It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects
chaos and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is
the virus, then surely Biden is the cure"
so this *** clown spends 5000 words on the criminal operation in Libya under
Obama/Biden/Clinton which leave the country in utter chaos and this is his money shot? Orange
man bad fascist, old school democrat War Criminal normal.
what a load of tripe
Ace006 , 5 hours ago
A+. He provides much needed clarity and perspective on the Libyan tragedy and then crashes
into the usual delusional, leftist landfill of fascism, murder of black youth, BLM (all
hail), and Biden as, so help me, some kind of a cure for anything.
The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries
across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of
distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive
from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the
shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.
But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no
rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they
made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent
seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European
colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced
by Hollywood.
These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for
construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a
waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.
This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the
US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The
Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors
whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.
But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No,
it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice,
Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this
devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black
President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an
African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.
But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes
carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United
States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from
internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and
directly into the heart of darkness.
There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the
desert sand.
To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel
a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to
bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency
as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.
In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about
good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par
excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French
philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David
Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly
illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who
conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they
who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.
The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US
military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a
wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves
in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by
the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war
criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in
a new era of openness and partnership.
The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and
amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to
arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former
dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the
anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro
chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the
National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became
head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published
in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into
an international star.
Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas
Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of
the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the
Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the
Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate
government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi
government.
But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he
might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become
aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist,
stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag
flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as
Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.
However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military
juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level
talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most
importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months
before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would
be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.
The
Americans Enter the Fray
There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and
military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war
in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it
not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British
counterparts.
As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained
in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on
to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess
the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure
of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to
determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of
anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated
with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.
The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.
But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on
military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of
the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least
according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was
concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an
Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then
abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.
It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for
aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated
for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime
committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of
Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.
As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning
staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal
participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly
under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the
imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an
"easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation
whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.
Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to
turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab
Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly
became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama
Administration.
Obama's War Off the Books
One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated
dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets –
that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American
lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very
little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.
But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars;
the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the
groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington
Post
reported at the time:
Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to
the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental
funding would be requested from Congress.
Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the
Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core
Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular
Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But
the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.
Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war,
there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the
war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the
abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In
essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for
constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed,
some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct
corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.
So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless
you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon
spokesperson told CNN in 2011,
"The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1
billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and
humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of
discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN,
suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it
cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take
the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear
documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that
there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning
Constitution.
America's Dirty War in Libya
While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted
from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US
Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist
groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real
legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of
spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of
terror groups that did the dirty work.
While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment
mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the
time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the
primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:
"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel
Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members
were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the
fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under
the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."
Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that
the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to
be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they
are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after
Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links
to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.
Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty
good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US
operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi
opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.
"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone.
Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the
Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to
Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on
November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna],
Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a
population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest
per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."
It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region
including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as
anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among
the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.
Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA
facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times
reported in 2012:
"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons,
securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny
supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as
the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is
regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."
But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to
Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army
have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces
vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in
its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near
Langley, Virginia. As the
New York Times reported in 1991:
The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan
Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were
among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained
by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at
a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the
Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.
Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man,"
having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to
overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an
escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether
Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by
continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters
is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the
broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic
hellscape that is modern Libya.
Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.
The Past is Prologue
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos
and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus,
then surely Biden is the cure.
It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets
like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya.
Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A
warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates for support.
It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other
issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public
imagination and discourse.
But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The
Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan
African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial
powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of
vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.
Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.
Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together.
Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to
the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben
Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to
the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind
the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
AVmaster , 13 hours ago
Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)
Number of wars Trump has started: 0
This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back
somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.
fucking truth , 12 hours ago
Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see
a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.
ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Has no choice.
The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.
Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.
If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to
start scrapping them.
The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and
disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into
this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.
Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to
declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a
rogue president.
play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago
Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised
of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government
spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit
society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a
massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name
just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a
better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of
priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.
The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is
there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before
profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that
capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of
society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that
turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the
weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean
them off of the government teat.
DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago
Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense
protections not known to the public at this time.
ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago
DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.
The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.
play_arrow
1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago
To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a
fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of
Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while
Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found
not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an
open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by
China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?
play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend
munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow
scaleindependent , 10 hours ago
Final Jeopardy, genius!
What is Syria and Iran?
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.
lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago
Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if
pre-set by computer.
How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the
Pentagon.
Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail
Caesar?
play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago
Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering
millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like
Bush and Obama did).
play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Yep some people don't get it.
With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually
need more war to keep them gainfully employed.
Get the picture?
2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war
Don't forget also blockading Venezuela
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned
whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when
he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self
preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no
threat).
Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping
them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via
Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert.
Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.
Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM
in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games &
wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching
the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.
sauldaddy , 11 hours ago
That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to
Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought
slavery BACK to Africa
_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago
Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's
shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and
Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state.
On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.
Ms No , 13 hours ago
That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil
declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to
see how that ends up.
play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families
getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the
black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans
thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was
spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in
Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to
Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that
flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in
Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them
into the ground.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil
for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was
the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast
of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to
control.
play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago
I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??
No1uNo , 6 hours ago
Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary
at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.
Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the
overthrow....
quanttech , 13 hours ago
try the french treasury...
Bill300 , 12 hours ago
Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel,
had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst
the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold
mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in
Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?
These people are so evil.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?
I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is
not an easy thing to find
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil
DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago
Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples
based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be
playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
It's mind boggling.
Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs
dropping on the US one year.
Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago
Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k
decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?
Shifter_X , 9 hours ago
Hillary ******* Clinton
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.
Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their
petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.
end the fed, and all central banks.
Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago
That's the story in a nutsh-ell
desertboy , 10 hours ago
The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look,
the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an
interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.
Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's
future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new
CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.
No1uNo , 8 hours ago
I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out.
Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast
of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing
economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).
Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his
economy......different story.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!
not dead yet , 11 hours ago
Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar.
Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being
set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when
Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and
enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts
attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco
garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage
to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for
use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put
up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also
the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops
out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for
Western exploitation of Africa.
At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks
around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by
Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a
penny.
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
great info.
got a good concise source?
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want
to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches
SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago
America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing
Obama.
Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats
oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n
world.
ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago
The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic
Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of
humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount
Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The
university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those
students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice
Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus
in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail
Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.
The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie
Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive
at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the
globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.
It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice
Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in
1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts
gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300
and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.
Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie
commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.
And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo
of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson
of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail
and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in
1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a
message which needs to be understood.
David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further
description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.
If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the
Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the
presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared
hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer.
The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible,
to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work
associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central
America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when
Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.
Shifter_X , 8 hours ago
These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.
SMH
bobroonie , 13 hours ago
Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for
more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey
Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be
made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the
invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most
dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were
so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was
well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his
last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant.
According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left
for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and
Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were
up to.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.
the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy
to admit this.
David2923 , 5 hours ago
Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its
citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to
all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the
average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house,
equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great
Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states:
"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not
be owned by others.")
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to
buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all
Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the
finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to
doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya,
the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US
$2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though
much of this is now frozen globally.
You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and
its slave states.
dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago
Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red
pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.
We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american
president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has
slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of
course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.
Lokiban , 11 hours ago
Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars
Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal
to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which
we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.
That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did
in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.
NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago
Slick Willy --> War Criminal
Chimp --> War Criminal
Obongo --> War Criminal
Hillarity --> War Criminal
Groper Joe --> War Criminal
Etc... etc... etc...
Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???
If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's
attention on YOUR a$$!
Apeon , 11 hours ago
Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson
NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago
I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty
- sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago
Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.
No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his
oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went
missing.
It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both
Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country
taglady , 7 hours ago
Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through
exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because
of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only
invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in
every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and
many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after
911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real
Americans have struggled to make ends meet.
taglady , 7 hours ago
Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced
the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to
vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and
media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance
was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while
liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy
to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of
government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except
our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm.
Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all
of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS
"surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us
broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?
Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago
The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African
continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest
example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.
John C Durham , 1 hour ago
Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this
War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got
Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?
Libya only proves this true.
LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago
America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from
the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE
THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.
NO MORE . . . NO LESS
QABubba , 5 hours ago
This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote
foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our
leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a
"no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own,
stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined"
it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his
antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly),
and his troop convoys.
Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand
by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very
well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West
to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea
just receded by about 50 years.
And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American
thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the
flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to
assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed
their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the
US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of
the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and
Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold
after the 2014 Maidan coup.
By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he
died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all
of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other
fiat currencies.
That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their
private fiefdom to loot at will.
Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed.
After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?
lastugro , 10 hours ago
... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where
the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.
Michael Norton , 11 hours ago
Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar
Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some
CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.
dogfish , 9 hours ago
And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians.
Trump is a real humanitarian.
Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago
Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at
the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution
and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.
The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a
commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial
banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an
African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have
destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.
Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist
"Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily
overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful
fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French
adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of
Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.
Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the
Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black
Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours
the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the
deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal
is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the
innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had
fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a
major rupture with the Islamic creed.
Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab
to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving
them.
It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the
US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in
the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of
the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to
expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have
destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to
throw at Israel.
Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian
Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the
development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like
Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated.
Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead
Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this
madness.
Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates
through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men
run with gold and dollars.
At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like
Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and
why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical
appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the
system works.
Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker
C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is
why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the
domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist
apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties
to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.
Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching
over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder
get involved.
Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal
enterprise.
voting machine , 6 hours ago
Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.
This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101
Jackprong , 7 hours ago
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to
take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no
clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the
idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a
functioning Constitution.
Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!
bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago
" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist,
and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "
The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.
The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine,
Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!
Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago
Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.
Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from
the same fate.
Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and
subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.
Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely
destroyed for their stupidity.
OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago
First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international
diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it.
We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in
a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on
the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the
truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the
other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the
peaceful governments.
csc61 , 1 hour ago
The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding
that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden
hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns
... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to
scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than
privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily
corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would
happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign
documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to
pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden
thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the
white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury
mine deep and dead, I do not swing
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Fair enough..
Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of
Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..
Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity,
vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the
part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to
mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious
pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to
mind..
Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the
humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently,
to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh
thinking that ought now understand that..
What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via
the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..
The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and
RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect
RESTITUTION..
Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in
any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?
Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how
depraved?
Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?
With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..
With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..
But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that
patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?
Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their
salvation is self directed..
And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..
And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..
It's that simple..
And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..
That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the
Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."
And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many
colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of
Provident Divinity..
)
And the glorification?
That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought
demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..
And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit
of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the
Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except
above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..
So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you
keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..
And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..
And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..
More than anybody, #UAE is committed to making sure
#Ankara
having won the #Tripoli battle in Jun never helps
it win the #Libya war. Idea is to contain
#Turkey
& turn its presence into a quagmire that bleeds it. By promising to help #Greece , the #French navy joins
that endeavor
France to bolster Mediterranean military presence. With Macron determined to assert French
leadership in the the Mediterranean, he will have to team up w RU to take on Turkey. This
means France will work w RU in Lebanon too. At cross purposes w the US. https://
reut.rs/31O3fjY Show this thread
The "no-fly zone" issue is covered in a second video suggested when this one almost
ends...It is also told that Obama opposed at first the destruction of Lybia, along with the
important participation of some NATO superpowers on basis of geopolitical interests and, of
course, looting of always...It was a coalition of the willing with assorted goals...althoughm
ainly benefitted the US in its cursade on the ME...
All these wars have happened to destroy kinda powerful nations ( competing
economic/military powers...), like Lybia in Africa and Yugoslavia in Europe on behalf of
others´hegemony...
Great video that everyone should see (especially clueless Americans) but it should've
included Obama's illegally turning a "no fly" Zone into a bombing campaign.
The UN had only authorized a "no fly" zone and Obama never sought authorization from
Congress for war.
Okay, I'll bite, Jackrabbit - sorry if I haven't followed your line of thinking on CIA and
Hillary ...wanting to elect Trump??? That really doesn't make sense to me. That would mean
everything about the really outrageous campaign against Trump's presidency has been
orchestrated so we chumps wouldn't guess they really were secretly rejoicing?
Sorry, I just don't buy it. But of course, I could be wrong. Who knows what dark deeds are
being secretly devised behind all these curtains of lies? (A good reason to suppose there is
a God who sees and who will someday reveal to us mortals what has really been going on. I
can't wait to find out.)
Turkey is currently involved in quite a few international military conflicts -- both against
its own neighbors such as Greece, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus, and against other nations
such as Libya and Yemen. These actions by Turkey suggest that Turkey's foreign policy is
increasingly destabilizing not only several nations, but the region as well.
In addition, the Erdogan regime has been militarily targeting Syria and Iraq, sending its
Syrian mercenaries to Libya to seize Libyan oil and continuing, as usual, to bully Greece.
Turkey's regime is also now provoking ongoing violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1565758762 NOW PLAYING
Erdogan leads first Muslim prayer after Hagia Sophia mosque reconversion
Istanbul's Hagia Sophia reconversion to a mosque, 'provocation to civilised world', Greece
says
Turkish top court revokes Hagia Sophia's museum status, 'tourists should still be allowed
in'
Erdogan: Interference over Hagia Sophia 'direct attack on our sovereignty'
Libya's GNA says Egypt's warning on Sirte offensive a 'declaration of war'
Erdogan says 'agreements' reached with Trump on Libya
What Turkish Election Results Mean for the Lira
Erdogan Sparks Democracy Concerns in Push for Istanbul Vote Rerun
Since July 12, Azerbaijan has launched a series of cross-border attacks against Armenia's
northern Tavush region in skirmishes that have resulted
in the deaths of at least four Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani ones. After Azerbaijan
threatened to launch missile attacks on Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant on July 16, Turkey
offered military assistance to Azerbaijan.
"Our armed unmanned aerial vehicles, ammunition and missiles with our experience, technology
and capabilities are at Azerbaijan's service,"
said İsmail Demir, the head of Presidency of Defense Industries, an affiliate of the
Turkish Presidency.
One of Turkey's main targets also seems to be Greece. The Turkish military is targeting
Greek territorial waters yet again. The Greek newspaper Kathimerini
reported :
"There have been concerns over a possible Turkish intervention in the East Med in a bid to
prevent an agreement on the delineation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between Greece
and Egypt which is currently being discussed between officials of the two countries."
Turkey's choice of names for its gas exploration ships are also a giveaway. The name of the
main ship that Turkey is using for seismic "surveys" of the Greek continental shelf is
Oruç Reis , (1474-1518), an admiral of the Ottoman Empire who often raided the
coasts of Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean that were still controlled by Christian
powers. Other exploration and drilling vessels Turkey uses or is planning to use in Greece's
territorial waters are named after Ottoman sultans who targeted Cyprus and Greece in bloody
military invasions. These include the drilling ship
Fatih "the conqueror" or Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who invaded Constantinople in 1453; the
drilling ship
Yavuz , "the resolute", or Sultan Selim I, who headed the Ottoman Empire during the
invasion of Cyprus in 1571; and
Kanuni , "the lawgiver" or Sultan Suleiman, who invaded parts of eastern Europe as well as
the Greek island of Rhodes.
Turkey's move in the Eastern Mediterranean came in early July, shortly after the country had
turned Hagia Sophia, once the world's greatest Greek Cathedral, into a mosque. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan then
linked Hagia Sophia's conversion to a pledge to "liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in
Jerusalem.
On July 21, the tensions arose again following Turkey's announcement that it plans to
conduct seismic research in parts of the Greek continental shelf in an area of sea between
Cyprus and Crete in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.
"Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow
if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini
reported on July 21.
Here is a short list of other countries where Turkey is also militarily involved:
In Libya , Turkey has been increasingly involved in the country's civil war. Associated
Press reported on July 18:
"Turkey sent between 3,500 and 3,800 paid Syrian fighters to Libya over the first three
months of the year, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general concluded in a new
report, its first to detail Turkish deployments that helped change the course of Libya's
war.
"The report comes as the conflict in oil-rich Libya has escalated into a regional proxy
war fueled by foreign powers pouring weapons and mercenaries into the country."
Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led to
the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country, the current
population of which is around 6.5 million, has been split
between two rival governments. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), has been led
by Prime Minister Fayez al Sarraj. Its rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), has been led by
Libyan military officer, Khalifa Haftar.
Backed by Turkey, the GNA
said on July 18 that it would recapture Sirte, a gateway to Libya's main oil terminals, as
well as an LNA airbase at Jufra.
Egypt, which backs the LNA,
announced , however, that if the GNA and Turkish forces tried to seize Sirte, it would send
troops into Libya. On July 20, the Egyptian parliament
gave approval to a possible deployment of troops beyond its borders "to defend Egyptian
national security against criminal armed militias and foreign terrorist elements."
Yemen is another country on which Turkey has apparently set its sights. In a recent video ,
Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries fighting on behalf of the GNA in Libya, and aided by local
Islamist groups, are seen saying, "We are just getting started. The target is going to be
Gaza." They also state that they want to take on Egyptian President Sisi and to go to
Yemen.
"Turkey's growing presence in Yemen," The Arab Weekly reported
on May 9, "especially in the restive southern region, is fuelling concern across the region
over security in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb.
"These concerns are further heightened by reports indicating that Turkey's agenda in Yemen
is being financed and supported by Qatar via some Yemeni political and tribal figures
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In Syria , Turkey-backed jihadists continue occupying the northern parts of the country. On
July 21, Erdogan
announced that Turkey's military presence in Syria would continue. "Nowadays they are
holding an election, a so-called election," Erdogan said of a parliamentary election on July 19
in Syria's government-controlled regions, after nearly a decade of civil war. "Until the Syrian
people are free, peaceful and safe, we will remain in this country."
Additionally, Turkey's incursion into the Syrian city of Afrin, created a particularly grim
situation for the local Yazidi population:
"As a result of the Turkish incursion to Afrin," the Yazda organization
reported on May 29, "thousands of Yazidis have fled from 22 villages they inhabited prior
to the conflict into other parts of Syria, or have migrated to Lebanon, Europe, or the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq... "
"Due to their religious identity, Yazidis in Afrin are suffering from targeted harassment
and persecution by Turkish-backed militant groups. Crimes committed against Yazidis include
forced conversion to Islam, rape of women and girls, humiliation and torture, arbitrary
incarceration, and forced displacement. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2020 annual report confirmed that Yazidis and Christians
face persecution and marginalization in Afrin.
"Additionally, nearly 80 percent of Yazidi religious sites in Syria have been looted,
desecrated, or destroyed, and Yazidi cemeteries have been defiled and bulldozed."
In Iraq , Turkey has been carrying out military operations for years. The last one was
started in mid-June. Turkey's Defense Ministry
announced on June 17 that the country had "launched a military operation against the PKK"
(Kurdistan Workers' Party) in northern Iraq after carrying out a series of airstrikes. Turkey
has named its assaults "Operation Claw-Eagle" and "Operation Claw-Tiger".
The Yazidi, Assyrian
Christian and Kurdish
civilians have been terrorized by the bombings. At least five civilians have been killed in
the air raids, according to
media reports . Human Rights Watch has also issued a
report , noting that a Turkish airstrike in Iraq "disregards civilian loss."
Given Turkey's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Armenia, among others, and its
continued occupation of northern Cyprus, further aggression, especially against Greece, would
not be unrealistic. Turkey's desire to invade Greece is not exactly a secret. Since at least
2018, both the Turkish government and opposition parties have openly been calling
for capturing the Greek islands in the Aegean, which they falsely claim belong to
Turkey.
If such an attack took place, would the West abandon Greece?
Gaius Konstantine , 10 hours ago
If such an attack took place, it will get real messy, real fast. The Turkish military is
only partially adept at fighting irregular forces that lack heavy weaponry while Turkey has
absolute control of the sky. Even then, the recent performance of Turkish forces has been
lacklustre for "the 2nd largest Army in NATO".
Turkey should understand that a fight with Greece will mean that the advantages she
enjoyed in her recent adventures will not be there. Nor should Turkey look to the past and
expect an easy victory, the Greek Army will not be marching deep into Anatolia this time,
(which was the wrong type of war for Greece).
So what happens if they actually take it to war?
The larger Greek islands are well defended, they won't be taken, but defending the smaller
ones is hard and Turkey will probably grab some of those. The Greeks, who have absolute
control and dominance in the Aegean will do several things. Turkish naval and air bases along
the Aegean coastline will be attacked as will the bosphorus bridges, (those bridges WILL go
down). The Greek army, which is positioned well, will blitz into eastern Thrace and stop
outside Istanbul where they will dig in and shell the city, thereby causing the civilians to
flee and clogging up the tunnels to restrict military re-enforcement.
That's Greece acting alone, a position will be achieved where any captured islands will be
traded for eastern Thrace. Should the French intervene, (even if it's just air and naval
forces), it gets a lot more interesting.
The mighty Turkish fleet was just met by the entire Greek navy in the latest stand-off, it
was enough to cause Turkey to reconsider her options. There will be no Ottoman empire 2.0
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
The Greeks need their navy for surgically precise attacks against Turkey's navy. Every
island, especially the large ones are unsinkable aircraft carriers. No one has mentioned in
any article that Turkey's navy is functioning with less than minimum required personnel. No
one has mentioned that their air force is flying with Pakistani pilots. The only way Turks
will land on Greek uninhabited islands is only if they are ship wrecked and that for a very
very short period of time. Turkey's population is composed of 25% Kurds... that will also be
very interesting to see once they awaken from their hibernation and realize their great and
holy goal of Kurdistan. Egypt will not waste the opportunity to join in to devastate whatever
Turkish navy remains. Serbian patriots will not allow the opportunity to go to waste and will
attack Kosovo and indirectly Albania composed primarily of Turkish descendants... realize the
coverage lately of how the US did wrong for supporting these degenerate Muslim
Albanians.
