19. Britain, France and the United States sent special operation ground forces and commando units to direct the military operations of the so-called rebel fighters – it is a NATO- led army in the field.

The troops may be disaffected Libyans but the operation is under the control and direction of NATO commanders and western commando units who serve as “advisors.” Their new weapons and billions in funds come from the U.S. and other NATO powers that froze and seized Libya’s assets in Western banks. Their only military successes outside of Benghazi, in the far east of the country, have been exclusively based on the coordinated air and ground operations of the imperialist NATO military forces.

In military terms, Libya’s resistance to NATO is of David and Goliath proportions. U.S. military spending alone is more than ten times greater than Libya’s entire annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which was $74.2 billion in 2010, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

In recent weeks, the NATO military operations used surveillance-collecting drones, satellites, mounting aerial attacks and covert commando units to decapitate Libya’s military and political leadership and its command and control capabilities. Global economic sanctions meant that the country was suddenly deprived of income and secure access to goods and services needed to sustain a civilian economy over a long period.

“The cumulative effect [of NATO’s coordinated air and ground operation] not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished Colonel Gaddafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations,“ reports the New York Times in a celebratory article on August 22.

A False Pretext

The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Italy targeted the Libyan government for overthrow or “regime change” not because these governments were worried about protecting civilians or to bring about a more democratic form of governance in Libya.

If that were the real motivation of the NATO powers, they could start the bombing of Saudi Arabia right away. There are no elections in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy does not even allow women to drive cars. By law, women must be fully covered in public or they will go to prison. Protests are rare in Saudi Arabia because any dissent is met with imprisonment, torture and execution.

The Saudi monarchy is protected by U.S. imperialism because it is part of an undeclared but real U.S. sphere of influence and it is the largest producer of oil in the world. The U.S. attitude toward the Saudi monarchy was put succinctly by Ronald Reagan in 1981, when he said that the U.S. government “will not permit” revolution in Saudi Arabia such as the 1979 Iranian revolution that removed the U.S. client regime of the Shah. Reagan’s message was clear: the Pentagon and CIA’s military forces would be used decisively to destroy any democratic movement against the rule of the Saudi royal family.

Reagan’s explicit statement in 1981 has in fact been the policy of every successive U.S. administration, including the current one.

Libya and Imperialism

Libya, unlike Saudi Arabia, did have a revolution against its monarchy. As a result of the 1969 revolution led by Muammar Gaddafi, Libya was no longer in the sphere of influence of any imperialist country.

Libya had once been an impoverished colony of Italy living under the boot heel of the fascist Mussolini. After the Allied victory in World War II, control of the country was formally transferred to the United Nations and Libya became independent in 1951 with authority vested in the monarch King Idris.

But in actuality, Libya was controlled by the United States and Britain until the 1969 revolution.

One of the first acts of the 1969 revolution was to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism and foreign control. Not only were oil fields nationalized but Gaddafi eliminated foreign military bases inside the country.

In March of 1970, the Gaddafi government shut down two important British military bases in Tobruk and El Adem. He then became the Pentagon’s enemy when he evicted the U.S. Wheelus Air Force Base near Tripoli that had been operated by the United States since 1945. Before the British military took control in 1943, the facility was a base operated by the Italians under Mussolini.

Wheelus had been an important Strategic Air Command (SAC) base during the Cold War, housing B-52 bombers and other front-line Pentagon aircrafts that targeted the Soviet Union.

Once under Libyan control, the Gaddafi government allowed Soviet military planes to access the airfield.

In 1986, the Pentagon heavily bombed the base at the same time it bombed downtown Tripoli in an effort to assassinate Gaddafi. That effort failed but his 2-year-old daughter died along with scores of other civilians.

The Character of the Gaddafi Regime

The political, social and class orientation of the Libyan regime has gone through several stages in the last four decades. The government and ruling establishment reflected contradictory class, social, religious and regional antagonisms. The fact that the leadership of the NATO-led National Transition Council is comprised of top officials of the Gaddafi government, who broke with the regime and allied themselves with NATO, is emblematic of the decades-long instability within the Libyan establishment.

These inherent contradictions were exacerbated by pressures applied to Libya from the outside. The U.S. imposed far-reaching economic sanctions on Libya in the 1980s. The largest western corporations were barred from doing business with Libya and the country was denied access to credit from western banks.

In its foreign policy, Libya gave significant financial and military support to national liberation struggles, including in Palestine, Southern Africa, Ireland and elsewhere.

