clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

Libyagate: Why is the UK in with outlaws?

Will Mr. Cameron assure the world that "The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama that belongs to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation" will reach its intended destinations regardless of how the colonialist project in Libya proceeds?

Or is it in reality a simple case of robbery with deadly violence, one that the ICC is capable of dealing with?

With regard to Libya, because of the flagrant breach of international law that can only darken the UK's reputation and cause increasing distrust from Russia, China and other non US sock puppets I advocate immediate withdrawal from the European political union as well as the UN and NATO.

Bankster bimbo or neocon gangster?
Sen. Graham: Murder Gaddafi’s Inner Circle Infowars
Neocon member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, wants the United States to murder Gaddafi’s inner circle.
Graham told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the quickest way to end the stalemate between al-Qaeda and the rebels and Gaddafi is “to cut the head of the snake off.” Graham said that “it’s going to be hard” for the U.S. to achieve its national security interests if Gaddafi remains. He did not bother to specify what the national security interests of the American people in Libya are.
From the video featured in the article:
It's going to be hard for American national security interests to survive intact if Gaddafi stays. I like coalitions, it's good to have them, it's good to have the UN involved, but the goal is to get rid of Gaddafi and a military stalemate is ensuing. The only way I know to make this thing successful is to put pressure on Tripoli. The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering will this be my last. The military commanders in Tripoli supporting Gaddafi should be pounded so I would not let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do.
[Near the end:]
You can't let the Russians and the Chinese veto the freedom agenda.

Question time
. Can we see a copy of the "freedom agenda"? Can we see some evidence that the majority do not support Gaddafi? Can Graham explain concisely the national security interests that Libya in general and Gaddafi in particular threatens?

Libya: western leaders call for Nato to target Gaddafi DT
Senior western leaders called for Nato to adopt an assassination policy against Col Muammar Gaddafi to salvage the bombing campaign in Libya

My opinion. Gaddafi's value is in showing the murderous lengths that the bank clerks will go to please their bankmasters, violating international law and urinating on public will. The article mentions the fact that only 6 of the 22 NATO nations were brave enough to face the threat Libya poses to world security (code for egos, US dominance of Africa and bank cartel control of African governments). The threat is so dire it even justifies the CIA and other cartel directed secret services stage-managing an insurgency.

Corporate Media Refuses to Report Truth About NATO Contras in Libya Infowars
Like the attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya is based on a series of lies and fabrications. Reports have surfaced accusing the NATO Contras – as the British political activist Sukant Chandan calls them – of murdering black Africans, accusations the corporate media will not touch with a ten foot pole. Chandan went to Libya and was able to document civilians killed by NATO bombs. The establishment media refuses to report any of this. Meanwhile, the U.S. and NATO prepare a ground invasion.
[Can the MSM respond to the video? Or is it just a mouthpiece for a government directed by UK creditors (that is a rhetorical question) - why was the leader of the fact finding mission detained and held incommunicado by the UK authorities? Who are the real terrorists?]

This article features a  video showing Libyans dancing on a tank that was very probably destroyed by a DU weapon.
“Protecting” Libyans with a silent killer RT
“With that kind of damage, there is a pretty good chance it was a DU [depleted uranium] round. I am about 80-90 per cent sure it was a DU round. That is very stupid… The level of the wind blowing, that means the particles … so all these people in the cars are exposed,” explains Sterry.
Sterry served in the US military during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, clearing-up battlefields in Kuwait. Back then the US dropped more than 350 tons of depleted uranium over Kuwait and Iraq. The pictures of bombings in Libya seem all too familiar.
“You see how there are touches of red?” Sterry says, watching footage of the bombings.  “That is the burning. See how it shoots out instead of concentrated up and the flare at the bottom? That is a depleted uranium explosion.”

Tripoli under siege as successive assassination attempts fail and harm only bystanders
Al Jazeera 12:22am AFP reports: Heavy explosions late Sunday shook the centre of Tripoli as warplanes overflew the Libyan capital.
The blasts, the strongest to have hit the city so far, shook the hotel in which foreign correspondents here are staying not far from downtown.
The explosions came at 2210 GMT Sunday in several districts of Tripoli, which has been the target since Friday of intensive NATO raids.
2:57am Witnesses tell Reuters that a NATO airstrike has struck (actually, they say "flattens") a building inside Muammar Gaddafi's Bab al-Aziziyah compound in Tripoli.
3:37am Despite it being the wee hours in Libya, officials are taking journalists on tour of the Gaddafi compound damaged by NATO strikes a few hours ago.
The AFP reports: A Libyan official accompanying journalists at the scene said 45 people were wounded, 15 seriously, in the bombing.
He added that he did not know whether there were victims under the rubble. "It was an attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi," he affirmed.