I have no doubt Greeks will make it to Aghia Sophia but will not pass Bosporus. The result
will be a Treaty that is a hybrid of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sevron. If the
Albanians decide to support the Turks by attacking Greeks in the North and in Northern
Epeirus they should expect annexation of Northern Epeirus to Greece. Erdogan bases his
bullying on Trump's incompetences and false friendship. This is why America is non existent
in any of these regions. If Trump wins the election it will be a long war and very
destabilized for the region. If Trump loses the war will be much much quicker. The outcome
will remain the same. The Russians will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Israel will
not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Egypt will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area.
Not even European Union. UK is the questionable.
The West has Turkey's back otherwise the Turkish currency the Turkish Lira would have
collapsed by now under attacks from the City of London Freemasonic Talmudic bankers.
Remember what happened to the Russian Rouble when Russia annexed Crimea?
The Fed and the ECB in cahoots with the usual Talmudic interests, are supporting the
Turkish Lira and propping up the Erdogan regime.
There is NO OTHER explanation.
The Turks have NO foreign currency reserves, no net positive euro nor dollar reserves.
Their tourism industry and main hard currency generator has COLLAPSED (hotels are 95 percent
empty). The Turkish central bank has resorted to STEALING Turkish citizens'
dollar-denominated bank accounts via raising Turkish Banks' foreign currency reserve
requirements which the Turkish central bank SPENDS upon receipt to buy TLs and prop up the
Turkish Lira.
This is utter MADNESS and FRAUD and LARCENY.
London-based currency traders would be all over the Turkish Lira and/or Turkish bonds and
stocks by now UNLESS they had been instructed by the Fed and the ECB or the Talmudic bankers
that own and control both, to lay off the Turkish Lira.
Despite the noise on TV or the press,
BY DEFINITION,
Erdogan and the Turks are only doing the bidding of the TRIBE hence Erdogan has the
blessing and the protection of the people ZH censors the name.
BUT
You know how those parasites treat their host and what the inevitable outcome is,
right?
Indeed,
Erdogan and the Turks are being set up to be thrown under the proverbial bus at the
appropriate time.
The Neo-Ottoman Sultan has inadvertently set up his (ill begotten) country for eventual
destruction and partition. The Kurds will get a piece of it. Who knows, maybe even the
Armenians will be able to recover some bits of their ancient homeland.
Greeks in Constantinople? Nothing is impossible thanks to the hubris and chutzpah of
Erdogan who is purported to have "Amish" blood himself.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
Good for the UK that they have left the EU.
Apart from the Greeks, who would be fighting for their lives and homeland, the only EU
forces capable of acting are the French. German does not have an operative army or navy;
Italy, Spain and Portugal have neglected their armed forces for many years, and the Baltic
and Eastern Nations are unlikely to want to get involved. The Netherlands have very good
forces but not many of them.
MPJones , 7 hours ago
We can live in hope. Erdogan certainly seems to need external enemies to hold the country
together. Let us also hope that Erdogan's adventurism finally wakes up Europe to the reality
of the ongoing Muslim invasion so that the necessary Muslim repatriation can get going
without the bloodshed which Islam's current strategy in Europe will otherwise inevitably lead
to.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
The Turkish army is a conscript army. They will need to be whipped up with religious
fervour to perform. Otherwise they will look after their own skins.
But remember that the Turks put up a good defence in the Dardanelles in the First World
War.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
What do you expect? He killed Russian fighter pilots and he survived, this empowers
terrorists like him. Those pilots were the only ones at that time fighting ISIS. May they
RIP.
Max.Power , 9 hours ago
Turkey is in a "proud" group of failed empires surrounded by nations they severely abused
less than 100 years ago.
Other two are Germany and Japan. Any military aggression from their side will be met with
rage by a coalition of nations.
US position will be irrelevant at this point, because local historical grievances will
overweight anything else.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
"Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led
to the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country..."
Kinda gave yourself away there. The coordinated assault on Libya by the US, Britain,
France, and their Al-CiA-da allies on the ground resulted in the torture, sodomizing, and
murder of Gaddafi, as well as his son and grandchildren killed in bombings by the US.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey is still in NATO, and their actions in Syria were
alongside the US regime and terrorist proxies labeled "moderate rebels". The same terrorists
originally used in Libya, then shipped to destroy Syria, now flown back to Libya. The attempt
to paint all of those things as Turkey's actions alone is not honest.
When Turkey isn't in NATO anymore, let me know.
TheZeitgeist , 10 hours ago
Don't forget that Hiftar guy Turks are fighting in Libya was a CIA toadie living in
Virginia for a decade before they gave him his "chance" to among other things become a client
of the Russians apparently. Flustercluck of the 1st order everywhere one looks.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
Then they put on this whole production where it's the CIA guy or the terrorist puppet
regime they installed, so that the rulers win regardless of the outcome. The victims are
those caught up in their sick game.
GalustGulbenkyan , 9 hours ago
Turkish population has been recently getting ****** due to the economic contractions and
devaluation of the Lira. Once Turkey starts fighting against a real army the Turks will
realize that they are going to be ****** by larger dildos. In 1990's they sent thousands of
volunteers to Nagorno Karabagh to fight against irregular Armenian forces and we know how
that ended for them. Greeks and Egyptians are not the Kurds. Erdogan is a lot of hot air and
empty threats. You can't win wars with Modern drones which even Armenians have learned how to
jam and shoot down with old 1970's soviet tech.
Guentzburgh , 5 hours ago
Greece should be aligned with Russia, EU and USA are a bad choice that Greece will
regret.
Greece needs to pivot towards Russia which will open huge opportunities for both
countries
KoalaWalla , 6 hours ago
Greeks are bitter and prideful - they would not only defend themselves if attacked but
would counter attack to reclaim land they've lost. But, I don't know that Erdogan is clever
enough to realize this.
60s Man , 9 hours ago
Turkey is America's Mini Me.
currency , 3 hours ago
Erdogan is in Trouble at home declining economy and his radical conservative/Thug type
policies. Turks are moving away from him except the hard core radicals and conservatives. He
and his family are Corrupt - they rule with threats and use of THUGS. Sense his constant wars
may be over stretched Time for a Turkish Spring.
Time for US, Nato and etc. to say goodbye to this THUG
OrazioGentile , 7 hours ago
Turkey seems to be on a warpath to imploding from within. Erdogan looks like a desperate
despot with a failing economy, failing political clout, and failing modernization of his
Country. Like any despot, he has to rally the troops or he will literally be a dead man
walking.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
The world fears loud obnoxious tyrants and Erdogan is the loudest tyrant since Hitler.
Remember how countries pandered to Hitler early on? Same thing is happening with Erdogan.
This terrorist will do a lot more damage than he has already before the world wakes
up.
By the time Hitler was done, 70 million people were dead, what will Erdogan cause?
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
Turkey is not Germany. Not by far. Erdogan may be a bigger lunatic than Hitler, but Turkey
is not Germany of the 30's. Without military equipment/parts from Germany, Italy, Spain,
France, USA, and UK he cannot even build a nail. Economies are very integrated; he will be
disposed of very very quickly. He has been warned. He is running out of lives.
NewNeo , 9 hours ago
You should research a lot more. Turkey is a lot more power thank Nazi Germany of the
1930's. Turkey currently have brand new US made equipment. It even houses the nuclear arsenal
of NATO.
You should probably look at information from stratfor and George Friedman to give you a
better understanding.
The failed coupe a few years ago was because the lunatic had gone off the reservation and
was seen as a threat to the region. Obviously the bankers thought it in their benefit to keep
him going and tipped him off.
OliverAnd , 8 hours ago
Clearly the lockdown has hindered your already illiteracy. Turkey has modern US equipment.
Germany did not need US equipment. They made their own equipment; in fact both the US and
USSR used Grrman old tech to develop future tech.
The coup was designed by Erdogan to bring himself to full power. When this is all done he
will be responsible for millions of Turkish lives; after all he is not a Turk but a Muslim
Pontian.
"... By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this summer. ..."
"... "humanitarian corridor" ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "humanitarian war," ..."
"... "worst mistake." ..."
"... "geopolitical commission." ..."
"... "community of the good ones" ..."
"... "Friends of Libya," ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "exclusive economic zone" ..."
"... "other actors" ..."
"... "mare nostrum" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
By
Dr.
Karin Kneissl
, who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this
summer.
A confrontation between the two NATO states France and Turkey continues to trouble the Mediterranean region; Egyptian forces
are mobilizing. And many other military players are continuing operations there.
In March 2011, during a hectic weekend, the French delegation to the UN
Security Council managed to convince all other member States of the Council to support Resolution 1973. It was all about a
"humanitarian
corridor"
for Benghazi, which was considered the
"good opposition"
by the
government of Nicolas Sarkozy. One of his whisperers was the controversial philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who supported a
French intervention. Levy, fond of the
"humanitarian war,"
found a congenial
partner in Sarkozy.
France was at root of crisis
Muammar Gaddafi had been received generously with all his tents in the park of
the Elysée, but suddenly he was coined the bad guy. The same had happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was not the Arab
dictator who had changed; it was his usefulness to his allies. The Libyans had been distributing huge amounts of money in
Europe, in particular in Rome and Paris at various levels. In certain cases they knew too much. Plus, the Libyans had been
protecting the southern border of the Mediterranean for the European Union.
So, the French started the war in 2011, took the British on board, which made
the entire adventure look a bit like a replay of the Suez intervention of 1956, the official end of European colonial
interventions. A humanitarian intervention changed into regime change on day two, which was March 20, 2011. Various UN
Security Council members felt trapped by the French.
The US was asked to help, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
many other advisers in favor of joining that war. President Obama, however, was reluctant but, in the end, he gave in. In one
of his last interviews while still in the White House, Obama stated that the aftermath of the war in Libya was his
"worst
mistake."
Libya ever since has mostly remained a dossier in the hands of administrative
officials in Washington, but not on the top presidential agenda anymore. This practice has been slightly shifting in the past
weeks. US President Donald Trump and France's Emmanuel Macron had a phone conversation on how to deescalate the situation
there. Trump also spoke on that very topic with Turkish President Recep T. Erdogan. Paris supports General Haftar in his war
against the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord, which is also supported by the European Union, in theory
The triggering momentum for the current rise in tensions was a naval clash
between French- and Turkish-supported vessels. Both nations are NATO members, and an internal alliance investigation is
underway. But France decided to pull out of the NATO naval operation that enforces the Libya arms embargo, set up during the
high-level Berlin conference on Libya in mid-January 2020. Without the French vessels it will be even more toothless than its
critics already deem it. This very initiative on Libya was the first test for the new European commission headed by Ursula von
der Leyen and claiming to be a
"geopolitical commission."
The EU strives to speak
the language of power but keeps failing in Libya, where two members, namely Italy and France, are pursuing very different
goals. Rome is anxious about migration while Paris cares more about the terrorist threat. But both have an interest in
commodities.
When Gaddafi was reintegrated in the
"community
of the good ones"
in early 2004 after a curious British legal twisting on the Lockerbie attack of December 1988, a
bonanza for oil and gas concessions started. The Italian energy company ENI and BP were among the first to have a big foot in
the door. I studied some of those contracts and asked myself why companies were ready to accept such terms. The answer was
maybe in the then rise in the oil price of oil and the proximity of Libya to the European market.
Interestingly, in September 2011, the very day of the opening ceremony of the
Paris conference dubbed
"Friends of Libya,"
a secret oil deal for the French
company Total was published by the French daily Libération. The
"good opposition"
had
promised the French an interesting range of oil concessions. Oil production continuously fell with the rise of the war,
attracting sponsors, militias and smugglers from all horizons. The situation in Libya has since been called 'somalization,'
but it would become even worse, since many more regional powers got involved in Libya than ever was the case in hunger-ridden
Somalia.
In exchange for its military assistance, Turkey recently gained access to
exploration fields off Libya's shores. Ankara had identified an
"exclusive economic
zone"
with the government in Tripoli, which disregards the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Actually, Israel made the
same bilateral demarcation with Cyprus about ten years ago, when Noble Energy started its delineation of blocs in the Levant
Basin. So Turkey is infringing on Greek and Cypriot territorial waters, while President Macron keeps reminding his EU
colleagues of the
"other actors"
in the Mediterranean Sea. Alas, it is nobody's
"mare
nostrum"
as it was 2,000 years ago in the Roman era. In principle, all states which have ratified the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea should simply comply with their legal obligations.
The crucial question remains: who has which leverage to de-escalate? Is it the
US President, who seemingly has acted more wisely on certain issues in recent times? Or will Russian and Turkish diplomacy be
able to negotiate and implement a truce? The tightrope-walk diplomacy between these last two countries is a most interesting
example of classical diplomacy: interest-based and focused; able to conduct hard-core relations even in times of direct
military confrontation and assassinations (remember the Russian Ambassador Karlov, shot by his Turkish bodyguard in Ankara in
December 2016?).
Meanwhile, yet another actor could move in to complicate everything even more.
On July 20, the Egyptian parliament voted unanimously for the deployment of the national army outside its borders, thereby
taking the risk of direct confrontation with Turkey in Libya. Egyptian troops would be mobilized in support of the eastern
forces of General Khalifa Haftar. Furthermore, Cairo would thereby compete even more obviously with Algeria, spending a
fortune on military control of its border with Libya. Algeria in the past could rely on US support in the region, but with the
gradual decline in US engagement in that part of the world, the country faces a fairly existential crisis.
There are currently two powers, among those involved in Libya, that can still
contain the next stage of a decade of proxy wars started by a French philosopher and various EU oil interests: Russia and the
USA.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Quizblorg
48 minutes ago
Does anything here make sense? No, because France this, Italy that is not how the world is run. The parties
involved here go far beyond countries. Also no mention of Saudi-Arabia/Israel. Who engineered the "Arab
Spring"?
There is circumstantial evidence the European Union is systematically sinking boats loaded
with refugees coming from the Libyan route. The MS editorial is correct in calling the
Mediterranean "the graveyard of many people from the Middle East and Africa."
It looks like a continental-wide operation of genocide and silence: the Italian and Greek
Coast Guards do the dirty job with secret blessing from their governments, and their
governments count with the tacit blessing (and silence) from the other EU governments and
their respective MSMs. The Russian and Chinese MSMs do nothing because they can't prove it
(as they don't have access to the local) and are more honest than the Western MSM (they don't
report what they can't know).
I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking, after all of this is done, of about some
100,000 dead drowned in the Mediterranean. After that dead boy in a Turkish beach fiasco,
they took care of perfecting the scheme, so that the Italian and Greek coast guards can
operate deeper into the sea, where the drowned corpses cannot be beached. If true, this would
be the most well covered genocide in modern history, and the first one will full and direct
complying from the "free press".
Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of
commander Khalifa Haftar.
####
I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging
one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to
one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey
with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next,
Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase.
Last night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Thanks for the link to the Egypt/Libya article, b. It's a rare insight into the
often-hidden complexities behind armed conflict. Thanks too for Caitlin J's opinion of
AmeriKKKa's two Right-wing Crank parties. She makes it easier to laugh about their un-funny
antics.
Slightly off topic, but I think Caitlin could be onto something worthwhile with her Utopia
Prepper meme (whether she invented it or not). The way things are going, Hell could freeze
over before sanity emerges in Western Political circles. Prompted by her optimism, I intend
to devote an hour every Sunday afternoon to Utopia Prepping and contemplate the many
potential delights which a mildly more Utopian world would facilitate. There's way too much
negative thinking at present and it's NOT accidental. We'll never get to Utopia if we don't
plan what we'll do when we arrive...
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase. Last
night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Thanks for that link, a very interesting and detailed article. It seems Haftar is an
erratic and unreliable character and the LNA's major foreign allies/sponsors, including
Russia, make no secret of the fact that they basically consider him a temporary "necessary
evil" until a more solid and reliable leader can be found.
'We came, we saw, he died' -- Hillary Clinton smirked when she said it. She had no idea how many
people that would apply to.
A fighter loyal to the Libyan internationally-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) fires a heavy machine gun.
(MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP via Getty Images)
Libya's ongoing destruction belongs to Hillary Clinton more than anyone else. It was she who pushed President Barack Obama
to launch his splendid little war, backing the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi in the name of protecting Libya's civilians.
When later asked about Gaddafi's death, she cackled and exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died."
Alas, his was not the last
death in that conflict, which has flared anew, turning Libya into a real-life
Game of Thrones
. An artificial
country already suffering from deep regional divisions, Libya has been further torn apart by political and religious
differences. One commander fighting on behalf of the Government of National Accord (GNA), Salem Bin Ismail, told the BBC:
"We have had chaos since 2011."
Arrayed against the weak unity government is the former Gaddafi general, U.S. citizen, and one-time CIA adjunct Khalifa
Haftar. For years, the two sides have appeared to be in relative military balance, but a who's who of meddlesome outsiders
has turned the conflict into an international affair. The latest playbook features Egypt, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Russia supporting Haftar, while Italy, Qatar, and Turkey are with the unity government.
In April, Haftar launched an offensive to seize Tripoli. It faltered until Russian mercenaries made an appearance in
September, bringing Haftar to the gates of Tripoli. He apparently is also employing Sudanese mercenaries, though not with
their nation's backing. Now Turkey plans to introduce troops to bolster the official government.
Washington's position is at best confused. It officially recognizes the GNA. When Haftar started his offensive,
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement urging "the immediate halt to these military operations." However,
President Donald Trump then initiated a friendly phone call to Haftar "to discuss ongoing counterterrorism efforts and the
need to achieve peace and stability in Libya," according to the White House. More incongruously, "The president recognized
Field Marshal Haftar's significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya's oil resources, and the two discussed a
shared vision for Libya's transition to a stable, democratic political system." The State Department recently urged both
sides to step back. However, Haftar continues to advance, and just days ago captured the coastal city of Sirte.
In recent years, Libya had been of little concern to the U.S. It was an oil producer, but Gaddafi had as much incentive
to sell the oil as did King Idris I, whom Gaddafi and other members of the "Free Officers Movement" ousted. Gaddafi
carefully balanced interests in Libya's complex tribal society and kept the military weak over fears of another coup. He
was a geopolitical troublemaker, supporting a variety of insurgent and terrorist groups. But he steadily lost influence,
alienating virtually every African and Middle Eastern government.
Of greatest concern to Washington, Libyan agents organized terrorist attacks against the U.S. -- bombing an American
airliner and a Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers -- leading to economic sanctions and military retaliation.
However, those days were long over by 2011. Eight years before, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Gaddafi
repudiated terrorism and ended his missile and nuclear programs in a deal with the U.S. and Europe. He was feted in
European capitals. His government served as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council from 2008 to 2009. American
officials congratulated him for his assistance against terrorism and discussed possible assistance in return. All seemed
forgiven.
Then in 2011, the Arab Spring engulfed Libya, as people rose against Gaddafi's rule. He responded with force to
reestablish control. However, Western advocates of regime change warned that genocide was possible and pushed for
intervention under United Nations auspices. In explaining his decision to intervene, Obama stated: "We knew that if we
waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the
conscience of the world." Russia and China went along with a resolution authorizing "all necessary measures to prevent the
killing of civilians."
In fact, the fears were fraudulent. Gaddafi was no angel, but he hadn't targeted civilians, and his florid rhetoric,
cited by critics, only attacked those who had taken up arms. He even promised amnesty to those who abandoned their weapons.
With no civilians to protect, NATO, led by the U.S., bombed Libyan government forces and installations and backed the
insurgents' offensive. It was not a humanitarian intervention, but a lengthy, costly, low-tech, regime-change war, mostly
at Libyan expense. Obama claimed: "We had a unique ability to stop the violence." Instead his administration ensured that
the initial civil war would drag on for months -- and the larger struggle ultimately for years.
On October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was discovered hiding in a culvert in Sirte. He was beaten, sodomized with a bayonet, shot,
and killed. That essentially ended the first phase of the extended Libyan civil war. Gaddafi had done much to earn his
fate, but his death led to an entirely new set of problems.
A low level insurgency continued, led by former Gaddafi followers. Proposals either to disband militia forces or
integrate them into the National Transitional Council (NTC) military went unfulfilled, and this developed into the
conflict's second phase. Elections delivered fragmented results, as ideological, religious, and other divisions ran deep.
Militias were accused of misusing government funds, employing violence, and kidnapping and assassinating their opponents.
Islamist groups increasingly attempted to impose religious rule. Violence and insecurity worsened.
In February 2014, Haftar challenged the General National Congress (GNC). Hostilities broadly evolved between the
GNC/GNA, backed by several militias, which controlled Tripoli and much of the country's west, and the Tobruk-based House of
Representatives, which was supported by Haftar and his Libyan National Army. Multiple domestic factions, forces, and
militias also were involved. Among them was the Islamic State, which murdered Egyptian Coptic (Christian) laborers.
The African Union and the United Nations promoted various peace initiatives. However, other governments fueled
hostilities. Most notable now is the potential entry of Turkish troops.
In mid-December, Turkey's parliament approved an agreement to provide equipment, military training, technical aid, and
intelligence. (The Erdogan government also controversially set maritime boundaries with Libya that conflict with other
claims, most notably from Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, and Israel.) Ankara introduced some members of the dwindling Syrian
insurgents once aligned against the Assad regime to Libya and raised the possibility of adding its "quick reaction force"
to the fight.
At the end of last month, the Erdogan government introduced, and parliament approved, legislation to authorize the
deployment of combat forces. President Erdogan criticized nations that backed a "putschist general" and "warlord" and
promised to support the GNA "much more effectively." While noting that Turkey doesn't "go where we are not invited"
(except, apparently, Syria), Erdogan added that "since now there is an invitation [from the GNA], we will accept it."
But Haftar refused to back down. Last week, he called on "men and women, soldiers and civilians, to defend our land and
our honor." He continued: "We accept the challenge and declare jihad and a call to arms."