Because of Libya’s economic policies, living standards for the population had jumped dramatically after 1969. Having a small population and substantial income from its oil production, augmented with the Gaddafi regime’s far-reaching policy of social benefits, created a huge advance in the social and economic status for the population. Libya was still a class society with rich and poor, and gaps between urban and rural living standards, but illiteracy was basically wiped out, while education and health care were free and extensively accessible. By 2010, the per capita income in Libya was near the highest in Africa at $14,000 and life expectancy rose to over 77 years, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

Gaddafi’s political orientation explicitly rejected communism and capitalism. He created an ideology called the “Third International Theory,” which was an eclectic mix of Islamic, Arab nationalist and socialist ideas and programs. In 1977, Libya was renamed the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. A great deal of industry, including oil, was nationalized and the government provided an expansive social insurance program or what is called a welfare state policy akin to some features prevalent in the Soviet Union and some West European capitalist countries.

But Libya was not a workers’ state or a “socialist government” to use the popular if not scientific use of the term “socialist.” The revolution was not a workers and peasant rebellion against the capitalist class per se. Libya remained a class society although class differentiation may have been somewhat obscured beneath the existence of revolutionary committees and the radical, populist rhetoric that emanated from the regime.

As in many developing, formerly colonized countries, state ownership of property was not “socialist” but rather a necessary fortification of an under-developed capitalist class. State property in Iraq, Libya and other such post-colonial regimes was designed to facilitate the social and economic growth of a new capitalist ruling class that was initially too weak, too deprived of capital and too cut off from international credit to compete on its own terms with the dominant sectors of world monopoly capitalism. The nascent capitalist classes in such developing economies promoted state-owned property, under their control, in order to intersect with Western banks and transnational corporations and create more favorable terms for global trade and investment.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” governments of central and Eastern Europe in 1989-91 deprived Libya of an economic and military counter-weight to the United States, and the Libyan government’s domestic economic and foreign policy shifted towards accommodation with the West.

In the 1990s some sectors of the Libyan economic establishment and the Gaddafi-led government favored privatization, cutting back on social programs and subsidies and integration into western European markets.

The earlier populism of the regime incrementally gave way to the adoption of neo-liberal policies. This was, however, a long process.

In 2004, the George W. Bush administration ended sanctions on Libya. Western oil companies and banks and other corporations initiated huge direct investments in Libya and trade with Libyan enterprises.

There was also a growth of unemployment in Libya and in cutbacks in social spending, leading to further inequality between rich and poor and class polarization.

But Gaddafi himself was still considered a thorn in the side of the imperialist powers. They want absolute puppets, not simply partners, in their plans for exploitation. The Wikileaks release of State Department cables between 2007 and 2010 show that the United states and western oil companies were condemning Gaddafi for what they called “resource nationalism.” Gaddafi even threatened to re-nationalize western oil companies’ property unless Libya was granted a larger share of the revenue for their projects.

As an article in today’s New York Times Business section said honestly: “”Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for the international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with.”

Even the most recent CIA Fact Book publication on Libya, written before the armed revolt championed by NATO, complained of the measured tempo of pro-market reforms in Libya: “Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial steps— including applying for WTO membership, reducing some subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization—are laying the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based economy.” (CIA World Fact Book)

The beginning of the armed revolt on February 23 by disaffected members of the Libyan military and political establishment provided the opportunity for the U.S. imperialists, in league with their French and British counterparts, to militarily overthrow the Libyan government and replace it with a client or stooge regime.

Of course, in the revolt were workers and young people who had many legitimate grievances against the Libyan government. But what is critical in an armed struggle for state power is not the composition of the rank-and-file soldiers, but the class character and political orientation of the leadership.

Character of the National Transition Council

The National Transitional Council (NTC) constituted itself as the leadership of the uprising in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city. The central leader is Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who was Libya’s Minister of Justice until his defection at the start of the uprising. He was one of a significant number of Western-oriented and neoliberal officials from Libya’s government, diplomatic corps and military ranks who joined the opposition in the days immediately after the start of the revolt.

As soon as it was established, the NTC began issuing calls for imperialist intervention. These appeals became increasing panicky as it became clear that, contrary to early predictions that the Gaddafi-led government would collapse in a matter of days, it was the “rebels” who faced imminent defeat in the civil war. In fact, it was only due to the U.S./NATO bombing campaign, initiated with great hurry on March 19 that the rebellion did not collapse.

The last five months of war have erased any doubt about the pro-imperialist character of the NTC. One striking episode took place on April 22, when Senator John McCain made a “surprise” trip to Benghazi. A huge banner was unveiled to greet him with an American flag printed on it and the words: “United States of America – You have a new ally in North Africa.”

Similar to the military relationship between the NATO and Libyan “rebel” armed forces, the NTC is entirely dependent on and subordinated to the U.S., French, British and Italian imperialist governments.

If the Pentagon, CIA, and Wall Street succeed in installing a client regime in Tripoli it will accelerate and embolden the imperialist threats and intervention against other independent governments such as Syria and Venezuela. In each case we will see a similar process unfold, including the demonization of the leadership of the targeted countries so as to silence or mute a militant anti-war response to the aggression of the war-makers.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on The Truth About the Situation in Libya: Cutting through Government Propaganda and Media Lies

What Caused the Riots?