Reuters image

Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists' War - How the Devil pays. Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand April 20, 2011 - As the global corporate-financier oligarchs prepare the way rhetorically and logistically to send in the ground troops we were told would never set foot on Libyan soil, in a war that was only to last days, then weeks, but now over a month, the discernment, ambition, and true intentions of the Libyan rebels must be called into question.
After rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to being trained in Afghanistan and subsequently fighting American troops there, and admitting many of the rebel fighters now joining him in Libya had similarly returned from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it must strike them as tremendous irony that the same Americans they were filling pine boxes with overseas, are now protecting their lives and handing them an entire country to rule over.
Of course in life, nothing is quite that simple. The rebels seem to forget that just months ago Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was also the recipient of similarly ironic support from the West. In the end, it appears it was merely a ploy to disarm and infiltrate Qaddafi's regime ahead of a US funded, armed, and supported militant uprising. The betrayal does not end there, with the militant rebels in tanks and fighter jets, brandishing newly procured weaponry flowing over the Egyptian border with Washington's full knowledge and in direct violation of UNSC r.1973, the corporate owned media has continuously branded these militants as Libyan "civilians" and Qaddafi's attempts to restore order in his country as an inhumane "massacre." /continues by itemising further examples of malfeasance.

“NATO fighting another Cold War in Libya” RT
[Taking the US hostility towards Chinese investment in Africa into account.]

The case against NATO and the UN by a human rights lawyer:
The Use of Force Against Libya: Another Illegal Use of Force Jurist
As Alan Snyder commented to an Indy piece,
It is illegal in every sense.
(1) UN talks about "no fly zone" and Cameron is also talking about "no fly zone" and "no Libyan war". What actually happens is that Cameron destroyed all Libyan aeroplanes, all military facilities and infrastructures, plus 40% or more Libyans defence troops. What they have done is way beyond what is permitted by the UN resolution.
(2) UN charter prohibits Cameron from siding with rebels and he bombs only "enemies" of rebels. He claimed he is siding with rebels "with no stone unturned".
(3) Cameron uses the argument "Gadaffi kills his own people" to justify his own killings by bombing Gadaffi's forces ("thugs"). The fact is that all rebels do not consider themselves as "Gadaffi's people", as they want to eliminate him in a typical civil war. It is clear from start his "justification" is rather shaky.
(4) Cameron uses "Gadaffis brutality" to justify his war but if as he believes the Gadaffis brutality is true then it is a matter for UN to investigate not for his bombing.
(5) At one time Cameron and his ministers are talking about to kill Gadaffi and consider Gadaffi is their legitimate target, and threaten to kill Libyans leaders by going on about "we know their coordinates" in public. Killing the leaders of a foreign country is a job for international murder gangsters, not for a civilised responsible government in this world. UN resolution do not have a single clause to allow "killing Gadaffi".

Odyssey Dawn, a Homeric tragedy Hindu Times
Qadhafi may be a threat to his own people but the bombing of Libya by France, Britain and the United States demonstrates beyond doubt that these three imperial powers are a threat to international peace and security.
With its overdeveloped military capabilities and astonishing levels of political cynicism, the West's drive to intervene in the internal affairs of the North African republic has been remarkably smooth and swift. Thanks in no small measure to a ‘global' news media with an inexhaustible capacity to serve as cheerleaders for war, U.S., British and French bombs ordnance has started raining down on Libya barely weeks after the civil war there began. The West's latest adventure has also been helped along by the naivety of liberals and leftists, last seen in action during Nato's aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. Of great help, too, has been the opportunism of the Arab League, all of whose members, without exception, run regimes that throttle the voice and rights of their own citizens.
Though Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany abstained when the sanction for intervention was put to vote in the United Nations Security Council last week, it does not absolve them of their failure to mount an effective political challenge to the drive for war. Since these countries knew the consequences of this irresponsible course of action, they should have moved quickly to mobilise the African Union, of which Libya is a part, so that the “regional” imprimatur for war which the P-3 fabricated with the help of the League of Arab States could have been countered. Russia and China should also have insisted that they would veto the resolution if any attempt were made to push it through without the Security Council first hearing a comprehensive report on the situation in Libya from the Secretary-General's Special Representative. /continues with a sensible commentary that supports Doebblers "Another illegal use of force" above.

haven't had time for more than a cursory look.

Outrage at 'dictators' invited to royal wedding  Indy
Why wasn't Saif invited?

  • 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.