Turkish legislator Ismet Yilmaz supported the intervention and warned that the conflict might "spread instability to
Turkey." More likely the intervention is a grab for energy, since Ankara has devoted significant resources of late to
exploring the Eastern Mediterranean for oil and gas. Libya has oil deposits, of course, which could be exploited under a
friendly government. Perhaps most important, Ankara wants to ensure that its interests are respected in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
However, direct intervention is an extraordinarily dangerous step. It puts Turkey in the line of fire, as in Syria.
Ankara's forces could clash with those of Russia, which maintains the merest veneer of deniability over its role in Libya.
And other powers -- Egypt, perhaps, or the UAE -- might ramp up their involvement in an effort to thwart Erdogan's plans.
In response, the U.S. attempted to warn Turkey against intervening. "External military intervention threatens prospects
for resolving the conflict," said State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus with no hint of irony. Congress might go
further: some of its members have already proposed sanctioning Russia for the introduction of mercenaries, and Ankara has
few friends left on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless it is rather late for Washington to cry foul. Its claim to essentially a
monopoly on Mideast meddling can only be seen as risible by other powers.
The Arab League has also criticized "foreign interference." In a resolution passed in late December, the group expressed
"serious concern over the military escalation further aggravating the situation in Libya and which threatens the security
and stability of neighboring countries and the entire region." However, Arab League is no less hypocritical. Egypt, the
UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, all deeply involved in the conflict, are members of the league. And no one would be
surprised if some or all of them decided to expand their participation in the fighting. Egyptian president Abdel Fatah
al-Sisi insisted: "We will not allow anyone to control Libya. It is a matter of Egyptian national security."
Although the fighting is less intense than in, say, Syria, combat has gone high-tech. According to the
Washington
Post
: "Eight months into Libya's worst spasm of violence in eight years, the conflict is being fought increasingly by
weaponized drones." ISIS is one of the few beneficiaries of these years of fighting. GNA-allied militias that once
cooperated with the U.S. and other states in counterterrorism are now focused on Haftar, allowing militants to revive, set
up desert camps, and organize attacks. Washington still employs drones, but they rely on accurate intelligence, best
gathered on the ground, and even then well-directed hits are no substitute for local ground operations.
The losers are the Libyan people. The fighting has resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of refugees.
Divisions, even among tribes, are growing. The future looks ever dimmer. Fathi Bashagha, the GNA interior minister,
lamented: "Every day we are burying young people who should be helping us build Libya." Absent a major change, many more
will be buried in the future.
Yet the air of unreality surrounding the conflict remains. In late December, President Trump met with al-Sisi and,
according to the White House, the two "rejected foreign exploitation and agreed that parties must take urgent steps to
resolve the conflict before Libyans lose control to foreign actors." However, the latter already happened -- nine years ago
when America first intervened.
The Obama administration did not plan to ruin Libya for a generation. But its decision to take on another people's fight
has resulted in catastrophe. Hillary Clinton's malignant gift keeps on giving. Such is the cost of America's promiscuous
war-making.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan
and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
In accordance with the agreement closed between the Tunisian and Turkish presidents,
Kaïs Saïed and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, on Christmas Day, the migration of
jihadists from Syria via Tunisia to Libya has begun. [ 1 ]
The pendulum has swung back, when considering that the Free Syrian Army was created by the
jihadists of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who had joined the ranks of Al-Qaeda in
Iraq, then served as NATO's footsoldiers in Libya. [ 2 ]
According to Middle East Eye , the Sultan Murad Division, the Suqour al-Sham Brigades
(Hawks of the Levant) and especially the Faylaq al-Sham (Legion of the Levant) (photo) are
already on the move. [ 3 ] The SOHR, a British association
linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has confirmed the arrival in Tripoli of the first 300
combatants.
The Sultan Murad division is made up of Syrian Turkmen. The Hawks of the Levant comprise
numerous French fighters and the Legion of the Levant is an imposing army of at least 4,000
men. The latter group is directly affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
Turkey has urged several other jihadist groups to follow suit and to flee ahead of the
liberation of the Idlib governorate by the Syrian Arab Army.
The jihadists sent to Libya are expected to balance out the forces present in the country by
supporting the government installed by the UN, while elements of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces
and the Russian mercenaries have lined up with the Bengazi-based government.
In 22 December 2019, Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Conservative lawyer Nikos Dendias,
travelled to Benghazi to meet the ministers designated by the Tobruk House of Representatives
and their military leader, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. He then moved on to Cairo and
Cyprus.
Simultaneously, during a ceremony at the Gölcük Naval shipyard, President Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan announced the decision to expedite Turkey's submarine construction program.
The 6 New Type 214 submarines which Turkey is building with German Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft
(HDW) should be near completion.
Under the agreement signed with the Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Fayez
Al-Sarraj, in addition to military ports in occupied Cyprus, Turkey could have access to a home
port in Libya, from where it could extend its influence over the entire eastern
Mediterranean.
After the delivery of Turkish military equipment to Tripoli flown in by a civilian Boeing
747-412, Field Marshal Haftar proclaimed that he would not hesitate to shoot down any civilian
aircraft carrying weapons for the GNA.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has entered into a military alliance with the
Libyan "government of national accord" (GNA), chaired by Fayez Al-Sarraj, based in Tripoli and
backed by the United Nations. Erdoğan has already arranged for the delivery of armored
vehicles and drones, but has yet to deploy regular troops.
In Ankara, the Grand National Assembly is expected imminently to authorize the Turkish army
to send regular soldiers to Libya.
At the same time, however, the Turkish army is keeping out of Idlib (Syria) where the
jihadists are under attack by the Syrian Arab army, in coordination with the Russian air force,
and where two Turkish observation posts have been hemmed in by the Syrian Arab army. Tens of
thousands of jihadists have been moving into Turkey.
On 25 December 2019, President Erdoğan paid a spur-of-the-moment visit to Tunisia. He
was notably flanked by Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey's national intelligence (Millî
İstihbarat Teşkilatı), as well as by his Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministers.
The delegation was received by Tunisia's President Kaïs Saïed, a jurist, who is
supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. He gave his Turkish counterpart the green light to use the
airport and the port of Djerba for the mass transfer of jihadists to Tripoli and Misrata.
Turkey, since 2011, has been waging a pro-Sunni proxy war in Syria, in the hope of one day
establishing in Damascus a pro-Turkey, Islamist regime. This ambition has failed, costing
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey violent political turmoil on both sides of
Turkey's 911-km border with Syria and billions of dollars spent on more than 4 million Syrian
refugees scattered across the Turkish soil.
In Egypt, in 2011-2012, Erdoğan aggressively supported the failed Muslim Brotherhood
government and deeply antagonized the incumbent -- then-general but now president -- Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi. Since Erdoğan's efforts in Syria and Egypt failed, his Sunni Islamist
ambitions have found a new proxy-war theater: Libya.
On December 10,
Erdoğan said he could deploy troops in Libya if the UN-backed Government of National
Accord (GNA) in Tripoli (which Turkey supports) requested it. Erdoğan's talks with GNA's
head, Fayez al-Sarraj, who is fighting a war against the Libyan National Army (LNA) of General
Khalifa Haftar, produced two ostensibly strategic agreements: a memorandum of understanding on
providing the GNA with arms, military training and personnel; and a maritime agreement
delineating exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean waters.
Greece and Egypt protested immediately while the European Council unequivocally condemned
the controversial accords. Meanwhile, the deals apparently escalated a proxy competition
between Turkey's old (Greece) and new (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) rivals.
With the al-Sarraj handshake, Erdoğan is apparently aiming to:
minimize Turkey's isolation in the Mediterranean, one which has gradually worsened since
2010, following one diplomatic crisis after another with Israel;
counter strategic cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Egypt and Israel, including joint
diplomatic, energy and military initiatives;
cut into the emerging Cypriot-Greek-Egyptian-Israeli maritime bloc;
push back against Arab (Egyptian and UAE) pressure on al-Sarraj;
fill the European vacuum in Libya; and
emerge as a deal-breaker in the Mediterranean rather than a deal-maker.
All that ambition requires military hardware as well as diplomatic software. Since 2011, a
year after the Mavi Marmara incident ruptured relations with Israel, Turkey has been investing
billions of dollars in naval technologies, in an apparent effort to build up the hardware it
would one day require.
In the eight years since then, Turkey has built
four Ada-class corvettes; two Landing Ship Tank (LST) vessels; eight fast Landing Craft Tank
(LCT) vessels; 16 military patrol ships; two deep-sea rescue ships; one submarine rescue ship;
and four assault boats.
The jewel in the naval treasury box is a $1 billion Landing Platform Dock (LPD), now being
built under license from Spain's Navantia shipyards, to be operational in 2021. The TCG
Anadolu , Turkey's first amphibious assault ship, will carry a battalion-sized unit of
1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it
also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also may be able to deploy short
takeoff and vertical landing STOVL F-35 fighter jets. Turkey will be the third operator in the
world of this ship type, after Spain and Australia.
Erdoğan's naval ambitions, however, are not limited just to an emerging fleet of
conventional vessels. In 2016, he said
that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a "most elite" aircraft
carrier. He also said he "sees it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear
vessel."
On December 22, Turkey's first Type 214 class submarine, the TCG Piri Reis , hit the seas
with a ceremony attended by Erdoğan. "Today,"
he said , "we gathered here for the docking of Piri Reis . As of 2020, a submarine will go
into service each year. By 2027, all six of our submarines will be at our seas for
service."
Unsurprisingly the docking ceremony reminded Erdoğan of his Libyan gambit: "We will
evaluate every opportunity in land, sea and air. If needed, we will increase military support
in Libya."
Erdoğan seems to think that his best defense in the Mediterranean power game is an
offense. On December 15, Turkish Naval Forces
intercepted an Israeli research ship, the Bat Galim , in Cypriot waters and escorted it
away, as tension over natural resource exploration continued to rise in the region.
On December 16, Turkey dispatched a surveillance and reconnaissance drone to the
Turkish-controlled north of the divided island of Cyprus. A week before the drone deployment,
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Ankara could use its
military forces to halt gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it claims as its own.
Libya is another risky proxy war theater for Turkey. Its deals with the al-Sarraj government
over troop deployment and maritime borders will become null and void if the Libyan civil war,
begun in 2014, ends with Gen. Haftar's victory. The chief of staff of the LNA, Farag
Al-Mahdawi,
announced that his forces would sink any Turkish ship approaching the Libyan coast. "I have
an order; as soon as the Turkish research vessels arrive, I will have a solution. I will sink
them myself," Al-Mahdawi warned, noting that the order was coming from Haftar. On December 21,
Haftar's forces seized
a Grenada-flagged ship with Turkish crew aboard, on the suspicion that it was carrying arms.
The ship was later released.
The European Union is another factor why Erdoğan, once again, is probably betting on
the wrong horse. Technically speaking, Turkey is a candidate for full EU membership, but it is
an open secret that accession talks have not moved an inch during the past several years, and
with no prospects of progress in sight. Making membership prospects even gloomier, EU foreign
ministers in November
agreed on economic sanctions for Ankara for violating Cyprus' maritime economic zone by
drilling off the island.
The Mediterranean chess game leaves Turkey in alliance with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot
statelet and one of the warring factions in Libya, versus a strategic grouping of Greece,
Cyprus, Egypt (and the UAE), Israel, and the other warring Libyan group.
One emerging power in Libya, however, is not a Western state actor. After controlling Syria
in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and establishing permanent military bases inside and off
the coast of the country, Russia has the potential to step into the Libyan theater with a
bigger proxy and direct force, to establish its second permanent Mediterranean military
presence. As in Syria, where divergent interests did not stop Turkey from becoming a
remote-controlled Russian player, Moscow can once again make use of the Turkish card to
undermine Western interests in Libya.
Also as in Syria, Turkey's Islamist agenda will probably fail in Libya, but by the time
Erdoğan understands that, it might be too late to get out of Moscow's orbit.
Lyttennburgh, I can think of a couple of reasons for Erdogan's Libyan adventure. First, he'd
rather have those battle tested jihadis in Libya than on his border or in his country.
Second, he may have his eyes on Mediterranean oil. Lastly, he may see a friendly Libyan
government as an ally or province of his Ottoman Empire dream. No matter what the reason,
he's setting himself up for another confrontation with Russia.
Combating the scourge of US-supported terrorists in Syria at the behest of its government
aside, Russia's involvement elsewhere is diplomatic, including in Libya.
Obama regime-led aggression in 2011 transformed Africa's most developed nation into a
charnel house, a dystopian failed state, endless war raging with no resolution in prospect.
Wherever wars rage, chances are US dirty hands are involved, clearly the case in multiple
countries, including Libya.
Russia is not involved in the country militarily. Claims otherwise are fabricated. Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov strongly denied them, saying:
"I categorically refute speculations of this kind. We are acting in the interest of the
Libyan settlement," adding:
"We are supporting the existing effort, including through the United Nations. We maintain a
dialogue with those who somehow influence the situation."
"We do not think that there is any grounds for such statements, such fiction, but this is
not the first time that US media spread different speculations, wicked rumors, falsehoods
targeting us."
"We have already gotten used to this, and we take it in stride. However, I have to
acknowledge that recurrent hoaxes of this kind exercise a negative influence on the sentiment
of the US domestic public, and the general atmosphere in the United States."
"Unfortunately it does not promote normalization of our ties, although we strive for
it."
A November NYT propaganda piece falsely accused Russia of involvement militarily in Libya --
instead of focusing on how the Obama regime raped and destroyed the country.
Trump hardliners support warlord Khalifa Haftar, a longtime CIA asset, a former US resident,
commander of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) -- waging war on the UN-backed
Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).
Since US-led aggression toppled Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011 and sodomized him to death,
the US continued to wage secret drone war on the country, conducting hundreds of strikes,
continuing since Trump took office.
The Times falsely claimed "Russian mercenaries (and) snipers" are involved in Libya -- no
evidence cited proving what's not so, adding:
Hundreds of "Russian fighters (are) part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its
influence across the Middle East and Africa (sic)."
"It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided
artillery, as well as the snipers -- the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the
Syrian civil war (sic)."
There's nothing remotely "civil" about US aggression in Syria. No evidence suggests Russia
is involved militarily in Libya with heavy or other weapons.
The Kremlin didn't intervene in the country on behalf of anyone. Its involvement is
diplomatic to try resolving the mess US aggression created -- what the Times and other
establishment media cheerled.
Days earlier, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed false claims
about Kremlin involvement in Libya militarily, saying:
Moscow officials maintain diplomatic contact "with all current Libyan political forces,"
adding:
Congressional hardliners drafted the so-called Libya Stabilization Act -- imposing sanctions
on Russia for its "imaginary military presence in" the country.
The measure falsely accuses Moscow of "military intervention," blaming what doesn't exist on
destabilizing the country, ignoring how US-led NATO smashed Libya, massacring countless
thousands, displacing many more, destroying their livelihoods and well-being
"I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US armed forces presence in Syria or the
reckless actions of the (Obama regime) in Libya to their voters," Zakharova stressed.
The Times propaganda piece barely acknowledged Trump regime support for Haftar, mentioning
it buried well into its article, ignoring its April 2019 piece, headlined:
So Turkey goes against Uncle Sam and Egypt. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed . ..."
"... In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict . ..."
"... Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to topple Assad? ..."
"... The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world. More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. ..."
Bloomberg has confirmed on Friday the prior rumors that Turkey will be sending mercenaries
to Libya -- where it is propping up the UN-backed government in Tripoli (the GNA) -- are true.
"Turkey is preparing to deploy troops and naval forces to support the
internationally-recognized Libyan government, joining a planned push by Ankara-backed Syrian
rebels to defeat strongman Khalifa Haftar,"
reports Bloomberg .
Though Ankara has yet to confirm or deny the new reports, Erdogan's Turkey has for years
overseen a Libya-to-Turkey-to-Syria arms
"rat line" which saw both heavy weaponry and jihadists fighters transported for the purpose
of toppling Assad. But now with Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa
Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed
.
This also as President Erdogan
in a speech on Thursday presented plans to send Turkish national troops bolster Tripoli as
well .
Possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA),
with most of its fighters currently attacking Syrian Kurds in the ongoing 'Operation Peace
Spring', will now be sent into Libya.
There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian 'rebel'
willing to go to Libya .
TFSA source told me Turkey will be offering fighters from all TFSA factions $2,000/month
to go to Libya.
And akin to the current proxy war which has seen both the US, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists
backed by Turkey wrangle over Syria's oil rich eastern region, Libya is heating up to be the
latest 'oil and gas prize' -- but with immensely more at stake. As Bloomberg notes:
In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its
troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior
Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that
serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business
contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict .
As we
predicted earlier , Libya and the southern Mediterranean is on its way to becoming the next
big Middle East conflict of 2020 , also with Egypt and even Russia warning of further
involvement to block Turkey's increasing role on the ground.
And as the mainstream media finally stops ignoring the looming catastrophe for north Africa
and the region (still in denial as to the fruits of US-NATO "liberated" Libya after Gaddafi was
overthrown and killed), it
must be remembered that in another ironic plot twist, the CIA trained the very FSA 'rebel'
fighters now on their way to Libya .
Gee who would have ever predicted? It's the foreign fighter 'rat line' in reverse.
Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to
topple Assad? Via a 2015
military study :
The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world.
More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of
jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these
foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. Who are these North African fighters, and why are they
going to Syria? What do they hope to accomplish there, and do they want to return to their home countries?
Considering the tens of thousands of foreign fighters which poured into Syria starting in
2011 and 2012 in the first place, many of them from Libya, perhaps many are now simply headed
"home" -- ready to further the proxy war chaos at Erdogan's bidding.
NATO IS NOTHING more than an extension of George Soros' arm as it is also an extension
of the Rothschild arm! Most should have gleaned this by now, particularly recognizing the
radical Wahhabism that was included in this band of merry global thugs (Saudi Arabia) to do
the bidding of the globalist satanic cabal. Kind of sad hearing this kind of neive
responses from the gallery...sorry Mr. teolawki but you missed the forest for the
trees.
What is naive is not understanding that Turkey is the current NATO nations gateway for
all manner of illicit and illegitimat activity to foment and perpetuate the forever wars in
the ME. This has been going on since well before Benghazi and has only gotten worse under
Erdogan.
If you have a way to snap your fingers and solve every problem simultaneously, then
please do so. Otherwise it must be undertaken one step at a time. Closing that Turkish
gateway permanently is an excellent start.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
The interesting info here is that the article states Haftar's "eastern-based Libyan
National Army (LNA), backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, France, Russia and
Turkey".
The NATO rift between Turkey and its other members has escalated with the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's Senate voting to recognize the Armenian Genocide and Greece to help the LNA (Bengazi
gov't) defend against Turkish shipments of militia/terrorists and weapons to the besieged GNA
in Tripoli. This
site is very helpful and up-to-date regarding what's occurring. And
this PDF Briefing Paper is very good and quite detailed.
All of the above's added to the tense situation around Cyprus, Turkey's threat to close
Incirlik, and Greek offers to house those NATO facilities. It increasingly looks like the
Turkish S-400s are aimed at Greece and NATO.
/div>
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it to
abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis, but
most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and that "If
only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with the future
deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but most of the
time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an example out of
it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have no
checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this un-democratic
way.
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it
to abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis,
but most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and
that "If only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with
the future deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but
most of the time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an
example out of it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have
no checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this
un-democratic way.
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to
decide which faction they want to back.
The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field
Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed
Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on
September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing
about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the
situation has become increasingly violent and
chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt
of the suffering.
An article in Bloomberg News provides a
succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military
intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster
of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to
thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched
the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the
country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of
rival domestic factions but major
Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in
some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.
The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly
can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to
support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government
-- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area.
President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in
April with Haftar and
appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and
bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's
stance.
Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that
advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that
unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the
humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first
place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.
One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential
national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
her new book, The Education of an
Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed,
flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect
to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the
culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison
correctly
excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the
effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan
culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never
have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they
couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the
policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"
The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as
though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable
consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates,
Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama
administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken
proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes
further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision
was a "51 to 49" call.
The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's
attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the
subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's
infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to
disregard those warnings.
Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic
Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands.
Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was
especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against
intervention, not plunging ahead.
The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any
temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar
and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant
interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than
eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .
The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect
of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization
war continued.
Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis
who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their
stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!
Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened.
The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican
East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of
Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has
changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.
I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan
intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of
governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.
You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.
They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider
worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at
home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.
Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles
produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the
author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling
down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato
Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy
than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.
And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the
entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence
from Tehran to Beirut?
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
The New York Times is outraged, just outraged! -- that US anti-tank missiles have been found
in "unknown" Libyan rebel hands .
Of course, when tons of American military hardware was covertly sent to al-Qaeda linked
"rebels" fighting to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and when those same weapons were later
transferred to the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria , many of them no doubt used by ISIS and
al-Nusra Front, the mainstream media didn't find much to complain about. But now the "scandal"
is being uncovered in 2019?
Currently, it's the UN-backed government in Tripoli which finds itself on the receiving end
of deadly accurate high-tech US-made weapons systems, according to
the Times :
Libyan government fighters discovered a cache of powerful American missiles , usually sold
only to close American allies, at a captured rebel base in the mountains south of Tripoli
this week.
The four Javelin anti-tank missiles, which cost more than $170,000 each, had ended up
bolstering the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Hifter , whose forces are waging a military campaign
to take over Libya and overthrow a government the United States supports.
Markings on the missiles' shipping containers indicate that they were originally sold to
the United Arab Emirates, an important American partner, in 2008.
... ... ...
The Times report noted further, "If the Emirates transferred the weapons to
General Hifter, it would likely violate the sales agreement with the United States as well as a
United Nations arms embargo ."