Birmingham Against the Cuts statement on the Riots West Midlands Right to Work statement on the Riots: – Time to understand not to condemn

Martin Luther King Jr said: ”A riot is the language of the unheard’’ – wise words at a time when we need to understand rather than condemn.

Clearly these are shocking scenes which we have witnessed. The destruction of our communities takes many forms. Like all councils Birmingham council had their budget slashed by this Tory led government to pay for a financial crisis the people didn’t create. We have had cuts to Connexions and other youth services, cuts to Further Education places and Education Maintenance Allowance, we have 20% youth unemployment and over 200 charities in Birmingham have or are facing closure. There is clearly a pattern emerging comparable to the riots in Thatcher’s 1980′s when communities were deprived of investment and resources.

Cameron’s cure for the ‘sick society’ is more oppressive powers for the police and more cuts. The riots that have spread across the country need to be understood against the backdrop of racism, increasing poverty, inequality and restricted access to education.
Cameron says ‘It is clear there are things that are badly wrong in our society’ but has no understanding that his cuts agenda has created the tinderbox igniting in cities across Britain.

As John McDonnell MP and Honorary Chair, Right to Work said, we are now “Reaping what has been sown over three decades of creating a grotesquely unequal society, with alienated young copying the ethos of looting bankers.”
When young people have their hopes and futures ripped apart by government policies it should come as no surprise that frustration explodes into riots. We were not alone in predicting this kind of social explosion – during the election campaign Nick Clegg predicted riots if the Tories were elected. Government and bankers’ greed created both the economic crisis and the frustrations that have led to the riots. We call on everyone to support the TUC-backed protests at the Lib Dem and Tory conferences in the autumn and to step up the fight against the cuts, racism, poverty and inequality.

Posted in UKComments Off on What Caused the Riots?

191 charities and community groups facing cuts across Birmingham


Over 500 charities across the Midlands are facing budget cuts as local authorities reduce their funding – or in some cases completely withdraw it – according to new research published today (Tuesday) by the union backed anti-cuts campaign website False Economy.

The research, based on Freedom of Information responses from local councils across the region, shows that one year on from the launch of the Big Society, many charities and voluntary groups are facing deep funding cuts.

Birmingham City Council has cut funding to 191 charities – the largest number in the country. In March, the ConDem coalition voted to cut £212million from the budget for 2011/12, and these cuts have fallen on charities and advisory organisations as well as council services.

All charities or voluntary groups receiving a funding cut of at least five per cent are listed in the research, although most of the cuts are far deeper than this and many groups have had their funding cancelled completely.

The list of charities facing funding cuts in the Midlands includes:

100 children’s and young people-related charities
47 elderly-related charities
40 arts charities
37 disability charities
33 adult care charities

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

These deep cuts to voluntary groups across the Midlands show that government claims that charities can replace direct services currently provided by central or local government are false. It sounds great, but in practice, the Big Society is looking more and more like a big con.

False Economy’s campaign director Clifford Singer said:

These cuts go deep into the voluntary and community sectors. These are not just ‘nice to have’ groups but organisations providing vital services for older people trying to maintain independent lives, vulnerable children and abused women. And with so many of the cuts simply resulting in further pressure on the NHS or other statutory services, they are truly a false economy.

“Ministers talk up localism and say services will be better shaped locally, but the huge front-loaded cuts to councils mean that local decision-making simply gives councils the choice of which vulnerable people they should make suffer for an economic crisis they did nothing to cause.

I will be taking a close look at the data to find out what is happenng in Birmingham, so that we can organise and fight against these cuts. We can have successes – advisory organisations took the council to court recently, and won a judgement that restored their funding temporarily, as the council had not consulted properly. A campaign involving Stirchley and Cotteridge against the Cuts saw interim funding being granted to the Cotteridge Day Centre. These are only temporary victories, but they delay the effect of cuts and give us further time to stop them entirely. Labour councillors voted against the cuts, along with Respect, and in 2012, Labour may gain control of the council again. Perhaps if they do, they will follow through their vote against the budget and restore funding to these groups under threat.

If you are being affected by one of these cuts, please let us know – comment here or add a testimony to the False Economy website. If you want to fight these cuts, we want to help you. Come along to our next planning meeting on 22nd August, or email us at to get more involved.

Posted in UKComments Off on 191 charities and community groups facing cuts across Birmingham

In the Hand of the Nazi’s


Inhuman and immoral – the cesspit of ‘humanity’ funded by the US taxpayer …Please see & share
Oh My GOD !!!! ….. The whole world should see this ….

Thanks to Khaled Bushnaq for posting



Zio-Nazi War Crimes in Gaza

Souce of photographs: Rafah Today





Posted in Human RightsComments Off on In the Hand of the Nazi’s

“Two Peoples, One Future”- NO, BUT NO THANK YOU


By Nahida the Exiled Palestinian 

In his artcile Alan Hart present us with a myth of a solution to the chronic Palestinian suffering, presented as an alternative way to solve this long-lasting problem.

