clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

Libyagate: No relief from bombing in sight - coalition wants it all

Perhaps a fly on the wall overheard Sarkozy to Cameron - "we aren't seeing the spontaneous eruption of support we were promised by the secret services, what should we do?"
Cameron - "obviously we haven't dropped enough bombs."

Funny how the treasury can find extra millions to fund the bombing but couldn't find enough to stop people dying of cold weather. Obviously people give the gov't less bangs for the buck.

Not much action being reported in Libya except as post mortem. DT live has been put down or relocated to where there are more than a couple of thousand agents and people involved in the unrest. Al J looks to have been muted. Scanning over Gorgle Earth images (that may be old ones substituted by the service despite hourly updates, (can someone in the centre paint today's date on a roof?), Misurata looks remarkably damage free from above considering the flow of claims from from "Feb17" of interminable shells, rockets and grenades. Does everything stop for evening prayer and resume after the morning devotions?

The articles I've read about nuke bombs and the US are disturbing. How can the US consider nukes without the nation's common consent? This isn't the 3rd world war, perhaps one is wanted hence the provocation by nuke action?

Here's what Al J has (GMT+2) from last evening running into this a.m.:
1:35pm Meanwhile, over in Washington DC, Ali Aujali, a representative of the Libyan National Council, paid a visit to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI).
Here [image] he's chatting with none other than Paul Wolfowitz, who we all remember for his time as a member of the Bush Administratio

5:47 am It looks like ceasefire talks have collapsed for the moment as rebels say that the siege of Misurata by pro-Gaddafi forces make such talks meaningless. Reuters news agency reports:
    Rebels in the coastal city of Misurata, under siege for six weeks, scorned reports that Gaddafi had accepted a ceasefire,saying they were fighting house-to-house battles with his forces, who fired rockets into the city.
    Western leaders also rejected any deal that did not include Gaddafi's removal, and NATO refused to suspend its bombing of his forces unless there was a credible ceasefire."
[House to house. Perhaps that means the insurgents are using civilian houses to shelter,  the army targets them then NATO targets the army for attacking civilians. A ceasefire has to be simultaneous. Neither the coalition nor the Libyan gov't wants it apparently.]

Prime ministers don't lie. Do they?
Prime minister, did you lie to me? An interview shows that they do, habitually and for reasons other than national interest.
Talking of lying prime ministers:
Cameron On Cannabis
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

What is the problem with the Libyan government? Their leadership pillage the country far less than the banks and the EC reps in national gov'ts do in the EU. Their people have a better standard of living than much of the EU. Their gov't structure has a close resemblance to the EU gov't excepting the facade parliament. It ranks perhaps among the least brutal of the regimes around the world. The insurgency does not have popular support. Why was it attacked by the UK, US and French leaders? Why was a peaceful protest used to stage an insurgency?

What Would Happen If America saw this [Pretty much the same as happens in the MSM brainwashed UK. Nothing.]
A video that describes how big oil, big gov't and various other scum interfere and murder their way around the world to advance agendas.
The EC has almost completed the Nazi dream, a centrally governed Europe with bankers behind the scenes making the major decisions. And as experience shows both the facade of bankster and lobbyist puppets described as national governments and the puppeteers are making an unholy mess of running economies and the part of the world that has submitted to their stranglehold.

Turkey Arrests Istanbul's al-Qaida Chief

David Cameron's gift of war and racism, to them and us John Pilger
The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West’s response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.
President Barack Obama’s historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America’s first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent’s lucrative natural resources from Africa’s impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China’s principal source of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both “bad” and “good” Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.
The detail is also familiar. The Libyan “pro-democracy rebels” are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 “with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency”. For the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaida, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.
Libya’s other “rebel” leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi’s interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Gaddafi’s human rights record. However, it is Libya’s independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the west in a region of vassals; and this hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Gaddafi overthrew the feudal king Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the west. With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Gaddafi has long made an ideal “mad dog” (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac centre. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.
What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people’s liberation. In undermining efforts Libya’s genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January’s days of hope in Tunis and Cairo and distracted many, who had taken heart, from the task of ensuring that their gains are not stolen quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the west. With Gaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale Palestinian uprising - a “Third Intifada” - on 15 May.
None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. A US “coalition” would “take out” the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied King of Bahrain will be a guest at the Royal Wedding in London.
The embodiment of this reaction is David Cameron, whose only real job has been as PR man to the television industry’s asset stripper, Michael Green. Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen’s Abdullah Saleh; on 18 March, Saleh’s regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron said nothing of value. Yemen is “one of ours”, as the British Foreign Office likes to say. In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack on what he called “state multi-culturalism” - the code for Muslims. He said, “We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years.” He was applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s fascist National Front. “It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public life for 30 years,” she told the Financial Times. “I can only congratulate him.”
At its most rapacious, the British empire produced David Camerons in job lots. Unlike many of the Victorian “civilisers”, today’s sedentary Westminster warriors - throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the treacherous Nick Clegg - have never been touched by the suffering and bloodshed which, at remove in culture and distance, are the consequences of their utterances and actions. With their faintly trivial, always contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and racism and the destruction of Britain’s hard-won social democracy are their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your hundreds of thousands, as you must.
(Thanks Tony)

President Obama Broke The Law For Reasons of World State Oped
Whatever your opinions and beliefs are about the war against Gaddafi, if you believe that popular consent, the social contract, and checks and balances in government are good ideas that should not be erased from history then you can not be a supporter of President Obama, other Western leaders, NATO, and the United Nations because they exercised arbitrary power and manipulated global public sympathy to advance their agenda in Libya.
There is no question that Gaddafi had to be overthrown, but it is not right for international coalitions to do the job of the Libyan people. The West would have reacted with indignation and scorn if the Libyan people had reached out to Russia or China or Iran to liberate them from their tyrant. It doesn't make it right just because the West is doing the overthrowing.
If Obama, Sarkozy, Harper, and Cameron were Putin, Ahmadinejad, Jintao, and Chavez you
wouldn't hear so-called humanitarians like Samantha Power preaching about human rights and genocide in Libya. Instead, there would be talk of Chinese imperialism, Islamic fascism, Russian aggression, and a Communist coup. /more 

I remind: French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November

Among the comments to DT live there was one that mentioned insurgents dragging people from a car and executing them. Considering the treatment of immigrant workers sparsely reported obviously brutality is not constrained to the gov't forces.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.