Gen. Haftar -- who
solidified control of Eastern Libya over the past two years and swept through the south
early this year, has sought to capture Tripoli and seize military control of the entire
country, with the support of countries like the UAE and France, but is strongly opposed by
Turkey and most European countries.
Haftar has long been described by many analysts as "the CIA's man in Libya" -- given he
spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley,
Virginia during Gaddafi's rule.
He was inserted back onto the Libyan battlefield before Gaddafi's eventual capture and field
execution at the hands of NATO supported Islamist fighters in 2011. The NYT offered further
details of the US weapons recovered this week
as follows :
Markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon
and Lockheed Martin , and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for
Javelin missiles that was placed by the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008.
Again, isn't it a little late for the mainstream media to somehow only now discover and care
about the "scandal" of major US weapons systems in "unknown rebel hands" ?
For a trip down memory lane, and to review just what Obama and Hillary's original Libya war
has wrought, see Dan Sanchez's 2015 essay,
"Where Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?"
The CIA knows where these weapons are. All POTUS' know where these weapons are. The
Israelis know where these weapons are. The Saudis and UK know where these weapons are. What
is the problem?
" "We take all allegations of misuse of U.S. origin defense articles very seriously," a
State Department official
said in a statement following the Javelin anti-tank missile recovery.
"We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information. We expect all
recipients of U.S. origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations," the
statement continued. "
Hilarious. Do they expect the "unknown" rebels to just return them? If they're unknown,
how do tehy know they're rebels?
But i guess they're not worried under Obama thousands of these missiles were supplied to
Islamic Terrorists in Syria. And now Trump gave the green light to supply more missiles to
Turkish Islamic Terrorists in Syria. That are slaughtering Thousands of Syrian soldiers with
these missiles.
"... Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many conflicts. ..."
"... Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required). ..."
"... Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process? ..."
"... In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital," the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International . ..."
"... U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) ..."
"... the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger , as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction. ..."
"... Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results. ..."
"... Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. ..."
"... No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured," bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end. ..."
"... A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike. ..."
"... Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam. ..."
"... Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational awareness ." ..."
"... Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense ..."
"... Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. ..."
"... Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures -- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. ..."
"... Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. ..."
"... all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results. ..."
"... War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf. ..."
From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan
in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet. Its
stated purpose: combatting terrorism. Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing --
and yet more bombing.
Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so
American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many
conflicts.
Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now
declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and
munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval
required).
Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of "
Made in USA " bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.
Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars
are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of
ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process?
For many of America's decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an
abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial
airliners, Americans haven't
been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington's battlefields across the
Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair.
There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property
of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we're no longer talking about
"war" in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as
our strong suit, our asymmetrical
advantage , our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined.
Bombs away!
In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and
missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data
supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped
at least 26,172 bombs in seven
countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital,"
the U.S. and its allies dropped more than
20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to
literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600
civilians, according to
Amnesty International .
Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out
of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State
in Syria and Iraq but in
Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the
civilian death toll there even as "friendly" Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the
enemy
and killed , too. Air strikes from Somalia
to
Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing
continue to be
underreported in the American media and
downplayed by the Trump administration.
U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945,
which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later
that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least
600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term
effects of cluster
munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to
conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may
well have exceeded one million.) Today's air strikes are more limited than in those past
campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon's
scalpel, even rhetorically. When " surgical " is applied to bombing in today's
age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real
human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.
This country's propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a
winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the
early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case
of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful
non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even
when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger
, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes
to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to
yet more destruction.
Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent
in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenets of air power
that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air
power, defined as "flexible and versatile," will have "synergistic effects" with other military
operations. When bombing is "concentrated," "persistent," and "executed" properly (meaning not
micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate
victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it's all about. End of
story -- and of thought.
Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the
twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience
teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I'd like to offer some air
power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn't teach me, but that our leaders
might consider before launching their next "decisive" air campaign.
Ten Cautionary Tenets
About Air Power
1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with
relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World
War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.
2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would
have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air
power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring
Laos and Cambodia ), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in
defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering
the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more -- lots
more .) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the
Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year.
3. No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured,"
bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of
innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such
killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to
end.
Consider, for instance, the "decapitation" strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration's invasion of
2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all
of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to
take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause "dozens"
of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched
on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his
regime that hit the Chinese
embassy instead, killing three journalists.
Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the "precision" talk
about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a
start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even "smart" ones, do go
astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are
always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror:
the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air
strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh
insurgents to strike.
4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely
works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a
graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to
give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam.
Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North
Korea and
Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military
"messages." There's no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in
the face of the menace of those
baby-boomer-era airplanes.
5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their
munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the
present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin's boondoggle
of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least
$1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion
simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and
operate. These days, when the sky's the limit for
the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to
run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly
extravagant spending on air power.
6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command
of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational
awareness ." It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in
its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can't
negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you're high above a
potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.
7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial
power projection than with national defense . As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while
fostering the kind of "
global reach, global power " thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in
its grip.
8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens
wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air
Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American
bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground
troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields
from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the
Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn't win, they sure as hell could. The result was
escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on
the cheap due to American air supremacy.
9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact
over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures
-- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those
being bombed become more resilient and resolute.
10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the
moral high ground in war.
The Road to Perdition
If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk
about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability
to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.
For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn't precise. It's nasty,
bloody, and murderous. War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency
to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are
guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to
air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own
turf.
Who doesn't know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear
it, does it make a sound? Here's a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign
children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone
grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless
future of global destruction.
In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and
drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to
perdition.
In December of 2017, Daniel Ellsberg published a book,
"The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" . Among many other things,
he revealed the actual Strangelovian nature of our military establishment. Most enlightening
is his revelation that many in the high command of our nuclear triggers do not trust, or even
have contempt for, civilian oversight and control of the military. They covertly regard the
presidential leadership as naïve and inept, though it would be professional suicide to
admit such an attitude openly.
Comes now 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕹𝖊𝖜
𝖄𝖔𝖗𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 with the
revelation that the Pentagon's Cyber Command has attacked Russia's power grid with software
"implants" designed to destroy that grid the instant a mouse click is given, thereby possibly
initiating global war. Most alarmingly, the details of this secret action were kept from the
President, lest he countermand the operation or leak it to the Russians.
So now we have a general staff that is conducting critical international military
operations on its own, with no civilian input, permission or hindrances of any kind. A
formula for national suicide, executed by a tiny junta of unelected officers who decide to
play nuclear Russian roulette.
We seem to be ineluctably and irreversibly trapped in a state of national dementia.
Just remember this: The U.S. had the technological advantage in Viet Nam, and blasted that
country, along with Cambodia, and Laos, with 7.5 million tons of bombs, (more than the entire
WWII campaign of 2.25 million tons), and the Vietnamese were still able to kick our *** out
of the country by 1975.
There is a 11th tenet: air force operations need airports or aircraft carriers, and these
are very vulnerable to modern, high precision missiles. If the enemy has plenty of missiles,
your fighters and bombers can be impeded to take off and land, or even be destroyed. Modern
aircrafts need very sophisticated and working infrastructures to be operational.
In the case of a full war with Iran, I see all hostile bases and airports destroyed or
damaged by Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian missiles. They have tens of thousand of them - it is
30 years they have been accumulating missiles in prevision of a possible forthcoming war.
You are right. Also, there are many nations with subs and probably more countries have
acquired nukes than are willing to admit. I strongly suspect Iran already has nukes. If North
Korea has them, I see no reason that Iran wouldn't be even further ahead. They have been
under threat of US attacks for my entire lifetime. Anyway, I would not put it past some other
countries to hit US coastal cities and then deny any knowledge about who did it. There are
many capable and many people have been made enemies by our foreign policy. Surely these
people have treaties to help each other should be attack. And why would they make these
treaties public and antagonize the US military further. I'm sure there are many well kept
secrets out there. We must evolve, or the US and Israel could find it is us against the
world.
War is hell. It has always been so. The failure here is that since World War II all US
wars have been fatuously political. Actions have not been taken to win but to posture about
moral greatness and the ability to force the enemy to deal without destroying his capacity to
resist.
How can you say the US lost in Vietnam when the entire country could have been removed
from the face of the Earth? Yes the price of such removal would have been very high but it
could have been done. Do such considerations mean that if one withdraws one has lost?
The US won the war in the Pacific but it is now considered an excessive use of force that
the US used nuclear weapons to conclude the war. Perhaps the US did not use enough force then
to successfully conclude the Vietnam war? Perhaps, it failed to field the right kind of
force?
The definition of lost is an interesting one. The practical answer is that the US did lose
in many places because it was unwilling to pay the price of victory as publicly expressed.
Yet it could have won if it paid the price.
So an interesting question for military types is to ask how to lower the price. What kind
of weapons would have been needed to quickly sweep the enemy into oblivion in Vietnam let us
say, given the limits of the war? Could the war have been won without ground troops and
choppers but with half a million computer controlled drones armed with machine guns and
grenades flying in swarms close to the ground?
The factories to produce those weapons could have been located in Thailand or Taiwan or
Japan and the product shipped to Vietnam. Since only machines would be destroyed and the
drones are obviously meant to substitute for ground troops then how about a million or two
million of the drones in place of the half a million ground troops? Could the US, with
anachronistic technology to be sure, have won the war for a price that would have been
acceptable to the US?
The idea here is that one constructs an army, robot or otherwise, than can destroy the
enemy it is going to fight at a price which is acceptable. This is actually a form of
asymmetric warfare which requires a thorough understanding of the enemy and his capabilities.
The US did not enter Vietnam with such an army but with one not meant to serve in Vietnam and
whose losses would be deeply resented at home. The price of victory was too high.
But this does not mean that the US cannot win. It only means that the commitment to win in
a poorly thought out war must be great enough to pay the price of victory. This may be a
stupid thing to do but it does not mean that it cannot be done. One cannot assume that the US
will never again show sufficient commitment to win.
Victory means you get to write your own ******** version of history.The most devastating
civilian bombing campaign in human history is not even mentioned in this article. The US fire
bombing of 30 major cities in Korea with the death toll estimated at between 1.2 million and
1.6 million. I bet most US citizens aren't even aware of this atrocity or that the military
requested Truman to authorize the use of nuclear warheads which he, thankfully, declined to
do.
What does the word "victory" mean? It means whatever the rulers want it to mean. In this
case, "victory" is synonymous with prolongation and expansion of warmaking around the world.
Victory does not mean an end to combat. In fact, victory, in the classic sense, means defeat,
at least from the standpoint of those who profit from war. If someone were to come up with a
cure for cancer, it would mean a huge defeat for the cancer industry. Millions would lose
their jobs. CEO's would lose their fat pay packages. Therefore, we need to be clearheaded
about this, and recognize that victory is not what you think it is.
Talked with a guy recently. He is a pilot. He flies planes over Afghanistan. He is a
private contractor.
The program began under the Air Force. It then was taken over by the Army. It is now a
private contractor.
There are approx 400 pilots in country at a time with 3 rotations. He told me what he gets
paid. $200,000 and up.
They go up with a NSA agent running the equipment in back. He state that the dumbass
really does not know what the plane is capable of. They collect all video, audio, infrared,
and more? (You have to sense when to stop asking questions)
I just wanted to know the logistics of the info gathered.
So, the info is gathered. The NSA officer then gets with the CIA and the State Dept to see
what they can release to the end user. The end user is the SOCOM. After it has been through
review then the info is released to SOCOM.
So with all of this info on "goatherders" we still cannot pinpoint and defeat the "enemy"?
No. Too many avenues of profit and deceit and infighting. It will always be. May justice here
and abroad win in the end.
Concentrate on the true enemies. It is not your black, or Jewish, or brown, or Muslim
neighbor. It is the owners of the Fed, Dow chemical, the Rockefellers, McDonnel Douglas and
on and on and on and on and on and on..............
The ROAD to perdition passes through APARTHEID Israhell.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States... has no vital
interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Who is driving the process
and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary... " – Philip Giraldi,
Former CIA officer.
Understand this if nothing else, Khalifa Haftar is a terrorist hand puppet of the CIA. He
is a thief, a liar, a thug, and a traitor to Libya. He threatens legitimate Libyans daily and
uses the NSA listening equipment (brought into Libya in 2011) to target any Libya who speaks
his name. Khalifa Haftar would not ever be supported by Russia. This lie has been perpetrated
in the mainstream for years. Now they have stepped up their game and have stated that Russian
mercenaries are in Libya supporting Haftar at the behest of the leader of Russia. Nothing
could be farther from the truth.
The Great Tribes have confirmed to me everything that I have written.
Libya has lost their country to terrorist thugs, their infrastructure has been destroyed,
their wealth has been stolen and continues to be stolen. They have had one million Libyans
killed....
It is the assets and geographical location that they would own. The ruination, destruction
and death of Libya and her people are just acceptable collateral damage to achieve their evil
agenda.
The military offensive against Tripoli is more political than in fact a military offensive
to overwhelm the enemy. Of course battles are fought but just the fact that heavy weapons
(tanks, artillery etc...) were not used in the first few weeks could indicate that the attack
was somehow aiming to be fast, to aim fo tribal allegiance shifts or just to make a point.
Only in the past week or so we have seen tanks and air strikes taking place, which seems an
escalation of the conflict.
Haftar's LNA has won this war, though many battles will be fought ahead, the LNA has
brought a very united support from Egypt, KSA and UAE and with that it brings France, Russia
and now the US in supporting it, either as opportunistic, individual agenda or simply to
speed up the peaceful process.
The fact is the GNA is becoming seriously isolated, very few support besides Turkey, Qatar
and Italy, all the indication that there is a good chance for Tripoli to saved from
destruction in a mix of military/political solution in weeks to come. Key tribal vocal and on
the ground support, like Zittan's, will be crucial for this peace process.
Then Misrata will be a totally different animal, here Muslin Brotherhood/al Qaeda and ISIS
are packed and strong, support from Turkey and Qatar is abundant, there is no peaceful
solution for Misrata, only annihilation of the filthy terrorists, like in Idlib in Syria.
Trump is supporting Haftar because he is STILL a CIA asset and to keep Russia's hands off
Libya. Haftar is also friends with the Egyptian Zionist Sissy and likewise, MbinSaw.
So now, there's only one smart thing for Putin to do; support THE OTHER SIDE. If he
doesn't do this, the U.S. has a CIA stooge ruling Libya, who is friends with all its allies
including the most lunatic state of the 3 -- Israel, though all three are ruled by despot
nutjobs.
Putin should at worst remain neutral or support the other side to mess with Trump's
geo-engineering.
Now that Putin and Kim will be holding a summit soon; it would be nice to see Putin f...ck
up U.S. plans in Libya too!
It's about putting up roadblocks to the Empire's geopolitical grab. That's the way you
balance power. If ever war breaks out, you want to have as many allies, friendly air space
and allied ports as possible. It doesn't mean a World War will happen again, but it could,
and geostrategy is good INSURANCE. The U.S. will never be Russia's natural ally, not even
close, therefore Putin better play it smart always planning for the worst while hoping for
the best.
Alas, I'm not sure what Putin's thinking lately allowing the lunatic state to attack
Iranian military assets in Syria! Too many Zionist oligarchs in Putin's sphere. One day Putin
will utter Caesar's last words: Et tu, Brute? Because you sure as hell can't trust a Zionist
when it comes to securing your own power!
But only the LNA and GNA are mentioned. I thought there were 3 governments in Libya - one
west, one east, and one pushed by the UN. Wikipedia's Libyan Civil War entry adds the
National Salvation Army to the LNA and GNA. But the NSA may no longer play a part with the
militias rising to the fore. And do the militias support the UN-backed GNA? From what I've
read the militias are working together against "one-man rule" of Haftar.
Libya is a broken country, Haftar brings stability, the end of the militias, Islamists and
slavery. Haftar has already won that is why the US are now supporting him.
Russia has had a long standing dialogue with Haftar. Haftar will probably gain some sort
of independence by balancing these conflicting powers (Russia and US). The US will get oil at
the price they want (need) but I expect that Russia will gain most from Haftar coming out on
top.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19, 2019 5:30:50 PM
Hogwash. You left out the part where Haftar joined the revolution that deposed and
murdered Gaddafi after returning to Libya from Langley! Haftar is a ruthless power-lusting
butcher and not trustworthy at all!
Yes he was part of the forces that overthrew Gaddafi and also connected to the CIA - I
didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I would very much prefer Gaddafi to still be in power -
Libyans almost certainly feel the same (the vast majority felt the same when the uprising
happened).
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist militias.
So what choice is there really? Haftar brings a much greater likelihood of peace and
stability. But, he won't be bringing back the life that Libyans had when Gaddafi was in
charge.
It appears that he instigated his war in 2015 without the agreement/support of US &
CIA and this may well indicate that he is his own person - but this might just be a
smokescreen. Regardless, what real choice is there for ordinary Libyans - continuing war,
chaos and conflict or accepting that Haftar has won?
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist
militias. So what choice is there really?
Wrong. It's not an either Haftar or terrorists situation, dynamic whatever. This falsehood
is UAE, SAUDI bullshet propaganda. Wahhabism is trying to take over Libya and Sudan! Wherever
the Saudis are involved trouble follows lest you forget Syria and Yemen!
Haftar is bad for Libya PERIOD. More proof is that before Trump called Haftar to offer his
support, he spoke with UEA's MBZ. It all stinks! Leave Libya alone -- hands off! All foreign
influence out! That's the best option.
financial matters , Apr 19, 2019 7:08:35 PM |
link
Nice to see Russia and the US on the same side actually fighting real terrorism. This is a
win against the deep state.
The US doesn't care what murderous thug is in charge.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Apr 19, 2019 3:22:46 PM | 9
My first thought was -- now they are telling us?
Of course, HRC put it nicely in a debate with Trump: "you will never see me singing
praises for a dictator or strongmen who does no love America." Qaddafi, RIP, did not love
America, so he had to go once an opportunity emerged. Maduro does not love America. Sisi may
have a kind word now and then etc.
"On Friday, the United Nations Security Council, following a closed-door meeting, issued a
statement to the press calling for Hifter's LNA to "halt its military activity" near Tripoli.
When Britain proposed a formal resolution along these lines, however, Russia opposed it, no
doubt fearing that it could become the pretext for a fresh Western intervention in Libya.
The British draft included a passage calling "for those who undermine Libya's peace and
security to be held to account."
What hypocrisy! There was no such call when the UK joined with France and the United
States to overthrow the country's government and inflict death upon its population and
destruction upon its infrastructure.
*****No one, from Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron on down, was ever held
accountable for a criminal war of aggression that turned the country into a living
hell.****
Launched under the pretext of a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone
over Libya to halt the supposed (but non-existent) threat of a massacre in the eastern city
of Benghazi, the war saw money and arms poured into Islamist militias and lavished on Al
Qaeda operatives, who were backed by a relentless bombing campaign, which included nearly
30,000 sorties in the course of seven months.
A war launched on the pretext of protecting civilians culminated in the carpet bombing of
Sirte, a bastion of popular support for Gaddafi, and the lynch-mob torture and murder of the
Libyan leader, over which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloated, "We
came, we saw, he died."
"In the intervening eight years, the attempts to install a pro-Western puppet regime in a
devastated country controlled by clashing Islamist, tribal and other militias have failed
miserably. The regime headed up by Sarraj, recognized as Libya's "legitimate" government,
barely controls even Tripoli. Under its supposed rule, the country's education and health
systems have collapsed, while inflation is ravaging living standards, the unemployment rate
has reached 30 percent, and fully a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
Conditions of life for masses of Libyans have deteriorated dramatically since the overthrow
of Gaddafi."
"... The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed. ..."
"... The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers. ..."
"... *Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on terror" and use "Long War". ..."
7 years after the US - led by Obama, Hillary & @SamanthaJPower - bombed Libya in the
name of "humanitarianism" along with the UK & France & then utterly ignored it, the
country is so violent, unstable & dangerous that US troops can no longer safely
remain
American troops in Libya moved out of country as violence escalates near capital
The announcement comes as the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli vowed to defend the
capital against a renegade militia seeking to storm its way into the city, a showdown that
threatened to spill into bloody urban combat in the streets of Tripoli.
How come none of this is on page one above the fold?
EMichael, goes after Chinese oppression of Muslims, but never a word about humanitarian
tragedies US spreads from Caracas to Yemen through Kandahar to Pyongyang.
Russia doing any of this to Ukraine or Georgia would be howled about!
The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for
US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation
more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander
bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed.
The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers.
*Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on
terror" and use "Long War".
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
New emails published by the U.S. Department of State reveal the real motives behind the
international invasion of Libya.
The new emails of Hillary Clinton reveal that the real reason behind the invasion were
primarily the countries large gold and oil reserves, and the extension of French influence in
North Africa.
Fort Russ reports:
The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold
reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could
become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the
dollar in the region.
Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and
the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders
welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long
live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", – said French President
Nicolas Sarkozy.
"You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" –
said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The
people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA
Joe Biden.
In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background
of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In
January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.
Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in
Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaper The Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon,
from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences
for the country.
"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the
invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country
were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is
in no hurry to intervene in each of them. The Obama administration from the beginning was
guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the
situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.
Source:
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email...Ozzie Crosby2 years ago
America needs war to survive. The United States IS the infidel. It's not just propaganda.
pav_k20072 years ago
modern day robbers! K Lyall2 years ago
Imagine a NWO puppet like her in the White House for 4 more years!
10 11
View reply Hide replies 1979USHI2 years ago The
Western nations governments are totally out of order and need to be taken to a real world
court. Notta
Dr2 years ago
incredibly disgusting what we are learning about warmongering corporate globalist elites. there
is a strong move starting in the other direction....more conservative nationalist leaders are
rising up everywhere. these monsters ask need to be arrested, tried and severely
punished....held to the highest level of accountability.