Mr. Hart wants us to believe that the only hope for Palestinians is to turn to the major powers, led by America, and find a way to make them “put Israel on public notice” and that if Israel “resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing” that “it would be universally condemned as a criminal state and subjected to sanctions of every kind, universally applied”

I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Hart, but his calculations, his conclusion and his solution are wrong, yet again!

In his analysis and elucidation, Mr. Hart puts “zero” value for the Arab and Muslims populations, these millions of oppressed masses, who have been raging for decades, do not even surface in his conscious or subconscious mind.

His three possible outcomes that he presents in his article are not the only scenarios as he would like to believe.

There are many more that he seems to be unaware of or ignore.

How about for example; a Tsunamic march towards occupied Palestine by Palestinian refugees, their Arab, Muslim and international supporters… where people march in their MILLIONS, as they did in Tahrir square?

We know that Tsunamis are forces of nature, but there can also be a human Tsunamis!

How about a “Hizbullah” or “Salah-Eddin” scenario??

Palestinians are people who know their history well; their pre-school children know, as well as they do that the Crusaders have occupied Palestine for 200 years. So what is 60 years in comparison!

Where are the crusaders now???

As for the second scenario that which Mr. Hart prefers best, as a solution:

“The Jews, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Western world. The Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership in One State with equal human and political rights for all, they could play the leading role in changing the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world”

Palestinians, especially Palestinian women, have already reached another conclusion, Mr. Hart. They have realized that their future can NOT be materialized with chaining themselves as slaves to the self appointed “Chosen”, “masters”, “Jewish elite”, “bankers” and “financiers”. This is called suicide by enslavement. We see it happening all around us in the “civilised”, “democratic” and “capitalistic” (or should I say “Cabbalistic”?) world, at the hands of the same “elite”, whom Mr. Hart is so fond of and infatuated by.


Palestinians, who have been steadfast and who have practiced Sumud for over a century do not accept to be tails to any dog, elite or no elite.

Palestinians can only have a future when they sever every tie with the criminal rapists “Israeli Jews” and fully Liberate their homeland from the occupiers, who have failed during a whole century to behave like normal human beings.

“Israeli Jews” and their supporters need to realize, and the sooner the better, that:

There is no future for the occupiers in the land they have colonized by force.

Forced marriages with rapists are unethical and inhumane.

We Palestinians, especially Palestinian women, we REFUSE such UNHOLY union.


The Sumud that kept us going for a 100 years will keep us going until the FULL Liberation of Palestine

I hope that the above will clarify the average-Palestinian vision and aspiration to Mr. Hart and to all others who still insist that tying the Palestinians’ future with that of the supremacist invaders is the only way forward.

The frayed mantra of “Two peoples, one future” cannot be recognized anywhere in the Middle East, it is best taken to one of the Rothschild banks to be cashed.

No decent Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or human being would be ready to cash such fraudulent claim.


Posted in Middle EastComments Off on “Two Peoples, One Future”- NO, BUT NO THANK YOU

“Could Arab (Palestinian) staying power ultimately defeat Zionism?”

3 Generations

That was the headline over a recent post by David Hearst for The Guardian’sComment Is Free space.
It began: “There is an Arabic word you come across a lot when Palestinians talk about their future. Sumud means steadfastness, and it has turned into a strategy: when the imbalance of power is so pronounced, the most important thing to do is to stay put. Staying put against overwhelming odds is regarded as a victory.”

Hearst didn’t offer any substantial explanation of why Palestinian steadfastness is a victory, so I will.

When the Palestine file was closed by Israel’s victory on the battlefield in 1948, it was not supposed to have been re-opened. There was not supposed to have been a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism. The Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.

And the whole truth includes this fact. Behind closed doors, and despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Arab regimes shared the same hope as Zionism and the major powers – that the Palestine file would never be re-opened. They knew that if it was, there would one day have to be a confrontation with Israel and its big power supporters, the U.S. in particular, and they didn’t want that.

They, the Arab regimes, also feared that a Palestinian state, if it was ever established, would be more or less democratic and provide a model of government which all Arabs would want. Palestinian nationalism was therefore perceived by Arab autocrats as a potentially subversive force. (It’s because my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews tells these and related truths that it can’t be published in the Arab world. The regimes of an impotent, corrupt and repressive Arab Order order were and still are every bit as determined as Zionism to suppress the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became the Zionist not Jewish state of Israel).

For their part Israel’s leaders were aware that if they failed to keep the Palestine file closed, a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism would cause the legitimacy of Zionism’s colonial-like enterprise (not to mention its crimes only starting with the first ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians) to be called into question.

