March 21st, 2011

MPs meet today - tell them what you want

Do you want the war against Libya to continue? Contact your MP and tell him how to vote.

UK parliament to vote on Libya attacks

British MPs are to be given a vote in the House of Commons on the country's involvement in the Libyan mission, following a debate promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.
With all three major party leaders firmly behind the operation, only a handful of MPs are expected to voice opposition during the vote on Monday, although concerns are likely to be raised about the prospect of Britain eventually being asked to provide ground troops.
On Sunday night, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he expected his military leaders to hand over command of the mission to a coalition - probably headed by the UK, France or NATO - within "a matter of days".
Gates told reporters that President Barack Obama felt strongly about limiting the US role in operations, adding: "We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the pre-eminent role."
Both the UK and US have expressed satisfaction about the progress of operations so far. /continues

AlJazeera Libya live:


NBC's Richard Engel draws a distinction between the Libyan rebels and the protesters in Egypt and wonders whether the transitional national council in Benghazi would be recognised by the rest of the country

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In DT's Libya live comments section (~11:30am):
Write to your MP. Here's what I wrote : -

As one of your constituents I wish to place on record my total disgust with and opposition to the current reckless and ill-considered UK participation in military action against Libya.
It is hard to believe that with the bitter experiences we have had to endure in both Iraq and Afghanistan the UK’s leaders are now prepared to embroil the country in yet another futile and dangerous involvement in the Muslim world. The Libyan situation is a civil war and we should have left well alone.
Our precipitate action is in stark contrast to the inaction and perceived indifference that appears to afflict our politicians when the Zimbabwean regime dispossesses and kills white farmers. And the frankly nauseating selective outrage and policy inconsistency we display by imposing a “No Fly Zone” over Libya while refusing to even consider a similar action against Israel while that country bombs civilians in Gaza is disgraceful.
Further, it is alarming how quickly a “No Fly Zone” has been interpreted as a licence to bomb Libyan ground targets and even a licence to target the Libyan Head of State. Such escalations are in my opinion unjustified and unfounded and should be resisted.
I should be grateful if you would take the above into account in formulating your views as you contribute to debate and policy formulation in the coming weeks.

Go on, gi's a gun. Follow the money. Newsmen freed.

Increasing arms sales – but at what cost? (Dec 2008)
Anxious to sell for 7 billion euros worth of weapons by 2010, France has introduced measures to jump-start its international weapons sales. But it’s an aim that troubles human rights groups.
[...] Human rights at the center of French policy?
According to the Defense Ministry report, the government aims to “create an environment favorable to arms exports” and to take into account “commercial interests within the diplomatic relations maintained by France with our friends or allies.”
But according to the London-based NGO, Handicap International, France puts its arms exports above the prohibition of cluster bombs. On its Web site, the NGO states that France has “become the leader of a minority movement within the Oslo process which is not favourable to the total ban, without restrictions, on cluster bombs.” Clearly, for Handicap International, France wants to maintain its stock of cluster bombs in its arsenals.
But French Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux categorically states that France’s defense policy is never made at the expense of human rights, stressing that the government only authorizes the “sale of weapons to countries that would not use them against their own population". /full article

Considering Gaddafi sponsored Sarkozy's election and considering his open friendliness prior to this conflict I have little doubt France supplied Libya with arms. The UK certainly did.

Experts Fear Looted Libyan Arms May Find Way to Terrorists C. J. Chivers
Security analysts say the armed uprising in Libya poses a long-term security threat — that weapons looted from government stockpiles could circulate widely, including heat-seeking antiaircraft missiles that could be used against civilian airliners.
Photographs and video from the uprising show civilians carrying a full array of what were once the Libyan military’s weapons — like the SA-7, an early-generation, shoulder-fired missile in the same family as the more widely known Stinger — that intelligence agencies have long worried could fall into terrorists’ hands.
They also show large groups of young men equipped with a complete suite of lightweight, simple-to-use and durable infantry arms, including assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, which have been a staple of fighting in Africa and Asia since midway through the cold war. Mines, grenades and several types of antitank missiles can be seen as well.
Past examples of state arsenals being looted by civilians — whether in Uganda in 1979, Albania in 1997 or Iraq in 2003 — have shown that once these weapons slip from state custody they can be sold through black markets, swiftly and quietly, to other countries and groups for use in wars where they can present long-lasting and destabilizing problems. Analysts are particularly concerned about the heat-seeking missiles, known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems, or Manpads. /continues NYT

Rothschilds/US Fund revolutions in Libya Egypt Bahrain Tunisia To Kill Islamic Banks
Islamic banks have been eating into the profits of conventional banks in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.
The New York Times article “Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims” ( November 22, 2007) reported:   “Rising oil wealth is lifting Islamic banking – which adheres to the laws of the Koran and its prohibition against charging interest – into the financial mainstream. . . . In addition to Islamic loans, there are Islamic bonds, Islamic credit cards …In Islamic banking, financiers are required to share borrowers’ risks, meaning that depositors are treated more like shareholders, earning a portion of profits.  …And while the biggest Islamic banks are in the wealthy Gulf states, the most attractive potential markets are in Turkey and North Africa (emphasis added) and among European Muslims… .”
Most people of the world prefer the conventional banking model.   They don’t mind paying 20% interest on small loans (credit card).  They don’t want to share in their bank’s profits: they want their banks to grow even bigger and stronger and more powerful to compete on international markets.  They don’t mind paying income tax to bail out monster banks (i.e. too big to fail) for their bad gambling debts (i.e. TARP in U.S.) [and because that bail out is added to the government’s debt, they don’t mind paying interest on the bail out to the Federal Reserve (whose policies created the crisis)].  They don’t mind children dying in Africa due to third-world usury (countries that can’t pay down the principle have gone further into debt instead of declaring bankruptcy).
With the support of their governments, Islamic Finance is the fastest growing sector in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) with huge business opportunities ahead in the untapped Muslim populations in many countries.  Middle East regimes threaten to derail the forces of globalization and unseat traditional banking because Islam is setting up an attractive alternate model to conventional banking.  Suffering a setback after the “Battle in Seattle”, the globalists have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy to further their agenda.  Conventional western bankers see regime change in the Middle East as an imperative to competing with the success of the Islamic banking system (Henry, Clement Moore, PhD. and Robert Springborg.  Globalization and the politics of development in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 2nd edition 2010). /full story Puppet World

Amongst the non Libyans fighting western Libya I wonder how many Iranians there are.
My comment in today's DT Libya live:
Iran supports Al Qaeda and the eastern Libyans (who supplied fighters against the allies in Iraq) and the non national "freedom fighters" in their fight against W. Libyan governance.
When the country is partitioned with half under islamic gov't expect to see Iranian missile bases in E. Libya. That will make it tricky for the bank clerks to take out the Iranian leadership.

AlJazeera Libya live
1:20pm (local time)
Namik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, has written on Twitter that the four New York Times journalists - two reporters and two photographers - "are on their way to leave Libyan border and will be delivered to US officials."
Since US diplomatic personnel have withdrawn from Libya and the embassy has been shut down, Turkey is serving as the protector of US interests in the country. Tan said they were released this morning after negotiations between Turkey and Libya.