"... 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court ..."
"... The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The Toilet"). ..."
"... So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class. ..."
Libyan War The Truth
The Great Tribes of Libya have begun their cleansing of the terrorists brought into their country illegally by NATO in their 2011
invasion of Libya.
These terrorists include groups such as Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Ansar Al Sharia, ISIS,
Salafists, Wahabists and other assorted small criminal mercenary militia gangs. All of these militia gangs have been controlling
Tripoli since 2011, ILLEGALLY. These terrorists are working with the UN puppet government, appointed by the UN (headed by the criminal
Serraj) without any authority or vote of the Libyan people. These terrorist gangs answer to no laws or rules. They roam the streets
armed and attack or steal at will. The Libyan people have suffered under these gangs ever since NATO, Obama, Clinton, McCain and
others invaded their country with NATO using a false flag lie of a revolution to justify their war crimes.
Today, many of the largest tribes in Libya joined the Tarhouna tribe near Tripoli to support them in the cleansing of the rubbish
controlling the city of Tripoli. The people of Libya who are all members of tribes and represented by the tribes, have had enough.
Recently, as I reported earlier, 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court made up of criminal militias.
These young men had broken no laws, their only crime was being members of the Libyan army fighting against NATO invaders in 2011.
This was just one more criminal act that pushed the Libyan people (tribes) over the edge. Even though the tribes have no support
from outside like the militias who receive weapons and money from the US (via Turkey), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Sudan; the Great
Tribes of Libya have joined together to take back their sovereignty no matter what.
The terrorist gangs (militias) fearing the loss of their "golden goose" have called their brother terrorists from all over Libya
to support them in their battle. These terrorists (Salafists and Wahabists, et. al) are being flown into the Mitiga Airport in Tripoli.
The Mitiga airport, the old Wheelus Air Base , is being
controlled by the terrorists.
So, as the world watches, the Great Tribes of Libya, standing alone with all their Libyan brothers and sisters, take on the New
World order and their proxy army of terrorists.
We ask the people of the world to stand with their Libyan brothers and sisters as they fight the Zionist New World Order, Khazarian
mafia cabal. The Cabal has taken their country by illegal means and placed their criminals on the ground to keep the Libyan people
from their security and sovereignty.
The Great tribes of Libya are showing the world how to fight, they deserve your support and your respect. God bless them all as
they fight against the evil that is permeating the entire world today.
Comment: More from
Sputnik:
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on the conflicting parties in Libya to immediately cease fire and sit down at the
negotiating table, his spokesman said in a statement on Saturday.
"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to immediately cease hostilities and abide by the ceasefire agreement brokered
by the United Nations and the Reconciliation Committees," the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.
Guterres condemned the continued hostilities in and near Tripoli, in particular, the indiscriminate shelling, which killed
and injured civilians, including children. He offered his deepest condolences to the victims' relatives.
"He urges all parties to grant humanitarian relief for those in need, particularly those who are trapped by the fighting,"
the spokesman added.
Ghassan Salame, a special representative of the UN secretary-general and the head of the United Nations Support Mission in
Libya (UNSMIL), will continue to work and cooperate with all parties to achieve a long-term political agreement acceptable to
all, he concluded.
[F]ighting erupted on August 26 reportedly between local militias and Kani tribal fighters from Tarhouna, southeast of Tripoli.
According to the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) NGO, heavy shelling in residential areas resulted in an unspecified number of
casualties and approximately 8,000 refugees and asylum seekers remaining trapped in closed detention centers in dire humanitarian
conditions.
The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The
Toilet").
So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed
the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class.
But that's their plan - as enacted further daily - here in the West, too.
DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING PUT OUT IN THE WESTERN MEDIA. THE MEDIA AND ZIONIST NEW WORLD
ORDER CABAL IS ATTEMPTING TO FABRICATE THE SAME PROBLEM AS IN 2011 BY PRINTING LIES.
THERE IS NO CEASEFIRE, THERE IS NO TRUCE.
THE FIGHT IN TRIPOLI IS BETWEEN THE LIBYAN PEOPLE (TRIBAL ARMY) AND THE TERRORIST GANGS
CALLED MILITIAS.
These are the facts on the ground today in Tripoli:
1. The combined army of the Great Tribes of Libya is fighting against the terrorists and
mercenaries in Tripoli. These terrorists call themselves militias, but they are nothing more
than hired thugs, thieves, murderers and criminals made up of Muslim Brotherhood, LIFG, Ansar
Al Sharia, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. These terrorists were brought into Libya by the illegal NATO
war against the sovereign country of Libya. They are supported by the US (via Turkey), Qatar,
Sudan and Saudi Arabia, they work with the UN puppet government in Tripoli. As long as they
roam the streets of Tripoli with their weapons there is no security, no peace and no life for
the innocent Libyans.
2. All Tribes of Libya support this army.
3. All legitimate Libyan people in Tripoli and throughout Libya support the tribes and are
against these terrorist militias
4. The Great Tribes of Libya will not stop until all terrorists are dead or gone outside of
Libya. The terms of any truce with the tribal army would mean the end of the criminal puppet UN
government and the end of the terrorist militias, so there will not be a truce.
On September 2, 2018 Reuters reported that 400 prisoners escaped from the Ain Zara prison in
Tripoli. The truth is that the army of the Libyan tribes attacked the prison and effected the
freedom of 400 Libyan soldiers about 5pm on September 2. Amongst those 400 were the 45 young
men to be assassinated as condemned last week by the kangaroo militia court in Tripoli. In
2011, when NATO invaded they opened all the prisons in Libya and let out all the criminals to
help attack the Libyan people. Most if not all of the people imprisoned in Libya now were
people who were fighting against NATO or were against the NATO take over (working in the
government).
I am fully aware as are the honorable leaders of the tribes in Libya that all of our
conversations are monitored as we are the only true source of information of the activities of
the Libyan tribes and their struggle to regain their sovereignty. Having stated that, I want to
editorialize by saying that the illegal activities of the US mercenaries in Libya concerning
their Kangaroo court and their decision to assassinate 45 mostly dark skinned Libyan soldiers,
was the straw that broke the camels back. This left the legitimate Libyan people with no option
except to go into the streets and wrest control of their country from these paid
mercenaries.
One of the tribal spies inside these criminal militias told us 2 weeks ago that all the
criminal militias have been frightened by the impending death of John McCain, they consider him
their brother, founder, funder and protector. McCain had protected them from all scrutiny and
allowed their barbarianism. The death of McCain would mean all their sins would be exposed.
They wanted to kill all the prisoners, but their UN handlers said the militias must have the
appearance of legitimacy. Consequently, the kangaroo court was set in motion.
The great tribes of Libya have taken on the battle to free their country of the terrorists
and puppets placed there by the New World Order Zionists who in effect own NATO. This is a
serious battle for their sovereignty. They take this on with no outside help, unlike Syria who
has had the aid of Russia, Iran and China, the Libyan people are alone in this battle. They are
battling the same criminals as are the Syrian army. They know this is a battle of life or death
for them, they are not a large population, they have already lost over one million people, they
are now only 5.5 million. As the world watches Syria, please let it not forget the fight for
freedom happening now in Libya.
About the Author:
James and Joanne Moriarty were appointed official spokespersons of the Tribes of Libya by
their Supreme Leader in 2012. For their story and mission to get the message out and help the
Libyan people, go here.
Bombing it induced a humanitarian crisis in the coastal region where Gaddafi's power was
concentrated, contributed to a wave of refugees, and let the cities which supported him know
they were not impregnable, that their weaknesses were being exploited. The stupid cover
story, solemnly intoned by talking heads who believe their listeners are almost too stupid to
breathe without prompting and assistance, was because cutting the civilian population off
from water in order to force capitulation is a war crime.
Samuel Moyn's review of Michael Walzer's A Foreign
Policy for the Left is worth reading in its entirety. This passage jumped out at me:
Walzer's attempt to snatch the promise of American intervention from the jaws of recent
horrors shows the need to repeat the litany. The left has long since learned how difficult it
is to respond to those who laughed when it tried to save the pure idea of communism from its
totalitarian applications. Walzer applies the same strategy to humanitarian intervention, as
if it might work better in this case.
Remarkably, Walzer does not even mention the Libyan intervention in 2011 [bold mine-DL],
which -- like the Iraq War -- has left hopes for militarized humanism in shambles. Ever since
Democrats and their allies abroad acted to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi under the cover of
humanitarian protection, the possibility of insulating the so-called "responsibility to
protect" civilians abroad from great power designs and horrendous long-term outcomes has
become incredible. Much like a stock newsletter touting a new strategy to beat the odds after
a market crash, the promise of a better scheme for picking winners among prospective
interventions has become unbelievable, at least for now. For Walzer, however, the priority is
to chide fellow leftists for failing to defend the option of humanitarian intervention in
theory, not to understand today why almost nobody thinks it improves the world in
practice.
It seems strange that Walzer wouldn't mention the Libyan war at all in this book. As Moyn
says, it is extremely relevant to the debate over "humanitarian" interventions and their
consequences. What makes this omission even more striking is that Walzer was a public
opponent of the Libyan war when it happened. Walzer opened his article written at
the start of the intervention with this statement:
There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where
to begin.
Walzer was absolutely right to oppose the Libyan war, and his early arguments against it
were very similar to some my own objections. That makes his decision not to mention the Libyan
war or his opposition to it that much more difficult to understand. He could have cited his
opposition as an example of good judgment and proof that he could distinguish between necessary
and unnecessary wars, but for whatever reason he didn't do that. Libya is one of the chief
examples most people today would think of when discussing the merits and flaws of
"humanitarian" intervention, but apparently Walzer doesn't think it is worth talking about. It
is even odder that Walzer would make defending "humanitarian" interventionism the focus of his
book when he saw very clearly then how easily the rhetoric of protecting civilians could be
abused to launch an unjustified war.
He says he "didn't think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became."
That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US "Mission Accomplished" with NATO bombers warming
up to finish the job. Perhaps Max's dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with
Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.
BTW: Has he ever addressed his father's role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the
African continent? I haven't read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal's pre-Qaddafi "removal"
explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:
Steal their nationalized oil.
Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the
US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.
Yeah. Max was "pretty quiet on Libya and not really - didn't really make any coherent statements on that
either."
That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit ("grandstanding" as he now says) "had taken an
anti-imperialist agenda." Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending "the Syrian revolution"? I
didn't think so. Who had "an agenda"? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book
release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that
"being associated" with a paper that also published articles critical of "the revolution" could hurt book sales?
After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.
It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped
turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-"rebel" posts from the internet without
explanation. How Orwellian.
Syria isn't the only topic Blumenthal wrote lies about. Him, his cohort mentioned here, and many other
presstitutes destroyed their credibility to the point where no deed no matter how valorous can regain it for
them--By their actions, they committed journalistic suicide.
It appears greed yet again trumped integrity.
It's always for
A Few Dollars More.
My only concern is that if this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind and talking about it
does that discourage anyone else from doing the same?
They should apologise to those they maligned. But is a vilificatory focus on the insufficiency of their
repentance really helping the anti-imperialist cause?
Blumenthal, and his vocal support for the Palestinian people deserves kudos. If he has
changed his stance on the Syrian debacle, good. I don't know too many people who are always
prescient enough to get everything right from the get-go, so, even without an apology, he deserves credit for
finally getting it right.
I became familiar with Max Blumenthal through Democracy Now. His position on Syria was inexplicably appalling,
but at least he had the decency to eventually call them out:
b. I'm genuinely honored that you chose to post a comment of mine. Thank you. And thank you for correcting my
errors in spelling Al Akhbar and Ben Norton's actual surname.
Once I catch up on the "news," I'll be back to check comments.
I was a follower of Max before the 2011 turmoil. I thought he was OK. He knew what was going around in
Palestine and I was pretty sure he was an advocate for the better. I dont know what to think anymore. What is
right and what is wrong. Can someone enlighten me :-(
Thank you for putting down what most of us who have been following The Arab spring since Tunisia
know about those 3 turncoats aka Triumvirate.
@ Anon #5
Speak for yourself. Those who do follow the ME knew and realised what was the goal back in Dara'a in
February 2011. It has started since 1980's and Assad didn't want to be another b---h of the US. Colin Powell
thought he could sway him with threats back in 2003 and then Robert Ford - so called Ambassador went on with
his task when he got the job in Damascus together with Eric Chevallier who was MAN enough to realise what was
happening.
Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
(Thanks to b for the recognition)
I agree with b. Your comment was thorough, well-articulated and verifiable.
...and flushed out some Moral Equivalence ideologues of the Thomas L Friedman variety.
Black Agenda Report of course has got it right since day one since Blacks more than any other group know not to
trust Western establishment narratives and discourses on human rights and humanitarian intervention. Their
articles on Libya from 2011 are but one proof of this.
Margaret Kimberley's latest on Trump and Israel is
excellent as always:
here.
Oh please! The first attack on Max Blumenthal was embarrassing enough. Moon of Alabama is very fortunate to
have gained as much respect as it has; it's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive
tripe. By the way I'm also offended by the fact that someone presumed to edit my Nom de Comment
"nationofbloodthirstysheep" when I made what I think was a useful comment on the Gulf of Scripal Incident. If I
had wanted to post under the name" nation of sheep" I would have done so.
Max Blumenthal's support for the Palestians, especially those in Gaza, has been solid. As we all know Gaza is
led by the Muslim Brotherhood. As we all should know is that it was the MB in Syria that began war against the
Syrian government. It took about a year for Islamists mercenaries to arrive and begin to dominate the
opposition to Assad's government. Of course, the Saudis and Qatar were financing the MB forces from the
beginning.
I noticed that many westerners who were involved in Palestinian's struggle for their rights
immediately backed the MB in Syria in the first year of the Syrian war. Recall how they came out and supported
the MB when they seized the Yarmouk refugee camp in opposition to the Syrian government. Many good hearted, but
absurdly naive, youthful people who supported the Palestians, came out and attacked Assad.
Max is one of those people. He is young and hopefully is capable of reform. We should accept his apology.
I wasn't aware of Max Blumenthal saying "Alternet Grayzone is the only progressive outlet questioning the main
line". I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect how these writers have changed their
minds and are sticking to it, but this statement leaves a bad taste in the mouth, considering the outlets that
have been questioning it since the beginning. Perhaps he meant "mainstream-alternative progressive outlets", or
"foundation-funded independent outlets". Thanks b and Daniel for the background of which I was not aware.
it is one thing for them to be wrong and another for them to never acknowledge
it.. it is kinda like bush 2 and his war on iraq... no acknowledgement and as obama used to say, instead of
accountability we just have to move on.. bullshit.. these folks would do well to acknowledge when they are
wrong.. i don't know that any of them have..
This all sounds childish to me. Fixation on the degree of sincerity of an apology is for the playground.
They had a view they changed their view from new evidence or by reflection or both. They may have done some
harm by simply being human as we all can and do regularly, we humans being human and all.
These people fully acknowledged their error and were suitably contrite. One should bear in mind the fog of
propaganda surrounding the so-called Arab spring; CIA Isis recruiters were very active in the pro-Palestinian
movements. I actually knew some young people on the streets of Oakland and Berkeley who had been convinced that
the Wahhabi Takfiris were a persecuted minority and were nearly swept away.
Let's be quite clear about this, even if it means going off-message. The Ba'thist regime is not very nice, but
it's a million times better than a jihadi regime in Damascus. It's why Asad has retained the support of
Syrians.
The Syrian students I know have been asked to repay their scholarships. Up to 300k euros. They can't
and so are forced to remain refugees. Even the Alawites. It's not improbable that Asad will forgive them in the
end, but suicides are in prospect. They could cope if it weren't for the war.
The war is going well, but hard on those conscripted. I wonder whether it isn't really a volunteer army now,
after all the deaths. The hardened army is very small, but enough to knock off Ghouta, and enough to put a big
hole in Idlib, some time ago. my opinion is that Idlib won't resist and will collapse, but we'll have to see.
While these three did get it wrong about Syria and may not have given the best explanations of what changed
their minds, they actually come off as pretty contrite, more than I thought they would be capable of. The
podcast is useful for exposing how the Syria issue has crippled the bds movement in North America and the role
of gulf state money in that process. I look forward to what they have to say about the particularly insidious
role of IS Trotskyism in destroying the anti-war movement in the anglophone world. Its fine to score points
against these people for their very real past mistakes, but from an organizing point of view, what matters more
is to understand the situation we're in now, and they are contributing. With formerly reliable outlets like
Counterpunch getting worse on this issue with every passing day, it seems odd to be attacking those who have
rectified their mistakes.
@24
"it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes. "
I certainly hope that it is just "odd". I would hate to have to think that the attacks were due to their
relative effectiveness and the expanded reach of what they have to say. It's sad to consider that in the best
case envy might be a motivation. The worst case is unthinkable.
Been a student of US History and its Empire since 1960s--50+ years--and I'm being told integrity no longer
matters. Can someone tell me when the USA lost its integrity regarding its own basic law and the UN Charter it
helped create, how hard it is to discover that fact, and why it matters? In our Orwellian Age, just how
important is one's credibility, and why should we trust someone who sold hers/his for
A Few Dollars More
?
Perhaps their heretofore "expanded reach" was dependent on their message of the moment's
usefulness to the existing power structure and their willingness to sing on cue? It wouldn't be the first time
political capital earned for good cause has been spent in favor of the enemy. Liberal "performative contrition"
is meaningless. If those three have done it once, they'll do it again. They are now of no service to the people
except as examples, and absolutely replaceable.
It's obvious you're trolling or shilling. Move on to your next assignment please.
Thanks Daniel for your comment and to B who elevated it to a full post. Daniel's comment should serve as an
inspiration to the rest of us!
While attacking Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek for their failure
to apologise to people they had previously slandered on their podcast show may seem poor form, I think that
what Daniel says and B adds is relevant information to consider "going forward", as the cliche goes, when next
the trio cover another or a new Middle Eastern issue, or even revisit the situation in Syria if that should
change. Will Blumenthal et al stand steadfast in their opinion or will they revert to supporting the forces
trying to topple Assad if they sniff that the tide is turning against the SAA and its allies?
@29 jen.. i agree... it is worth reading daniels comment @163 in 'trump ends the nuclear deal' thread as well
as @156 george lanes initial comments to this post of daniels too..
i usually try not to judge people by their family connections but blumenthal's dad is such a noxious neoliberal
asshole it's hard to believe the apple could have fallen
that
far from the tree.
a lot of the so
called "left" is also infected with the "every revolution is good cuz leaders are teh suck amirite?!?!?"
disease. whether it's - as a great article i recently saw suggests - the residue of marxism or just teen angst
writ large, they just assume any leader that isn't a 100% pinkwashed socialist-feminist-____ist should be
overthrown by the "wisdom of the masses". too bad they fail to see the hands of the "elite" behind every
protest and youtube meme.
this also explains the reflexive stupidity that oozes from western mouths every time putin is mentioned
(because high approval ratings and legit election wins don't count if it's backwards gay-hating slavs).
while he and the others do write about israel, that falls into the "so you want a damn cookie?" category.
opposing israel is opposing every foul part of human nature (especially historical european tendencies)
distilled in one arid shithole of a colony pretending to be a country. his hissy fits about gilad atzmon aren't
exactly profiles in courage either and offer a glimpse of the "third way" mentality he seems to have inherited
from his father.
@14
BAR is indeed great. they have morals and convictions and they actually stick to them consistently. freedom
rider is especially good and her recent piece on israel is as good or better than anything on mondoweiss or EI.
extra fun historical context:
the inhabitants of what is now called the GCC or gulf states or whatever were one of the heaviest users of
african slaves during the slave trade. this included the barbary pirates that the US marines were basically
created to destroy when they committed the dreadful sin of kidnapping
white
people from the southern
beaches of europe. that's where the marine song comes from and the "shores of tripoli" and etc. so the marines
have basically been killing muslims for hundreds of years.
as for why the arabian peninsula has so few black folks compared to the west: they castrated all the males.
oddly, one slave helped the moors conquer spain (the term "moors" being that time's "muzzies").
UserFriendly @2:
. . . If this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind . . .
Journos, pols, and other public figures that take
strategic positions
as it is convenient to them are
deplorable.
Anyone that was honestly wrong would be contrite.
= = = =
Richard C @3:
. . . Is a vilification focus . . . Really helping
Yes it is, especially for those taking
strategic positions
.
= = = =
Anon @5:
All have been wrong some time . . .
Morons, trolls, and opportunists are right as often as a broken clock.
= = = =
NOBTS @14:
. . . It's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe
I guess you have no family or friends among the millions dead injured and displaced.
= = = =
Babyl-on @20:
They had a view they changed their view . . . being human and all
Not good enough Babyl-on. As a long time patron of the bar I think you should see that more clearly than
others.
= = = =
Peter Gose @24:
. . . They actually come off as pretty contrite . . . And they are contributing
I always feel that it is best to explain your mistakes and not simply apologize. Very instructive and
restores confidence. And if they were "burned" by being misinformed, they should be / would be vindictive
toward those that misled them.
@27
So... it suits the existing power structure that these people should be speaking relatively truthfully at this
point? If that's the case then I suppose the majority of Moon of Alabama's followers ( I contributed €50 by the
way) would be in the same boat. The only way I can see this working out for the ruling elite is if being on the
right side i.e. the left side, is totally marginal and pathetic, so thoroughly divided and conquered as to be
irrelevant.
I read Max's book Goliath recently. It's very damning of the rightward turn of the Israeli govt AND the Israeli
people. People in the US are nowhere near as xenophobic as a majority of Israelis are now. I admit I had not
paid much attention to support he would have had for the "Syrian rebels." But the point is to be made and it
would be interesting to know of his thoughts on his father's actions with respect to Libya. Maybe Max realizes
he's late to the party and is having a me too moment.
somebody 34
The Team Obama love affair with MB was obvious. I thought it interesting that the Egypt military put a stop to
their plans once they achieved power there. They were useful for the initial protest violence in Syria until
more support could arrive.