After its occupation in 1967 of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, Israel’s leaders became more and more aware that Palestinian Sumud is a very powerful weapon. (Actually it’s the only weapon the Palestinians had and have). In essence Israel’s strategy for dealing with it was, and still is, humiliating the occupied Palestinians and making life hell for them, in the hope that they will give up their struggle for an acceptable amount of justice and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere.

To date Palestinian Sumud has proved to be stronger than Zionism’s ability to destroy it but… Does it necessarily follow that at some point in the future it will defeat Zionism? It depends on the answer to another question. How will the demographic time-bomb created by Israeli occupation be defused?

In theory are three possibilities.

1. Israel ends its occupation completely (subject to minor and mutually agreed border modifications) to make the space for a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states. In this scenario provision would have to be made for appropriate compensation to be paid to those Palestinian refugees wishing to return but for whom there was no the space in the Palestinian mini state. In reality this won’t happen because Zionism was and remains a project for taking for keeps the maximum amount of land with the minimum number of Arabs on it. Also true is that Zionist colonization of the West Bank has gone much too far to be reversed without a Jewish civil war; and as Shimon Peres once said to me (quoted in my book), no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who triggered it.

2. As the Zionist state becomes more and more isolated in the world, enough Israelis come to their senses and demand that their government goes for the One State solution in order to best protect their own interests. One of my Jewish friends said it could be called Palestein! If it happened this would be the end of Zionism and complete victory for Palestinian steadfastness. (My own take on the One State solution is well known but bears repeating. The Jews, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Western world. The Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership in One State with equal human and political rights for all, they could play the leading role in changing the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world).

3. Zionism’s in-Israel leaders create a pretext (possibly involving Mossad agents dressed as Arabs planting bombs) to go for a final round of ethnic cleansing – to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever.

It’s because I believe a Zionist Final Solution (as in 3 above) is a real possibility in a foreseeable future that I think a way should be found for the major powers, led by America, to put Israel on public notice that if it did resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing, it would be universally condemned as a criminal state and subjected to sanctions of every kind, universally applied.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on “Could Arab (Palestinian) staying power ultimately defeat Zionism?”

Its not over


Frank Lamb


24 hours ago,  Franklin send me his latest report claiming that “The Battle for Tripoli is not yet over”
After 24 hours, Obama confirmed Franklin’s Claim 

“if you can do graphics it would be great…..please do not release until i update with new info ok? will contact you soon if internet holds………i am ok…..thanks for being concerned…..the damn leg just hurts…….” Franklin

Since then I heard nothing from him, therefore, I shall wait for his update.

May be Franklin was the first telling that the game is not yet over. In his report he asked 

“Are the Kaddafi forces opening a trap for the rebel forces allowing them to come in quickly and easily and then when they are gathered in public celebrations and seek rest, counter attack? “

Col Gaddafi’s son and heir apparent emerged amongst supporters 

in the capital Tripoli late on Monday quashing reports of his arrest 

by rebels and highly embarrassing the rebel leadership and the 

International Criminal Court who claimed he had been in the

 custody of anti-Gaddafi fighters for the past 24 hours.

He added “The claim of the NTC representative this morning that the rebels control 95% of Tripoli seems farfetched. This is a very spread out city and its clear rebel forces are not deployed everywhere.””I have the feeling that Kaddafi’s forces may be preparing a counterattack”Reports issued later confirmed what Fraklin felt

“Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, has not been arrested by rebels – despite earlier reports – and is still in Tripoli. 

Col Gaddafi’s son and heir apparent emerged amongst supporters in the capital Tripoli late on Monday quashing reports of his arrest by rebels and highly embarrassing the rebel leadership and the International Criminal Court who claimed he had been in the custody of anti-Gaddafi fighters for the past 24 hours.

“Firstly I want to deny all the rumors,” Saif al-Islam Gaddafi told foreign journalists. “Nato and the West have modern technology and they blocked and jammed communications. They sent messages to the Libyan people through the Libyana network, I think. They stopped the (state TV) broadcasts, they’ve created a media and electronic war to spread chaos and fear in Libya.”

“Tripoli is under our control. Everyone should rest assured. All is well in Tripoli,” he told journalists outside the compound at Bab al-Azizya, smiling broadly and flashing the V for victory sign despite the rebels’ encroachment.Along the route, armed men cheered and fired weapons into the air as the convoy passed by.Asked whether he feared he would be handed over to the International Criminal Court, Saif al-Islam replied defiantly: “Screw the criminal court.”

Mohammed Gaddafi, the leader’s eldest son whose arrest had also been announced by rebels, has escaped, the Libyan ambassador to Washington told CNN. The rebels said they had cut off a column of pro-Gaddafi troops attempting to march on Tripoli from the city of Sirte, the leader’s hometown. The rebels themselves say they are awaiting thousands of reinforcements from around Libya.