In a future piece, I will address what Trotsky stood for and
use that criteria to differentiate among the various groups that call themselves Trotskyist today.
Bruce @37, this is true. The proud Trotskyists at the WSWS are consistently anti-war and have called out
several socialist organizations for being pro-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria. I find their philosophical
positions woefully reductive and uninteresting (one of them told me once that both "analytic" and "continental"
philosophy are "non-sense" and that the only true philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism, and also that the
Frankfurt school is the root of the perversion of Marxist philosophy), but nonetheless they do extremely
admirable and important work in reporting on the ground in places like Amazon distribution centers or
interviewing immigrant families terrorized by ICE. They have been speaking out loudly on Google censorship as
well, which is laudable.
On this topic of pro-intervention leftists, see Whitney Webb's response to the open
letter signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, and others, calling for the humanitarian US military to save Rojava
and "increase support for the SDF":
here.
It now appears as though a war may have broken out between Syria and Israel. Israel claims that
"Iran" attacked it at the Syria/Israel border at the Golan Heights. See NOW (Syrian) News :
Notwithstanding Israel's attack on Syria, minutes ago, it should be noted, IMHO, that Max Blumenthal is simply
a "Limited Hangout". And in it for a "Few Dollars More". h/t Karlof1
So the Likudniks, who most resemble the Israelites from the first eight or nine books of the Torah, violent,
deceitful, putting the Philistines to the sword, taking their land and cattle and enslaving their women and
children, always falling away from the Commandments but always forgiven by YHWH, are building another brick BS
box to add to the structure that will, if the dual-citizens that stand atop our Imperial government have their
way, lead to some kind of "war on Iran."
I wonder what it feels like to get vaporized in a nuclear explosion... Expect it won't hurt for long -- less
painful than having to watch as the Fokkers who own us slow-walk all of us into economic and environmental
collapse, maybe quick-stepping now toward an answer to that neocon-naive question, "What good are all these
wonderful weapons for if we never USE them?" C;mon, all you Revelation Believers and Armageddonists, GET IT
OVER ALREADY, WILL YOU? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!
I long ago rejected the notion that there will be some kind of retribution in some kind of "afterlife" where
the people who are bast@rds and sh!ts in this life have to atone, somehow. Anyone who might be a candidate for
eternity in the fiery lake obviously shares that disbelief. Fork 'em, if only we could reach them and stop them
somehow...
oh and let me aim a quote from pat lang - "Any sort of incident or provocation will be accepted by the US as
causus belli." that is indeed how low the usa has sunk to...
Sigh. You'd think that the left, whose only real power comes from solidarity, would be natural coalition
builders, but they aren't. I feel like all I ever see is ideological purity tests and an eagerness to shun and
expel people over differences rather than try and reach people where they are and work to change their views to
match your own. It just gets me so depressed because the right does not have this problem at all; the bible
thumpers showed up en mass for the pussy grabber. I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to procreate and
to commit suicide before the climate change shit hits the fan.
am i the only idiot here who thinks the idea of iran lobbing some missiles into israel from the golan heights
is like an oversized pack of lies? maybe i should take out a regular subscription to the times of israel to get
the '''real'''news..
This makes no sense at all. I can't even tell what we are supposed to be getting so angry about. Is it that
these three people sound insufficiently repentant? Is it their tone of voice we are judging? Or is it that they
took too long to reach their current positions? Personally I couldn't care less, as long as today they're
pushing the conversation in a positive direction. And I don't think there are many people out there
communicating more effectively than Blumenthal and Norton.
For JTMcPhee @44 regarding those "Revelation Believers and Armageddonists" who tipped the Electoral College
scales in the U.S., giving the world
All-About-Him
instead of
You-Know-Her
: sort of like a choice
between Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun (or Hen).
Left Behind by Jesus
Jesus loves the rich, you know
Ask them, they will tell you so
Help the poor? Why that's a crime!
Best to work them overtime
Off the books, though, lest they say
That you owe them extra pay
Jesus loves those tax cuts, too
Just for some, though, not for you
See a poor kid that's a clerk?
Send him to Iraq to work
Jesus loves the army, see?
Just the place for you and me
Not the rich, though, they don't serve
What a thought! What perfect nerve!
If you think this life's a pain
Wait till Jesus comes again
Then on Armageddon Day
He will take the rich away
Sure, you thought that you'd go, too,
Not that you'd get one last screw
Just like your retirement
That the rich already spent
Jesus with the winners goes
Losers, though, just get the hose
What on earth would make you think
That your lord's shit doesn't stink?
After all he left you here
With the rich, so never fear
They'll upon your poor life piss
In the next life and in this
Jesus loves the rich, so there!
Don't complain it isn't fair
Jesus said to help themselves
Then he'd help them stock their shelves
So they did and he did, too
What has this to do with you?
Jesus loves the rich just fine
Why'd you think he pours their wine?
Jesus votes Republican
Ask them: they'll say "He's the One!"
Still a few loose coins around
That the rich have not yet found
Gotta go now, never mind
If you end up left behind
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006
This "solidarity" concept is stupid. There are people who call
themselves "leftists" who demand loyalty to Hillary. Um, no, we cannot have "solidarity" with Soros' minions.
We never needed "solidarity" to begin with. No significant social movement ever really depended on
"solidarity". We must think for ourselves, not just follow the party line.
@38 Wow, even the WSWS Trotskyists buy into that right wing shit about the Frankfurt School now? Man, that
'cultural marxism' conspiracy theory is so virulent even some Marxists believe it...
The only surprising thing here is how many pro trolls jumped in the defense of the spent trio. The three have
been used up, sacrificed by their owners and there is no going back. Most of the usual good commenters here
understand this well - credibility is a bit like virginity - one can go onto an operating table to regain it,
but it is never the same.
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many
regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some
important moment. Internet is full of such.
@38, Massinissa, yes they got a bit angry when I made that connection with right-wing libertarians and their
Cultural Marxism argument about the Frankfurt school being the source of the downfall of Western civilization.
To be fair, they would reject that whole argument as well, but they nonetheless hold the Frankfurt school to be
a perversion of Marxist thinking to be rejected entirely, with no usefulness or value whatsoever.
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
>>> blues
, May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.
/~~~~~~~~~~
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as
anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is
full of such.
Then ask: Is it really the case that "....many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists,
to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment"? Is that the case, or is it not? Because if it is,
in fact, the case, then we must address it. I mean, it would be kind of stupid to just ignore that, right?
Well I have seen it several times with my own eyes. So as one of "we the consumers" I cannot just go and
dismiss it as a "cat fight".
I remember the first time Trump attacked Syrian forces was over a chocolate cake with chines president. Could
this be the same treatment or a reply by Putin if he gave a green light to Syria they can reply in kind inside
Israel, while Nuty is the guest of honor in Moscow?
@kooshy
The ayrian government is not controlled by putin. They can choose to respond any way thry want to for the
ongoing aggression and zionist invasion they dont need a "green light" from mosow you only need tosee how rt is
covering the news to understand that russia has nothing to do with thi a
I don't assume a commenter is controlled opposition "until they
prove otherwise". But for anyone named "Hal Turner" (the FBI's honeypot blogger), I have severe doubts to begin
with.
What you say is true, sorry to say. One reason why it is true is that there has not been
a viable American political left for at least a half century now and probably longer. There were some stirrings
of legitimate left politics in a few of the civil rights groups (certainly not all) in the early 1960s, and for
a long time the Black Panthers represented by far the healthiest left movement in the US since the 1920s-30s.
But the mass potential for a real socialist politics came to an end, I think, with the assassination of King,
and the local pockets of black nationalist resistance were bombed or shot or disappeared by FBI and police
forces over the next decade. The remaining Vietnam anti-war movement was largely useless. Many of them are
today the aging equestrians of the professional liberal #Resistance.
Occupy had some promise but was easily dissipated. The Democratic primaries demonstrated that a moderate
social democrat could outearn corporate PAC financed tools via aattracting a huge number of small donations
from people earning between 35K-100K (which is a *relatively* piss poor class of people, politically speaking).
Some of this momentum carried over into socialist party gains and electoral victories in 2018, and in some
states motivated a younger social democratic ("progressive" I suppose they call themselves) insurgency against
Democratic Party empty suits. How lasting and successfull this development will prove to be is uncertain. My
hope is that the 2020 Democratic primary season is much more destructive for internal party structure than that
of 2016 was; ideally the party itself would implode, ceasing to exist altogether or remade entirely on an
explicitly socialist, or at least social democratic platform, the #Resistance crew jumping over to the
Republicans.
Just go away. You are not going to fool anybody round here into taking you seriously with such
comically C-grade troll phrases as "return to relevance" and "such a divisive post."
From Ben Norton via the link given by b above ("this episode"):
"We have been criticized, mostly by people who I think have been somewhat unfair, but I think there are
valid criticisms, in that early on in the conflict we were kind of knee jerk response supportive of the
opposition out of the idea that this is like some progressive revolution against an evil authoritarian regime
etc., you know believing a lot of those talking points which we now know are significantly more complex, if not
just flat out false."
First, thanks to many MoA barflies for the kind words. I am far more often than not impressed with the
knowledge and analytical abilities of those Bernhard has attracted to this site no doubt attracted by those
same qualities in b. I have learned, and continue to learn much from y'all. So getting props from people I
admire is really quite touching.
Most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of 'we should not
criticize people who change their minds lest we scare off others."
Of course we should encourage everyone to cut through the propaganda in every way we can. We are all
swimming 24/7 in a 360 degree ocean of PR/Propaganda of a sort that Bernays and Goebbels could have only
dreamt. I have no doubt that right this moment I hold some disinformation that was deliberately fed to me, and
I hope that I am appreciative when someone else helps to lift a veil for me.
In fact, I have no doubt that some propaganda is designed for people like myself (and others here at MoA and
elsewhere), whom the propagandists know are aware of their work, and so we are on the lookout for it. I'll
return to that thought.
And when one has a breakthrough as profound as making a 180 degree turn on an issue so great as a war, I
absolutely agree that we should welcome that person with warmth and love.
But I also believe we should be skeptical of EVERY journalist/opinion maker who has a substantial platform.
For in all but the rarest of cases, the fact of having a substantial platform means having a substantial
financial backing. Not all financial backing is dubious of course, but I think we all agree that critical
thinking should always be engaged.
So, how should a journalist with a large following who is also a significant opinion maker handle reversing
directions on a war? Should that person scrub all previous work from the internet, and just start writing the
opposite?
Or should that person help others to have a similar epiphany (most especially those readers who had bought
the product this journalist had been selling for the previous 5 years)? In teaching there is a method termed
"guided discovery," whereby the teacher lays out a path for the students to use their own minds to come to the
correct conclusion. I can think of no better time to use this method than when one is actually having that very
same "discovery" process, or had just had it.
Max could have written articles revealing one piece of false propaganda after the other as he now says he
and his cohorts did privately amongst themselves. Today, they complain that "leftists/progressives" attack them
as "Assad apologists" and such. We all know that the first response to a new viewpoint that is opposite of one
already deeply held is almost always rejection. And when the person presenting this new information had for
years actually helped instill in the audience the opposite view, it's only normal for people to become suspect
of the journalist's motives.
But that's not the path Max, (and Ben and Rania) chose. Was this a case of being a poor teacher, or
something else possibly something a bit more sinister?
Let's consider other things in Max's record. ,
In an earlier comment, I described the disinformation in Max's book, "The 51 Day War" and in his
characterization of fellow Jewish writer, Gilad Atzmon. At the least, as a journalist, Max should know better
than to spread such incorrect and dangerous ideas.
And we cannot ignore that Max was amongst the first to blame a youtube video for the attack at the US
Embassy Mission that killed Ambassador Stevens, his aid and later, two former Navy Seals (read: mercenaries).
He wrote this even before the Obama Administration officially made that claim. How'd he know? And when his
daddy sent Hillary Max's OpEd (and again Max's daddy had worked with Hillary Clinton in understanding why Libya
had to be destroyed, and how to do that), Hillary wrote back,
Another author Max vociferously and wrongly labels an "anti-Semite" and liar is Allison Weir. Everyone
should read her in depth study of the origins of the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant, "Against Their
Better Judgement" and frequent her website, ifamericansknew.org.
BTW: It was Max who coined the JSIL term for Israel which I frequently use. We can be critical of a source
and still appreciative of useful and true information from that source. Even Controlled Opposition must reveal
some true information not found in MSM in order to build the trust that allows them to then feed disinformation
into our minds.
Check out this
4 minute video
to
see clearly how Max duplicitously slanders this good woman:
So, back to my earlier question, "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is
propaganda look like?" I think I may have provided at least one answer.
¿When the Kent State Cambodian War protesters were shot in the back by the Natiinal Guard?
¿When Billy Graham exorted 'Bomb the Gooks for Jesus!' at the Lincoln Memorial during those protests, and
Time Magazine called him 'America's Preacher' while recently released tapes show Graham telling Nixon to nuke
Hanoi??
¿When thr Hells Angels beat that guy to death at Altamont while the Stones were pleased to introduce
themselves?
I actually earned a degree in journalism, even though I went to an undistinguished university and was
persecuted by the head of the department. I could never support myself as a journalist because unlike Max
Blumenthal, I didn't have the resources to travel to other countries and just do journalism. I had to do
something else to support myself. Nevertheless, I knew what was up in Syria the minute I saw that al Jazeera
had started churning out anti-Assad propaganda: this was early in 2011, while Libya was still in turmoil. There
is no excuse for anyone not to have paid attention to Libya--Thierry Meyssan barely escaped with his life after
NATO put out an order to kill him! And there is no excuse for anyone to have seen Syria as anything else than
an aggression by the U.S., NATO, the GCC and Israel. This is not about some naive kid (and Max Blumenthal is
neither young nor naive) falling for romantic propaganda: it is about the son of a highly placed CIA employee
who himself claims to be a journalist, and who was the closest advisor to Secretary of State Clinton on the
Middle East. As Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max had the best education, a hell of a lot of exposure to the deep
state, and is independently wealthy. With these privileges, why wasn't it him who was in Turkey reporting on
the U.S., NATO and the World Health Organization sending weapons and terrorists into Syria? Why was it Serena
Shim, someone that Turkey, with the nod of the CIA, could murder with impunity? And what is Blumenthal
reporting on right now? Nothing that will risk his neck or his reputation, God forbid. Taking risks is for
people like Shim, who lost her life, like Wassim Issa, who just lost both legs, like Vanessa Beeley, who has
had her name dragged through the mud by FBI agent Sibel Edmonds and the entire British media establishment.
The really funny thing here is you folks are ripping Blumenberg a new a**hole for "changing his mind" when you
guys are so wrong about Syria. Blumenstock and his friends were closer to the truth
before
their
conversion. That's right, the story you guys believe about Assad being a bit of a hard a** but a relatively
benign dictator is pure fantasy.
The Syrian Ba'athist regime is renowned for its savage brutality against even suspected dissenters. How you
people can explain away the well documented record of this violence says something about your echo chamber
state of mind. And yes the Syrian government and its Russian patron target civilian areas and hospitals. Again,
this is credibly documented. You are buying into a propaganda narrative. Vanessa Beeley, for example, is a
Ba'athist stenographer who is not telling the whole story. Before you all start hollering, and throwing
furniture let me ask how many Syrians post here? Right.
Nothing I can say will convince anyone to change their mind and that's okay because who am I and, besides,
everyone here has the internet and knows how to use search. If you are brave or not completely brainwashed yet
start with this article (you don't have to agree with everything in it) to get a sense of where your chosen
narrative is at its weakest.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/
Have fun!
I wonder if Syria were to regain the Golan Heights of Syria and then blitzkreig beyond in a New 7 Day War,
all the way to Haifa and beyond, whether the same Rabbinicals and Evangelicals who worship Zionism would defend
Syria's right to 'the spoils of war' and then turn a blind eye as Syria blockades Haifa into a concentration
camp the way Isreal has turned Gaza into one? Would they talk about Syrians being the New Chosen of Jaweh?
Would they throw away their yarmulkels, and wear black and white Hezbullah scarves, just to be among the
victors? Would Netanyahu be treated in the press like Arafat was treated, as a loser?
I tend to give thanks for small miracles, given the dire straights the world of journalism is in. Blessed are
those who repent and at least max, Rhania and Ben appear to have sincerely repented the error of their early
days, and max, in particular, has done some truly great work, exposing the Chemical false Flags and the White
helmets for what they were and are. Sure, he and others stood on the shoulders of some braver and more
perceptive souls such as Sharmine Narwani, Vanessa Beely and Eva Bartlett, among the very - so very - few who
dared question the dominant narrative starting in 2011.
I also think that perhaps people don't realize just
how difficult it was to be a western journalist/reporter and have any kind of career back in 2011/2012 while
questioning the dominant narrative. Very very few did in the west, if truth be said. yes, there were Syrian
connected reporters and opinionators like the Syrian perspective, MOA and a few, all too few, others. But one
could count the English reporters of truth on one finger. Not just Syria, but also Libya and probably even
Egypt. So, not everyone is super-brave from the get-go. not everyone has the analytic skills and integrity of
"b", but then b is not stuck with writing for the Guardian, is he? And he and Ziad fadel hand Sharwani and
those few others we heard from, many times did not earn their living from writing geopolitic (I think I need to
add The Saker to the list. I believe I discovered him only in 2013 or so).
So, if some who first wandered in the desert got some kahunas later, it's definitely better than never. IMO,
it's kind of small minded to excoriate those who failed to see the full picture back as it was happening. Me, I
see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and as I sit here i can only wish for more converts to the
truth. Say Monbiot of The Guardian? now, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
I also would like to remind people just how caught up so many western liberals were in the spectacle of the
Arab Spring (that wasn't much in the end, and we should think long and hard about why that was so). We - as in
many of us - projected our wishes upon the Arab millennials and students, but little did we do - as in any of
us - to research the sad, tragic realities in their own countries. The dependence of Egypt on tourism for
example all but doomed their spring to another long Winter. We, who have jobs and/or comfortable positions
somewhere and/or comfortable enough retirement that allows some to post here (and post well and thoughtfully
for many, which takes time and is definitely a luxury), how could we even imagine what it means to have so
little that to lose that meager income from tourists is a catastrophe? In the end the majority of the Egyptians
went for bread and butter or Sisi would not have prevailed (please don't read this as defense of the Sisi
regime. It's just me trying to understand why the revolution in Egypt did not succeed). But all this happened
back in 2011 to 2013, and Syria seemed like one more exclamation mark on some elusive "Arab Spring". Of course,
it was no such thing but I only knew that from reading far more widely than most people do, and I wasn't a
journalist trying to eke out a living either. As commenters we have the luxury of writing as we see fit,
without fear of being fired. Anonymously too, most of us. But for reporters out in the open, I reckon it must
have been a little harder.
Actually, I am trying to work up a little piece on the mysterious - and not so mysterious - reasons Syria
became such a red line for writers of all kinds, that to cross it back in 2012-2015 meant vitriol in the
mailbox and who knows what else. Sure it became easier in 2015 once the Russians stepped in, but I am trying to
figure out why that was the case. What was so special about 2016, other than that was the year the russians
really helped turn things around? and it was election season in the US too. Still, I am struglgling to wrap
arms around this strange conundrum of why Syria?
Finally, speaking about red lines and daniel's comment. Gilad Atzmon is the most obvious case of a red line
those who write in the open cannot cross. No matter how pro-palestinians and/or anti-zionists they are. Gilad
is a lithmus test and has been for quite a while now. Just another somewhat strange phenomenon, and snother
occasion for yet another piece (which I will write under still another name - for good reason. After all, the
mere mention of the name Atzmon could be enough to get one kicked out of "polite' society....and I do like the
free food and drinks served in those societies - now and then....).
This is not only suspiciously vindictive, it's a bore. Isn't there something more pernicious to explore than
Max Blumenthal's lack of perfection? 1) The implication that he changes his positions for financial gain is
laughable. If Max is trying to sell out, he's going about it all wrong. 2) He's under no obligation to explain
his father's actions. 3) You seem to be implying that he was quiet about Libya because of his father's
involvement. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a conflict of interest? 4) You don't like the
name "Moderate Rebels?" Dude your writing for a website called "Moon Over Alabama" Let's just agree to judge on
content rather than title.
Assad's opposition has turned him into a hero, not us. He is a veritable paladin next to the Jihadi
headchoppers that would take over if he fell.
And how has regime-change ever helped anyway? Toppling Saddam was a disaster for USA in terms of
international standing, financial cost, and the end result (increased Iranian influence). Libya after Qaddafi
is a nightmare where ISIS conducts slave auctions. Afghanistan's 18-year war is a quagmire of dumbfuckery so
profound that it is only talked about in hushed terms when reauthorizations are needed. In Ukraine, the West
'won' a money pit.
@73 daniel. your question "what would a propaganda designed for
people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" - the intercept?
@76 diana.. good post.. thanks..
@80 merlin.. thanks for your post.. i am still conflicted on the arab spring.. on the one hand it seemed
like a natural occurrence.. on the other hand it seems like the powers that be were waiting to take advantage
of it too, especially in the case of syria...i suppose we could give max, ben and rania a pass based on the
general view that the arab spring was upon the middle east and everyone knew what a brutal dictator assad was..
i think a few folks woke up during the ukraine shakedown 2014, and they might have got to thinking that indeed
the yinon plan was still on track or that general clarks comments which i quote here were indeed relevant.. "As
I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a
chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed
as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq,
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
that arab spring thing seemed like good cover for any number of tricks, not to mention regime change.. i
have a hard time buying into the thought that someone who is supposed to cultivate critical thinking would
overlook this myself.. maybe investigative reporters are supposed to skip the critical thinking class? i don't
buy that myself.. i relate more to diana's comment @76 and think that it is fair to criticize max and any other
number of public journalists, or bloggers.. i do it with other posters here and i get it when folks do it with
b, as a few have here on this thread, even if i don't agree with them in this instance..
thanks to the many commentators here that continue to give me greater insight to overcome the blind spots
that i carry around without being fully or even partly aware of them.. it's ongoing..
I agree with your assertions about the paid shills of our
world....they are paid to get out in front of trains not of their creation and start a parade.
Your posting has brought a new "class" of trolls to MoA. Maybe we can open some of their minds and they will
quit their day jobs.
Although par for the course for most people, your short sightedness, your disregard for factual evidence and
your sheer inability for critical evaluation is exasperating.
It is because of people like you that offer sustenance to a predatory and exploitative elite that we find
ourselves in the bind we are in.
People like you have completely bought into the narrative of the ostensible benevolence of presumably
democratic governments. People like you have completely been sold on the desirability of the centralization of
power. People like you have gladly waded into the self defeating fable of the righteousness of centralized
education.
It is people like you that happily cheer-on our elites as they gradually divest society of their labor and
their wealth by lowering interest rates artificially.
It is people like you that merrily support our elites as they progressively reveal themselves to be mere
enforcers for predatory financial interests
It is people like you that rejoice in the orgy of government profligacy that gradually weighs down the
creativity, the productivity and the mere right to existence of individuals the world over.
It is people like you that revel in the self declared virtue of transnational political entities that, time
and again, are caught abetting and often, colluding with retrograde, sanguinary individuals the world over.
You are a deluded soul. Either that, or you have an agenda.
I know how hard it is for people to change their views, my self included. Sure you could say Max and Co. should
have known better but what does that say about 99% of journalists on this planet who still firmly sticks with
and probably believes the official NATO propaganda narrative?
I think having an article and debating this is
both helpful and informative. However resorting to name calling like "turncoats" implies playing for a team.
Tribalism and partisan hackery is something we should avoid at all costs. I've been accused of being a Putin
lover and Assad lover by those who cling to the NATO narrative. The truth is I think both as assholes but I
also understand the position they are in.
Is the Baath regime ideal? Fuck no. Would a Muslim brotherhood Regime be better? Highly doubtful. Would
Al-Nusra or and ISIS Regime bet better? WTF? are you kidding me?? There is no black and white here, but some
are much more gray that others. Same goes for journalists and people, none of us are without flaws. But the
ability to change your mind and correct course is a good property especially in a journalist. This "no true
Scotsman" mentality is a luxury we can't really afford in the fight against the onslaught of corporate pro WAR
media.
Serious tribalism here, quite ugly to see, no criticism is allowed.
People that are wrong must apologize lol,
I mean get off your high horse.
Also attacking Blumenthal, Khalek, Norton, its like a teenager trying to pick a fight with a bodybuilder,
and those who play with fire is going to be burnt himself by the same smearing.
Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are.
Democracy Now, pleeeeease the white wash agency for USA exceptionalism and other crimes against
humanity. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian. Reposting content from either of these two is like passing round
used toilet paper for another try.
I can understand the alround eagerness to condemn. It's a standard pattern of putting the bar very high for
others. It's as people have to demonstrate how good they are themselves by condemning others. Julian Assange is
far from perfect as well but he has done a huge service.
I think it was perfectly normal for a progressives to support the demonstrations and rebellion against Assad.
This fit in with the Arab Spring and there was a legitimate aspiration for more democracy. There was also a
violent component from the start , and there were strong exhortations to avoid all negotiations and avoid all
compromise because Assad certainly was going to fall. It's to Max Blumenthal's credit that he caught on to the
component which was there from the start and which quickly started to dominate: the intent , mostly from
outside, to destroy or degrade the state. I think Blumenthal has done very good work on many fronts and I
respect him.
I do not appreciate how he bashes people who have not caught on. It does not necessarily get
easier over time to change your mind. The amount of propaganda on the issue has also increased. Once you're on
the outside it's easy, but it is also easy to underestimate how hard it is to change your mind from the inside.
I understood the nature of the conflict from the start. Therefore I'm much smarter than Blumenthal. He
should listen to me.
I can believe that Blumenthal is obfuscating his change of mind. But I've known about his change of mind for
a long time from interviews so I never even noticed the obfuscation.
It's not pretty. Ok. So it's not pretty.
Fantastic piece by Daniel, it's nice to see that some people have some standards. Both Norton and Blumenthal
have lied about various issues, not just Syria, though the way Max, Ben and Rania all changed positions at the
same time on Syria is highly shady. Same with the deletion without explanation of their past work on Syria,
Libya etc. Max has helped his war profiteer, Clinton employee father sell lies on various issues, we should't
be grateful that he(or they) rebranded on Syria after he already did so much damage. We should be skeptical as
to why.
@ Anon who wrote: "Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are."
Unless you want to replace global private finance with totally sovereign finance you are not on my side. Are
you on my side Anon? Do you think Max B is on my side ?
Take your obfuscating BS to some other blog you come in and say is misguided.
As C @ 91 says, the fact that Max Blumenthal et al experienced their Damascene moment (cough, cough) at about
the same time is suspicious in itself. The timing of that moment too, with the Russian entry into the Syrian
war in September 2015 and the turnabout in Syria's fortunes that started soon after, must also be considered.
One might almost have guessed that Blumenthal, Norton and Khalek were planning and co-ordinating their move
together, and looking for the right moment.
They must surely know that they are playing the role of gatekeepers in demarcating how far dissent from the
official narrative about Syria is allowed to go. The fact that some commenters here have taken their contrition
at face value and question or criticise others who have reservations about the depth of the trio's actions
demonstrates the power of that role, and why some of us might be justified in doubting their motives for acting
the way they have.
Until Max Blumenthal does something that truly threatens the powers that be, like Thierry Meyssan and Serena
Shim, I will regard him as another Sibel Edmonds--a government infiltrator posing as a dissident. By the way,
if anyone wants to know what really happened at the beginning of the invasion of Syria, read Thierry Meyssan's
writings from Libya and Damascus at the time: "John McCain, conductor of the Arab Spring" is amazing. So is
another one Thierry published on Voltaire, The rebirth of the Syrian Arab Army
https://www.voltairenet.org/article190703.html
This pissing contest comes off very much like the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in which members of
the People's Front of Judea badmouth the Judean People's Front. The ultimate insult was to call anyone with a
different opinion a "SPLITTER!" From my point of view, Max, Ben and Rania have their hearts in the right place.
(Has no one heard their saber-like takes on Ukraine?) They are not the enemy. In "Brian's" time, it was Rome,
and in our time it is the Western Empire. Let's all keep that in mind.
I agree with many posters here that the criticism of "prodigal children" of anti-imperialism should be
measured. This is a political cause, and we are not assembling an elite force that can smash most entrenched
enemies. Instead, we should strive to analyze the reality, spread the word and convert.
And we have to accept
that we differ on many issues, and very often we differ with our own past position. Back when the issue was
Kosovo intervention, I though that this is good idea. Now I know that "Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts
[Trojan Horse, for those deficient in classics]" should get another corollary "beware imperialists when they
care about human rights".
And it is not just vicarious imperialists or people who maintain civil relationship with members of Hamas
who may wrongly generalize. Assuming that Muslim Brotherhood is always and everywhere a force of evil violates
the good principle "location, location, location". Like Marxism, MB ideology has gamut of different trends, and
it is a bit to its credit that in Syria it did such a miserable job, being outplayed by Salafist -- they do not
do a good job as a warrior cult, they are actually too normal for that.
If moonofalabama has searchable archive, I was posting that it is immensely
speculative that Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton, in particular, his consistent praise of Bolton puts under
question mark all reasonable fragments of sentences that one could collect from his tweets and speeches.
Domestically, the guy is a wrecking ball, internationally -- it is still a bit open issue, I hope for malignity
mellowed by ineptitude, I mean, the outcome leave a chance for recovery. Then again, Clinton is much less smart
than some think her to be, so the grounds for opposing her more than Trump were illusionary.
I meant to add to my previous post (92) that requiring absolute ideological purity has been deadly to the left
ever since the left began. It is one of the main reasons why a broad-based leftwing movement has never taken
hold and lasted. A pox on these sectarian ideological squabbles. If the left wants to win, it must put them
aside once and for all.
Those who argue for leniency for Blumenthal and the others would have us overlook the MANY betrayals of other
so-called progressives. Such betrayals are too frequent to be just a matter of 'bad apples' or 'bad judgement'.
These "turncoats" take
strategic positions
on issues to advance their career. Hillary, the "progressive
that gets things done", and Obama, the "community organizer", are two notable examples. Another would be
Bernie's 'sheepdog' betrayal of his Movement - even after it was clear that Hillary and the DNC had conspired
against him. Such people slyly conflate progressive ideals with divisive identity politics. By throwing off the
moral core of progressivism they advance the interests of TPTB. Their many loyal sycophants and apologists rush
to defend the indefensible and try their best to muddy waters BUT WE KNOW THE GAME by now so fuck off! You
can't piss down our backs and tell us it raining anymore.
'Progressive' pundits and journalists that become useful idiots instead of watchdogs are even worse because
they claim to be truth-tellers. You don't get to lead the next parade after you've led people over a cliff.
Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire. Now
the stakes
are even higher. The absolute worse news in all this is that Trump is bringing in Bolton as
his lunatic
wing man at the worst possible time when things were looking like they were wrapping up in
Syria.
Bolton is the male version of Hillary on steroids. Trump is going to hide behind Bolton's
mustache - you know, me good cop; Bolton bad cop; IOW, don't blame me for what needs to be
done. Trump gifted
Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and now he's going to gift him Syria too. The Iran deal will
also get scrapped soon and that's more gasoline on a fire that's about to get out of control.
Here's one way
to distract from the Mueller investigation; start a war and rally the county under
a common cause: war with Syria, ergo Russia and then Iran.
It's as I said from day one: Trump can't help himself; he's always been a Zio-con and
Adelson
is getting his money's worth. It's all going to happen as I always said it would. Trump was
the perfect puppet.
Trump will look like the savior of the realm; a role his big fat ego always dreamed of and
won't resist.
Now, there still might be a way out of this potential catastrophe. Admit it, wouldn't it
be nice if Putin
really was holding back something big regarding Trump?
*sigh* - if only! Very soon would be a good time to drop it. Manafort?
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and
complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.
By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States.
Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America
for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held
hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably
the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon
and its vast, permanent war machine.
The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination
of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard
Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced
in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into
power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries
who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too
did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a
mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a
second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)
Furies beyond reckoning
The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State
of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in
his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy
use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he
said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded
as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment,
one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an
informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has
done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human
rights.
It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region
since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical
order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:
While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important
aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the
power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage
in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for
good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere
with, either militarily or ideologically.
As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance,
after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American
victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism.
They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and
that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted
the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly
or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)
Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both
Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan
and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political
elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined
end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly,
The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.
Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas
role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George
H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would
declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him
to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever
it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government,
market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with
all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that
evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo
speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that
simply isnt true.
All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic
capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed
new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein,
al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective
psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East
something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.
War and diplomacy
Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the
failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned
this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton
Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but
to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during
the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology
was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.
This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War.
In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military
supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after
America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest
American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended
after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450.
The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going
along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.
There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations
failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it
into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations
missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal
contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.
Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency
-- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism
in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS,
which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for
more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment
will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.
As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up
the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power
of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are
the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams
fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.
Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue,
Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We
have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome.
And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue
on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to
replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.
That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.
This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of
Future of Freedom .
Exclusive: In 2016, when a British parliamentary report demolished the excuse for the U.S.
and its allies invading Libya in 2011, it should have been big news, but the U.S. mainstream
media looked the other way, reports Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria (Corrects to show that a Times story was published.)
In George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith's job was to
delve into The Times of London archive and rewrite stories that could cause trouble for the
totalitarian government ruling Britain. For instance, if the government made a prediction of
wheat or automobile production in their five-year plan and that prediction did not come true,
Winston would go into the archives and "correct" the numbers in the article on
record.
In writing a response the other day to a critic of my recently published book on
Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat, I was researching how the U.S. corporate media covered a
2016 British parliamentary report on Libya that showed how then Secretary of State Clinton
and other Western leaders lied about an impending genocide in Libya to justify their 2011
attack on that country .
Hillary Clinton, who according to leaked emails was the architect of the attack on
Libya, said four days earlier: "When the Libyan people sought to realize their democratic
aspirations, they were met by extreme violence from their own government."
Sen. John Kerry, at the time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chimed
in: "Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond
immediately."
####
Plenty more at the link and all the more reason that the Pork Pie News Networks need to be
flushed away to make way for those who actually want to do their jobs and will not be fobbed,
bought or intimidated off. Or co-opted.
So say we; so say we all. And that's the tried-and-true formula which has allowed
Washington so many tilts at the regime-change windmill – mention extreme violence
exercised by a brutal dictator who has no regard for human rights (which have passed into
the realm of sanctity that none dares challenge), and stress the urgency which does not
allow time for discussion. Act now, talk later. If a disaster ensues, it was worth the risk
– it might have worked out. Time for the phase I have mentioned so many times before:
say it with me, will you? "This is no time for finger-pointing. Nobody could have foreseen
that this would happen. We all have to work together to solve the problem."
I'm sure it's not a coincidence that John Kerry, known liar, claims to have personally
seen ironclad evidence that Russia shot down MH17 – he saw the missile shot, and saw
MH17's trace drop off the scope. He
knows
.
Show of hands – who believes him? Following on from that, why can he not be held
to account for such a monstrous lie?
Reply
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free
universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate
studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil
wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life
for all Libyans.
We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the
development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced,
life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have
asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"
Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly
controlled and restricted."
"... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7
'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying
UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small
naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered
Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of
Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues
on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial
terms!
Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency
Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United
Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in
Africa?
Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost
weekly.
All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj
is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to
achieve forward progress for Libya's future.
The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and
headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To
compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days
revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli
and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three
pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a
variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and
totally unrealistic to say the least.
A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a
Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military
victory is also a top priority.
These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that
is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis
children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's,
in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the
Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that
ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene.
This is becoming a realistic proposition.
It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's
process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.
The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give
him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in
Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the
South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against
extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the
Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes
committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend:
In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The
involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain
attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.
While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental
injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most
important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well
be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute
political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the
most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return
to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.
However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN
Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has
also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he
achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to
rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to
dictatorship.
This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to
Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is
now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight
terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as
the example, the model for Libya.
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with
what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The
remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited
violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure
or punishment.
Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a
Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of
reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will
help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course,
Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of
reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern
Libyan tribes.
Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help
Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country
that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being
anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.
If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful
Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!
AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its
location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the
killing of Gaddafi.
If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing
seem on the agenda.
And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or
social networks.
Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we
have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.
Few will remember that whilst
the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority
to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported
far and wide by the international press too.
i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together.
they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime
- in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves.
show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how
war criminals must be treated.
Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but
receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore.
That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato
alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed
state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle
East.
Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they
decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the
chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different
governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of
the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as
if that was their plan all along...
Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying:
"what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but
there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror"
birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get
the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM.
It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these
people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in
Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist
influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and
success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough
the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and
suffering.
Re: the photo
Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and
saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not
conform.
AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European
Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa).
Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from
EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly
Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite
displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little
power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in
Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for
families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new
headquarters in Stuttgart.
I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.
How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.
The MCM
will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by
the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own,
those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and
over.
And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.
Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria.
The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it
was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad
government did attack their own supporters with sarin.
It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.
Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a
war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al
most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the
attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of
propaganda.
Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many
tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by
hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.
Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high
standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free
education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and
wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over,
Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.
Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was
attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western
banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.
Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used
to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO
and their useful mercenary monsters.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM |
14
What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there
was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection
at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from
it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is.
Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.
Where do Trump & Sessions
stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First"
rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ
and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act
accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and
Syria for the Saudi pricks.
Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why?
But I expected different at this venue. Not really.
On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism
organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ
commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread
criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents
retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on
behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude
Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").
In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative
text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted
U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and
even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the
influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and
financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full
complaint here:
http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf
i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi
in forming a gov't and coalition.
@7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention
libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the
required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..
Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting
Haftar. Then France issues a
statement
yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan
National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to
be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
Fascinating article.
Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own
hands - A fundemental right!
But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly
damning indictment of the West's actions!
It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles,
Richard.
Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are
probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive
air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire
country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some
sort of national unity agreement.
Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.
Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a
troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days
that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing
year.
As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization
will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely
by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely
ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core,
and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing
out begins.
Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and
Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable
denouement.
Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously
overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy.
Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.
@24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure
the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'
the whole
thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic
punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've
made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present
form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly
exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'
as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll
certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would
set vis-à-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in
the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national
implosion.
Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did.
The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that
the powers that be care much about anything else.
#27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when
people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.
As of
today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN
inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?
In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil
workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries.
Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so
they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.
In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to
build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi
gone.
Thanks, NATO. Most people would learn from their 'mistakes'. But not NATO – it can't wait
for the next empowering liberation in the name of freedom and democracy.
Warnings of a 'Powder Keg' in Libya as ISIS Regroups
By ERIC SCHMITT
Punishing strikes in December and January hurt the terrorist group, but it is exploiting the
chaos and political vacuum gripping the country, American and allied officials say.
ilsm said in reply to Jay...
US funded lesser al Qaeda in Syria at least since 5 years.
The US Russia thing is parallel to the Sunni Shiite thing
where Iran is reluctantly pushed toward Moscow bc the CIA
remains vengeful over the CIA's Shah deposed in 1979.
US funding in Syria is consistent with Gulf Coop Council
actions there and in Yemen, using US provided cluster
weapons.
The phony reason Obama did Qaddafi was Hollande threatened
the French would do it.... of course the French could maybe
get 2 sorties off a day for 3 days!
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:58 AM
ilsm said in reply to kthomas...
Exceptionalism justifies horror!
The F-111's killed one of
Qaddafi's daughters (by a wife of many) for that one and the
Berlin club!
US vengeance worth giving entire countries over to al
Qaeda.
"... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
"... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
"... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State
(IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which
were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the
war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.
The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the
Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.
The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He
told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that
disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification
."
" That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards
we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.
Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.
" It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional
core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it
has shown in conducting its operations. "
The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were
increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of
Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.
A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of
suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian
campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared
the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "
Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army
disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.
The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "
" Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq
into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.
" We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant
impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo
of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.
Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in
the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.
" They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in
many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common
cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "
The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which
by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological
and economic drivers to resist the occupation.
" Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others
are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.
The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle
between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.
They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time,
foreign fighters.
" We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership
retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.
" Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort
stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.
Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office
memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces
will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion.
"
AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul
No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same
conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite
in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy
officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would
kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what
would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out
of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating
them different, does that ring any bells. ?
AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans
for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the
most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because
of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because
it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to
more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
Linx 7 Jul
Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD.
Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did
not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen.
Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this
video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified
memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military
without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before
another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control
of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
Orange Tag 7 Jul
What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake
up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop
the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors
of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates
you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia
instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the
total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's
happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
Malcolm stark 7 Jul
Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say
Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own
government.
CyanDog 7 Jul
Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our
beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for
Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional
mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries
the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should
keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt
on either side.
"... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
"... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
"... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
"... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should
have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for
all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is
not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!
ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf
States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do
anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught
completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully
armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!
We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that
it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World
Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous
crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if
they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is
death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This
is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They
know they have a get out of jail free pass.
I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the
Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime
of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference
between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat
party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able
to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.
I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many
years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.
This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle,
perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display
of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011
Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is
credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian
crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led
to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.
The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both
fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that
the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued
in a must-read Libya analysis
at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.
Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building
Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear
weapons and "be greeted as liberators,"
said Vice President
Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less,
said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a
"cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became
increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and
investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before
U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.
Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's
win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm
has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again
unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that
beleaguered nation's woes.
We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow
distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble,
reflecting on Libya,
contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions
often have the opposite effect."
And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity
of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint
abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling,
as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naïve it is to believe that
our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week
and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico
, Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.
"... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
"... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
"... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was
saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose
out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate
arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise
of Islamic extremism?"
Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy
of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you,
it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there
was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."
Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you
knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who
wasn't listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful
decision."
Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda
and the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President
what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very
confusing."
Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise
"... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
"... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
"... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
"... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
"... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama
and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.
With the recent release of an August 2012
classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence
of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West,
it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a
failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.
The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against
an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State
Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army
(FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.
However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership.
The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad
regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all
competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given
them by their misguided American benefactors.
The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren
with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All
the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and
even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton
team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.
The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama
failures in the basics of statecraft.
... ... ...
Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush
Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush,
he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture
- ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.
Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market
investor and concerned parent.
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions
regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.
from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country.
this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.
As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is
true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans
don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve
this !!!!
+Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable
for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries
is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants
the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East
is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal
waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the
USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan
Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and
his cohorts are the culprits.
basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have
the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's
lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who
is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean
I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will
go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but
Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more
like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around
and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally
isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??
The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them
money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones.
ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons
and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the
threat it is today.
putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers
the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression
US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they
don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and
other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics
are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time
for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised
that your house will be burned some day.
Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated
and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin
kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless.
TRUMP/PENCE 2016
With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a
narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And
this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to
retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight
or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc
Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own
military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own
Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had
to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to
a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic
mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die"
mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because
Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial
aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he
OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two
weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even
though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and
abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the
Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe
Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no
military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
"... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
"... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
"... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
"... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
"... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
"... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
"... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
It is fortunate for
Saudi Arabia and Qatar
that the furor over the
sexual antics of Donald
Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from
Hillary Clinton.