The mood around the iconic Green Square, renamed “Martyrs Square” by the rebels, has been joyous with fighters and their supporters dancing through the night and waving the red, black and green flag of anti-regime forces.

US President Barack Obama called for “an inclusive transition” in Libya, demanding that Gaddafi “explicitly” give up power and warning the rebels that their struggles were “not over yet”.”

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Its not over

Welcome to Libya’s ‘democracy’


by Dave Brown

by Pepe Escobar, source

The Big Gaddafi has barely left the building – the Bab-al-Aziziyah compound – and the Western vultures are already circling overhead; the scramble is on to seize the “big prize” – Libya’s oil and gas wealth. [1]

Libya is as much a pawn in a serious ideological, geopolitical, geo-economic and geostrategic chessboard as a pedestrian morality play sold as a TV reality show; idealistic “rebels” win against Public Enemy Number One. Once the public enemy was Saddam Hussein, then it was Osama bin Laden, today is Muammar Gaddafi, tomorrow is President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, one day it will be Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. The enemy is never the ultra reactionary House of Saud.

How NATO won the war

The spectacular reappearing act of Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Gaddafi notwithstanding, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has virtually won the Libyan civil war (or “kinetic military activity”, according to the White House). The masses of “Libyan people” were spectators at best, or bit part actors in the form of a few thousand “rebels” carrying kalashnikovs.

The top billing was R2P (“responsibility to protect”). From the beginning R2P, manned by France and Britain and backed by the US, magically turned into regime change. That led to the unsung stars in this production being Western and monarchical Arab “advisers”, as in “contractors” or “mercenaries”.
NATO started winning the war by launching Operation Siren at Iftar – the break of the Ramadan fast – last Saturday evening, Libya time. “Siren” was the codename for an invasion of Tripoli. That was NATO’s final – and desperate – power play, after the chaotic “rebels” had gone nowhere after five months of fighting Gaddafi’s forces.

Until then, NATO’s plan A was to try to kill Gaddafi. What R2P cheerleaders – left and right – had dubbed “steady NATO attrition” boiled down to praying for three outcomes; Gaddafi killed, Gaddafi surrenders, Gaddafi flees.

Not that any of this prevented NATO bombs from falling in private homes, universities, hospitals or even close to the Foreign Ministry. Everything – and everyone – was a target.

“Siren” featured a colorful casting of “NATO rebels”, Islamist fanatics, gullible embedded journalists, TV-friendly mobs, and Cyrenaica youth manipulated by opportunist Gaddafi regime defectors eyeing fat checks by oil giants Total and BP.

With “Siren”, NATO came out all guns (literally) blazing; Apache gunships firing nonstop and jets bombing everything in sight.NATO supervised the landing of hundreds of troops from Misrata on the coast east of Tripoli while a NATO warship distributed heavy weapons.

On Sunday alone there may have been 1,300 civilian deaths in Tripoli, and at least 5,000 wounded. The Ministry of Health announced that hospitals were overflowing. Anyone who by that time believed relentless NATO bombing had anything to do with R2P and United Nations Resolution 1973 was living in an intensive care unit.

NATO preceded “Siren” with massive bombing of Zawiya – the key oil-refining city 50 kilometers west of Tripoli. That cut off Tripoli’s fuel supply lines. According to NATO itself, at least half of Libya’s armed forces were “degraded” – Pentagon/NATO speak for killed or seriously wounded. That means tens of thousands of dead people. That also explains the mysterious disappearance of the 65,000 soldiers in charge of defending Tripoli. And it largely explains why the Gaddafi regime, in power for 42 years, then crumbled in roughly 24 hours.

NATO’s Siren call – after 20,000 sorties, and more than 7,500 strikes against ground targets – was only made possible by a crucial decision by the Barack Obama administration in early July, enabling, as reported by The Washington Post, “the sharing of more sensitive materials with NATO, including imagery and signals intercepts that could be provided to British and French special operations troops on the ground in addition to pilots in the air”.

That is, without the Pentagon’s unmatched firepower know-how, satellites and drones, NATO would still be engaged in Operation Quagmire Forever – and the Obama administration would not be able to milk a major victory in this “kinetic” drama.

Who are these people?

Who are these people who suddenly erupted in joy on US and European television screens? After the smiles to the cameras and the Kalashnikovs shooting the skies, get ready for some major fratricidal fireworks.

Ethnic and tribal trouble is bound to explode. Many of the Berbers from the Western mountains, who entered Tripoli from the south this past weekend, are hardcore Salafis. Same with the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafi nebula from Cyrenaica, which has been instructed by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) boots on the ground. As much as these fundamentalists “used” the Europeans and the Americans to get close to power, they may become a nasty guerrilla force if they are marginalized by the new NATO masters.
A large Benghazi-based “revolution” sold to the West as a popular movement was always a myth. Only two months ago the armed “revolutionaries” barely numbered 1,000. NATO’s solution was to build a mercenary army – including all sorts of unsavory types, from former Colombian death squad members to recruiters from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who pinched scores of unemployed Tunisians and tribals disgruntled with Tripoli. All these on top of the CIA mercenary squad – Salafis in Benghazi and Derna – and the House of Saud squad – the Muslim Brotherhood gang.

It’s hard not to be reminded of the UCK drug gang in Kosovo – the war NATO “won” in the Balkans. Or of the Pakistanis and Saudis, with US backing, arming the “freedom fighters” of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Then there’s the dodgy, Benghazi-based, Transitional National Council (TNC)’s cast of characters.

The leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Gaddafi’s justice minister from 2007 until his resignation on February 26, studied sharia and civil law at the University of Libya. That might entitle him to cross rhetorical swords with the Islamic fundamentalists in Benghazi, al-Baida and Delna – but he could use his knowledge to press their interests in a new power-sharing arrangement.

Mahmoud Jibril Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) (2nd R) poses for photographs with Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC) representative Mahmoud Jibril (3nd L) before a meeting with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) (2nd L) and former Libyan Ambassador to the United States Ali Aujali (R) at the U.S. Captiol May 11, 2011 in Washington, DC. Jibril will meet with administration officials, lawmakers, and give a speech at the Brookings Institution.

As for Mahmoud Jibril, the chairman of the council’s executive board, he studied at Cairo University and then the University of Pittsburgh. He’s the key Qatari connection – having been involved in asset management for Sheikha Mozah, the ultra high-profile wife of the emir of Qatar.

There’s also the son of the last monarch of Libya, King Idris, deposed by Gaddafi 42 years ago (with no bloodshed); the House of Saud would love a new monarchy in northern Africa. And the son of Omar Mukhtar, the hero of the resistance against Italian colonialism – a more secular figure.

The new Iraq?

Yet to believe that NATO would win the war and let the “rebels” control power is a joke. Reuters has already reported that a“bridging force” of around 1,000 soldiers from Qatar, the Emirates and Jordan will arrive in Tripoli to act as police. And the Pentagon is already spinning that the US military will be on the ground to “help to secure the weapons”. A nice touch that already implies who’s going to be really in charge; the “humanitarian” neo-colonialists plus their Arab minions.

Abdel Fatah Younis, the “rebel” commander killed by the rebels themselves, was a French intelligence asset. He was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood faction – just when the Great Arab Liberator Sarkozy was trying to negotiate an endgame with Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s London School of Economics son now back from the dead.
So the big winners in the end are London, Washington, the House of Saud and the Qataris (they sent jets and “advisers”, they are already handling the oil sales). With a special mention for the compound Pentagon/NATO – considering that Africom will finally set up its first African base in the Mediterranean, and NATO is one step closer to declaring the Mediterranean “a NATO lake”.
Islamism? Tribalism? These may be Libya’s lesser ills compared to a new fantasyland open to neo-liberalism. There are few doubts the new Western masters won’t try to revive a friendlier version of Iraq’s nefarious, rapacious Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), turning Libya into a hardcore neo-liberal dream of 100% ownership of Libyan assets, total repatriation of profits, Western corporations with the same legal standing of local firms, foreign banks buying local banks and very low income and corporate taxes.

Meanwhile, the deep fracture between the center (Tripoli) and the periphery for the control of energy resources will fester. BP, Total, Exxon, all Western oil giants will be gratefully rewarded by the transitional council – to the detriment of Chinese, Russian and Indian companies. NATO troops on the ground will certainly help to keep the council on message.

Oil executives estimate it will take at least a year to get oil production back to pre-civil war levels of 1.6 million barrels per day, but say annual earnings from oil could reap Tripoli’s new rulers some US$50 billion annually. Most estimates place oil reserves at 46.4 billion barrels, 3% of the world’s reserves and worth some $3.9 trillion at today’s oil price. Known gas reserves stand at some 5 trillion cubic feet.

Thus in the end R2P wins. Humanitarian imperialism wins. The Arab monarchies win. NATO as global Robocop wins. The Pentagon wins. But even that is not enough for the usual imperial suspects – already calling for the deployment of a “stabilization force”. And all this while lost-the-plot progressives in assorted latitudes continue to hail the Holy Alliance of Western neocolonialism, ultra-reactionary Arab monarchies and hardcore Salafis.

It ain’t over till the fat Arab lady sings. Anyway, on to the next stop; Damascus.

Is NATO Intervention Illegitimate?

Phyllis Bennis: NATO intervention goes far beyond UN resolution and sets a dangerous precedent

The Real News needs your support. Make a $10 donation by texting realnews to 85944 from your mobile phone. works in US only




Posted in LibyaComments Off on Welcome to Libya’s ‘democracy’

US-IsraHell: ‘Ankara has been fooled’


by rehmat1




On Tuesday, Benji Netanyahu phoned his US poodle, Hillary Clinton, to tell her that the Zionist regime will not apologize to Ankara for killing nine Turkish aid workers by the Jewish commandos during their raid on Gaza flotilla on May 31, 2010. However, Benji gave her his blessing to let UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon release the Palmer Report due next week. The release of the said report submited on July 21, was postponed earlier on Washington’s demand as Hillary Clinton was busy in re-kindling the old ‘love’ between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

The Zionist regime had agreed with the commissioning of the Palmer panel as a PR stunt as The New York Times on August 2010 wrote: “A leap of faith for Israel, whose enemies have sometimes used the United Nations as an anti-Israel cudgel”. Let’s put the record straight – Washington has vetoed more than 59 of those ‘anti-Israel cudgels’.

The investigating report on Israeli attack on Gaza flotilla is prepared by a panel of four. The panel is chaired by former prime minister of New Zealand, Jeffrey Palmer – who is assisted by former Colombian president and ‘Israel-Firster’, Alvaro Uribe, and has one Turkish and one Israeli member.

On Tuesday, Zionist deputy prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, a radical anti-Muslim Jew, predicted at Likud Party conference that Palmer report has “ruled in favor of Israel in regard to the legality of the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The World Jewish Congress also knew that US-sponsored United Nations STL, investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, will accuse Hizbullah ahead of its release.

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded that there will be no improvement in ties with Israel, unless it apologizes for murdering nine Turkish aid workers. Under current circumstances, Erdogan’s words are just a hot gas as he has lost his status of a ‘regional leader’ by isolating Turkey from its sister Muslim countries Syria and Libya to please Washington, Paris, Berlin, Riyadh and NATO.

Moshe Ya’alon has admitted that if Benji apologize to Erdogan, the later can go around boasting that he brought Israel to its knees and thus gain the status of ‘regional leader’ in the Middle East.

It’s clear now that AKP leadership have been fooled by the US-Israel-Saudi ‘axis of evil’ by pitting Ankara against Libya and Syria. Now, as the western plan of regime changes in both Libya and Syria has failed and Ankara having served its part of a ‘western poodle’ – there is no need to rekindle Turkey-Israel love.

Had Erdogan or Ahmet Davutoglu studied the evil Zionist genius, Asher Ginzber, they would have known how they were set-up against their Muslim friendly countries by the ZOG West.

Turkey has not only joined the US-NATO war on Libya but also has recognized the French-funded Libyan rats in the National Transitional Council (NTC). Ankara had recalled it ambassador Salim Levent Sahinkaya from Tripoli in March 2011.

Ankara also acted like a jerk in case of Syrian protests. It failed to recognize the US-Israel-Saudi hands behind the Syrian insurgency. A regime change in Damascus has become a ‘life and death’ situation for the Israeli leaders. Israel wants to destablize Syria enough to force Bashar Assad to distance himself from Lebanese and Palestinian Islamic resistance movements, Hizbullah and Hamas – and from the Islamic Republic.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on US-IsraHell: ‘Ankara has been fooled’

Book: Buying Jewish business is ‘anti-Semitism’


 by rehmat1


No kidding! Paris-based American author, Hal Vaughan, in his new book, entitled ‘Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel’s Secret War’ has accused the French fasion icon of anti-Semitism. No;

she did not criticized Jews as British fashion designerJohn Galliano did early this year. She is accused of wresting the control of the Chanel perfume line from the Jewish Wertheimer brothers in the 1940s.

Chanel 5 issued a statement debunking Hal Vaughan’s lie: “She would hardly have formed a relationship with the family or counted Jewish people among her close friends and professional partners”.

Let me get Chanel 5′s above statement straight. The Jewish family which made billions of dollars during the last eight decades from Coco’s perfume and using her as company’s trademark – is not “close friendship and professional partnership”!!

Any thoughts on Hugo Boss, who designed Nazi uniforms which also were worn by 150,000 German Jews serving in the Nazi Army!

Gabrielle (Coco) Chanel (1883-1971) was born into a poor French family. She grew-up in an orphange and started her career as a singer to survive. She was a self-made businesswoman. Over 57 books and even a movie (Coco Avant Chanel) have been made about her life. However, none of them mentioned Hal Vaughan’s accusation that Ms Chanel was a Nazi spy.

When the Germans entered Paris in June 1940, Coco closed her fashion house and moved into the Ritz hotel with German intelligence officer, Hans Gunther von Dincklage. She was even involved in an anti-Semitic attempt to negotiate a separate British-German peace in 1943  through her friends in the British royalty and aristocracy. Her plan failed thanks to the World Zionist movement which had declared boycott of German good in 1933.

The pink suit worn by Jackie Kennedy (died May 19, 1994) in Dallas on the day of her husband’s assassination by Israeli Mossad agents in 1963 was a Coco Chanel creation.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on Book: Buying Jewish business is ‘anti-Semitism’

Shoah’s pages