Most fascinating of these is what reads like a
US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance
of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.
At the time,
the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting
Isis and
al-Qaeda-type movements.
But in
the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was
butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.
The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to
bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial
and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received
wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held
that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine
US power in the Middle East and South Asia.
For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni
allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda
in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without
whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.
It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment
in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department
cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial
support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity
with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?
The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni
allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought
on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support
to Saudi positions.
The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically
visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this
year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews
with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies
play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy
compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".
It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington
was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held
sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in
Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration
official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied
territory'."
Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same
think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding
their partisan sympathies.
The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding
Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there
was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil,
taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled
no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.
Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately
that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they
paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely
that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck
traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums
from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.
Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no
doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity
between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would
say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students
at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined
to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds
of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.
Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements
of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were
Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.
Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the
years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never
had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador
in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not
responsible.
A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes
towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly
overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi
government.
Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of
the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned
out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall.
Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and
the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future
relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.
The
consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more
far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist
haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come
to pass.
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Regarding
Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
October 12, 2016
"Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he
said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional
allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama
"We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a
friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary
of State John Kerry
"The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is
based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common
threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
"I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you
want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator
Lindsey Graham
"There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that
it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean
they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker
Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the
Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was
providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other
radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary
of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the
House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator
John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.
Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special
relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a
strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.
According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence
from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and
logistically supports ISIS.
How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or
logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the
fight against ISIS?
The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our
enemy.
The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind
eye to that fact.
As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19
radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected
officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting
and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.
We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately
explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write
JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of
radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.
Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those
members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this
new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore,
this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote
to keep Americans safer from terrorism.
"... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
"... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
"... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
"... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
"... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
"... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
"... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
"... "inadequate" ..."
"... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
"... "good faith". ..."
"... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
"... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
"... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
"... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
"... "chaos" ..."
"... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
"... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55
Get short URL
Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people
back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose
actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report],"
25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my
arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."
Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members
of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.
Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day
and time "when the missile hit my home."
"I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard
a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard
my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.
That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he
lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.
The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family
of peaceful farmers.
"We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home,"
he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we
have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."
Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders
much worse than Saddam Hussein.
"Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much
worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he
said.
The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led
by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences.
It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.
Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for
the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".
"This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again.
They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to
say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."
"I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that
he will do the same thing again…" he says.
The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated
as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented
with a certainty that was not justified."
Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted
in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.
"Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that
they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can
see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions
of Iraq," Abbas said.
He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.
"There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to
rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see
the country is destroyed," he added.
"... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
"... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
"... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
"... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
"... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
"... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
"... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
"... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in
Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf
backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and
effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises
about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.
Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either
Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.
stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria
to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a
regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated
leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.
@306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
@316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at
least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"
It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and
Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international
diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either
Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a
figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA
of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more
under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.
It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans
within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable
for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker
skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in
service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally
excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)
Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition,
largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in
the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless
there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence,
and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do
so. Whether he was sincere is moot.
Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct.
Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner
is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.
Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies
active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over
the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent
policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President
sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic
polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on
the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he
more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which
is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed
to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board
with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher
ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation,
emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for
decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.
Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are
voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting
is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…
I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good.
It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.
As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry,"
because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion
of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.
"... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
"... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
"... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
"... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail
in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the
hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military
can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering
cost or consequence.
Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of
the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by
war," as Tim Carney
rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson
from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent
messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."
Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn.
Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that
her handiwork in Libya is an
example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose
blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career.
With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already
swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult
to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country
it was
never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.
And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must
not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass.
Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right
to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives'
all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all
easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would
have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint,
minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting
off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our
own.
Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism.
That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which
shows all the signs of running on repeat.
"... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
"... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
"... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
"... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
"... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
"... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
"... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
"... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started
the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian
hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal
and leaked to Russia Today
four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary
Clinton.
For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal
is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial
capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure
as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans
font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark,
no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in
2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with
the
e-mails the State Department released to the public .
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal
to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release.
The
first e-mail Clinton
asks to have printed and she also
forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The
second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and
forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The
third e-mail is also
forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State
Department record completely.
This missing e-mail
from February 16, 2013 only exists in the
original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had
evidence that the
In Amenas and
Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia."
This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such
was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however,
we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence
from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough
of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English
as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies,
it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence
briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser
that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not
followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except
for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be
due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in
question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary
of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is
trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State
on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.
So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail
investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia
was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into
it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton
trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough
to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary
of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed
the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with
this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission
investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this
be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly
so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi
involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the
millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?
These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed
to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified
until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week.
In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also
leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference
this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release,
we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest.
Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested
as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly
relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed
it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form.
This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified
information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server
despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with
such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains
why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was
deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed
e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence
and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason
why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the
first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically
"unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government
e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has
already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's
e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails
were subpoenaed, although
a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have
any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject
line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.
In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are
in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where
this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded
unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would
not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be
deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony.
In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal
and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding
the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.
Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened
After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February
29th, it has been reported in the last week that:
Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan
Pagliano, has been
given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving
testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation
and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading
the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary
extradition order to the United States
granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back
in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to
the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a
grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand
jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence
she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign
in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the
future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while
there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing
conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold
the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time
for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing.
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary
Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.
Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton -
not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators
use - is a compulsive liar.
Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything
that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an
objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently
lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality.
I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are
independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological
affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.
Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate
with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After
all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing
political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist
philosophy.
so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on
911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on
911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories
to protect their saudi pals?
BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this
piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow"
should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary
who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned
in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American
Iraq invasion too.
The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners
going back to Mena, Arkansas.
The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best
friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church
and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and
many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and
Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.
We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful
Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.
The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie
North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was
Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes
and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena
continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge.
BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped
finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy
bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no
surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so
dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.
And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal
to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in
bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather
climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."
That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department
of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation
and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are
going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs
who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.
I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He
looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits
their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to
cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United
States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments
on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what
difference does it make?
Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the
jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with
obsolete shit weapons, I think.
So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the
loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.
God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious
principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.
Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the
US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So
I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving
them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified,
then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their
private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't
see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.
As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary
learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he
ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time
to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party,
and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground
before she gives up her dream.
No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just
like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets
of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?
Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of
parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy
from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses,
and the host may die as a result.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still
time to nominate another candidate.
It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will
ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize
that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat
Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily
pissed.
Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the
article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think
she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to
Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...
BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their
sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and
compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each
campaign speech.
They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
"... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
"... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
"... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
"... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
"... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
"... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
"... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
"... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's
signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a
strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred
to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed
"channel" built out of rewards and punishments.
...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments,
have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established
a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented
anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed
Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about
the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.
...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to
jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose
and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial
sanctions and even criminal charges.
...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival
Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim
Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist
militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and
developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was
tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned
back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary
of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi
regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that
helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing
of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious
glee and
declared,
"we came, we saw, he died."
Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures
including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping
to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base.
(Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)
... ... ...
Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2,
"One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood
in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the
United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies,
has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."
... ... ...
Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country
via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel"
to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington.
But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm
American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down
Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate.
Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?
Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton
was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a
very very dangerous woman.
Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am
While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic
concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is
also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able
to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost
all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign
contributions from military industry.
For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from
1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing
the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of
each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars
since.
This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch
of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each
region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution.
It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses
of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated
syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human
or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting
the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would
read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily
be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,
The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the
universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range
of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest
range of viewpoints.
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating
until it becomes common gospel.
Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA
recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan
campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been
correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major
executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the
past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after
black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.
The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means
of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead
the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when
the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward
to…. what?
One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I
feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire
the best of efforts.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm
The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for
many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which
we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin."
This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people
around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls
close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent
is probably as perilous as she is.
Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful
to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site.
If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon
hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her
hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."
In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous
***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating
out Bush the Dumber.
Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing
the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So
far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the
neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland
and the TPP?
SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
"So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're
trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for
building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so
the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans,
distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in,
and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
…" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a
la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"?
And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in
2011?
Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking,
so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the
basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the
Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an
impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched
Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a
North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about,
he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated
and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered
to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was
dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently
didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!
How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries
we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once
and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her
Wellesley education; she's not that bright.
dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am
Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her
Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating
from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy
train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker
realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization
would bring chaos throughout the region.
Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew
that, she is incapable.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings
in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've
listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there
a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US
governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong.
Could it be arrogance?
In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly
different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that
country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run
US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report
their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya,
they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out
that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives
by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be
very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable
to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested
and sympathetic listeners.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm
It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing
circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could
it be arrogance?
It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or
a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act
to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide
might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted
capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious
offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom
they were associated.
In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic."
They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing
their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they
can continue to commit more travesties.
Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence
across the region has galvanized it instead.
Moving the mercenary forces
of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight
another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they
will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across
the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects"
from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and
destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize
and destroy Egypt.
IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended
and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces
and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria,
where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely
no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining
and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in
Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.
Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya,
neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably
precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable
danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge
of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by
many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs
fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention
anyway.
One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally
create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad
to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.
Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan
people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US
Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN
gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension
of the 0.01%
rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm
All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more,
and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building
giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening
to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend
communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction,
was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country.
Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.
Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will
capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring
was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future,
thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways
of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer
products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the
Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers,
which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant
here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That
we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats),
as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our
dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to
carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's
an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will
- and no one will dare stop us.
Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like
this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President
of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories.
Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just
blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that
selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.
Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set
in motion,
Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this
commotion!
Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been
preempted,
Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt
them.
Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their
thieves for a banquet-
Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets
they'll crank it.
Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided
indictment,
Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts
of corruption.
He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no
help from Clinton,
Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner
excitement!
If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and
replace him.
The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need
to worry,
The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves
of migration.
If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is
such a quick swim!
The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance
advisor.
They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems
quite consistent-
Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the
Dinar will prosper.
Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a
miser!
Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to
a ditch,
But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone
will emerge,
They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence
will flow unabated.
The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't
be a hitch.
But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine
skills leaner and meaner,
He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make
him or break him,
He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes
spew that stench:
A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any
old wiener!
His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and
camouflaged perch.
He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet
classified selfies,
If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers
or briefs,
The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image
to smirch.
He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence
analysts squirm,
Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in
his shorts.
As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must
prevail.
There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy
trauma.
The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really
get spooked.
Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh
or a cackle.
Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible
quote:
"We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw,
and we nuked."
Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a
sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that
the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more.
It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for
world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already
know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The
western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against
radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy
will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a
good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by
reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.
Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being
installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and
that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good
against evil.
My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest
prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have
anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course
their agenda.
Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with
a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their
fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for
and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among
the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will
always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.
This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to
oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother
Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg,
Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats
and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in
part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.
Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am
Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the
people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support
them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They
are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be
utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.
The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now.
As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
Notable quotes:
"... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
"... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
"... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
"... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
"... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
"... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
"... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
"... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
"... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
"... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
"... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed
the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible
policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being
pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits
who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in
Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab
leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when
he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our
allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single
boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful,
fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has
been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which
you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that
we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland,
but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact
on what happens in a country like Libya.
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had
produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest
indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the
catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya
itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't
have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support
for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He
threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable
and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the
secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian
and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect
regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with
NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc
of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has
pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American
mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
... ... ...
David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University
Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida
Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.
Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what
they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political
system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.
Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little
or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.
Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make
a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with
a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political
choice not an intelligent one.
Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal
global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal
vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that
will take too much space to elucidate.
But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi:
https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI
Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University
How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure
at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading
healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing
as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east,
her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine
entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South
China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune,
providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation
money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?
AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then
you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.
Charles Hill · Clifton High School
This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they
did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.
And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing
no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided
to support. Now ISIS is running things there.
Brian Donahue · New York, New York
The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary
will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.
Clarc King · Bronx, New York
A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic,
elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed
and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American
Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US
presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.
Linda LaRoque · Odessa College
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so
share it with those under 50.
Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary
to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about
$13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her
first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names
from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some
may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious
sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused
to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations,
cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale
was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and
the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years
of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill
Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more
notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation
they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr
as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation
led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's
devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by
repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times
while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White
House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary
of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe
will fall next.
That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against
her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her
State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the
State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.
Terry Lee · Telgar
The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on?
It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!
Elizabeth Fichtl
The country is waking up.
Question put to HRC during the debate.
Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold
in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President
Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson
was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that
we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the
Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"
Leslie Ware · Preston High School
Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:
1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as
a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity
of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense
information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of
an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper,
secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone
knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example
destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still
remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the
Washington Field Office of the FBI.
2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure"
of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized
retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States
or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.
Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI
agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar
language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her
to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that
is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified
information.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a
judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement
of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document
required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this
pretender to the presidency really is.
Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her
previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while
saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally
incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.
Clinton for Trial 2016.
Mike Kelly
OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.
The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire
things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information
was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result,
your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political
purposes, as was done during the previous administration.
David Auner · Springfield, Missouri
This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence
is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about
repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting
tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for
every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing
out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more
than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information
about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid
for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper
analysis.
Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho
Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply
will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and
will neolib us.
Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited
US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to
Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.
Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press
The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning
up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization
destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell
over themselves to put a knife in his back.
James Charles O'Donnell III
Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who
is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in
a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?
Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability
ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper
fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election
to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that
will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those
SCOTUS seats!).
With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner,
inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely
(corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 --
and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career
enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country
and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September
11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the
administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to
prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
... ... ...
Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi"
at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed
her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood
and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan
Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the
terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference
to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton
stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American
public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this
point, does it make?"
... ... ...
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years
as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst
in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security
Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.
"... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
"... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
"... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
"... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
"... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:
The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation,"
and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."
Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait
approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority,
Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.
It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been
doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you
choose as we wish if you will. Go America!
"... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
"... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
"... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
"... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments
sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547
pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by
Hillary Clinton.
The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as
a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February
29, 2016.
A letter from
Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was
losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going
to wrong hands through the black market.
The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute
chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save
themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Key parts:
During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan
rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned
that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb
(AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya,
to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals
fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO
and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar
al Qaddafi.
These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the
week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External
Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired
about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal
weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for
sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms
dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious
threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern
Mauritania.
(Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned
that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of
Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment
again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that
AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time
when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across
North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals
in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step
in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by
Western tourists.
Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia
to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not
a top priority issue for them.
"... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
"... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
"... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
"... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
"... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
"... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
"... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
"... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post
accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh
article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!
My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns,
and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.
It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United
States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was
critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.
So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret
File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this
story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.
On Wednesday night,
Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led
conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter
account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that
we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.
I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's
merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled
against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom
of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents
of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.
Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not
awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view
towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop
in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are
not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.
Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and
his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he
is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest
reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.
Our
outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news
and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh
headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.
In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning,
calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally
negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.
It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns,
I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling
my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary
Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary
lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.
Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently,
Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are
worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.
The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a
Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe
a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?
There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from
our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans,
like so many others in this country, wish they would.
Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was
written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.
The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch
(notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration
that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.
In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated
that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory
and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.
Today, the Obama Administration
grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria,
despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded),
under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.
We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon
which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.
And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher,
but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose
is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular
opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.
But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers
traitors to this country.
This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal
propaganda works.
This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to
the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal
MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people
in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
"... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
"... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in
South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright
shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's
last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign
policy approach. Hard.
Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush.
He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq.
Trump said to Dickerson:
Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent
$2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest
oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make
mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the
Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction,
there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building
a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of
what he did."
Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that
That's not keeping us safe."
And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories
about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy
without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump
easily won the
South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.
Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President
Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had
more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on
their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's
complete meltdown over the remarks.
Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?
Republicans who oppose Trump
claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought
him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media
have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.
As the Washington
Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:
'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign
rally in Mississippi.
Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS
with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'
He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she
should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'
Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject
horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying
all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.
Hyperliteralism
Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience,
but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the
anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists
in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself
when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play
the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.
So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS
a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.
Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...
The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary
Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump
said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give
him a Pants On Fire rating.
As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many
serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were
going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically,
this tweet is worth considering:
Failure to Do Due Diligence
On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with
Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald
Trump was super serial
about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales
to launch his new organization ISIS.
Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the
same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is
the 'founder of Isis'."
You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this
narrative is.
Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says
he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen
for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview
is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.
First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't
like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check:
Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS.
I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her,
too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS.
Trump says:
DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that
was the founding of ISIS, okay?
Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump
is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.
Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake?
Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't
like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking
caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created
a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:
HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan
vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what
I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that's okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.
HH: That's
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.
HH: That's true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with
this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.
DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media
either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk
about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.
No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion
to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running
ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover
it.
Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal
People accuse their political opponents of being
responsible for bad things all the time.
Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was
a "recruiting
sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered
a
founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making
a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:
Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain
said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with
the terror group. President Obama said
he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support
of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair
published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck,
so did President
Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't
pretend it's unique to Trump.
Missing Actual Problems with His Comments
Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski
for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments.
He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed
something much more problematic with Trump's comments.
Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal
of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.
'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed
our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.'
(Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was
that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.
But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully
for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later
2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.
Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging
the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter
one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.
We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy
Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican
primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina
rewarded him with a victory.
Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming
Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover
widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George
W. Bush or Barack Obama.
Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive
decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly
managed instead of actually dealt with.
Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a
way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it.
Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East
because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided,
aimless efforts there.
The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if
many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican
and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
"... "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." ..."
"... In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it. ..."
"... What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." ..."
"... Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government. ..."
"... The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org. ..."
"... Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked. ..."
"... During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today. ..."
"... In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today. ..."
"... Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy. ..."
"... The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... "There was no 'overthrow.'" ..."
"... I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held. ..."
"... one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.' ..."
"... It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS. ..."
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating
in it." So advised world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited thinkers
in human history.
The counsel may sound simple and intuitive - that's because it is. But when it comes to Saudi
Arabia, the U.S. ignores it.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy that governs based on an extreme interpretation of
Sharia (Islamic law). It is so extreme, it has been widely compared to ISIS. Algerian journalist
Kamel Daoud characterized Saudi Arabia in an
op-ed in The New York Times as "an ISIS that has made it."
"Black Daesh, white Daesh," Daoud
wrote, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands,
destroys humanity's common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is
better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia."
"In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other,"
Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic
alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance
with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the
ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on."
In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has
spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It
infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor
Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent,
oppressed people are more susceptible to it.
Whether elements within Saudi Arabia support ISIS is contested. Even if Saudi Arabia does not
directly support or fund ISIS, however, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to the extremist ideology ISIS
preaches.
What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and
even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government
cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source
of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."
Supporters of the Saudi monarchy resist comparisons to ISIS. The regime itself
threatened
to sue social media users who compared it to ISIS. Apologists point out that ISIS and Saudi Arabia
are enemies. This is indeed true. But this is not necessarily because they are ideologically different
(they are similar) but rather because they threaten each other's power.
There can only be one autocrat in an autocratic system; ISIS' self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi refuses to kowtow to present Saudi King Salman, and vice-versa. After all, the Saudi
absolute monarch partially justifies his rule through claiming that it has been blessed and ordained
by God, and if ISIS' caliph insists the same, they can't both be right.
Some American politicians have criticized the U.S.-Saudi relationship for these very reasons.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has been perhaps the most outspoken critic. Graham has called extremist
groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support."
... ... ...
Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family
supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The
CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these
points, from his background within the U.S. government.
The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11
attacks on its website FactCheck.org.
Whatever its role, what is clear is that Saudi Arabia's support for violent extremist groups is
well documented. Such support continues to this very day. In Syria, the Saudi monarchy has backed
al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. The U.S. government has bombed al-Nusra, but its ally Saudi
Arabia is funding it.
Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close
ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism
efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015
it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close
allies," the State Department remarked.
... ... ...
During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the
1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed
that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists
against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout
the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today.
In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the
extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas
and ISISes of the world.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt
met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence.
It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today.
The Saudi monarchy presents itself as modernized, yet it is still feudal in essence. There is
almost no developed civil society in Saudi Arabia, because the regime has made all independent institutionalized
forms of dissent illegal.
Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal
rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying
them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were
only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual
politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy.
... ... ...
If it is truly interested in stopping terrorism, then, the U.S. and the rest of the West will
heed Chomsky's advice. The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism:
It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia.
Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.
Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against
Mohammad Mosaddeq
Monday 19 August 2013
The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup
against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also
show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement
in his overthrow.
On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling,
the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified
CIA documents.
"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet
was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at
the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history
titled The Battle for Iran.
The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe
in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and
Operation Boot by Britain's MI6...
Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American
politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution.
It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the
country.
The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to
install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through
legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it
with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".
{The Nixon administration created a "Twin
Pillars" Middle East policy, in which the U.S.-backed monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Iran
were considered pillars of stability. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew Iran's first
and only democratically elected head of state, Mohammad Mosaddegh}
That is a rather odd correlation -- Mr. Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 -- 20 yrs after the CIA/MI6
(Mossad was likely lurking, too) toppled Mr. Mosaddegh.
The Nixon effect stems from Mr. Kissinger's amorous connection -- he made love to Saudi Arabia,
and they had a child named Petro-$. It was the birth of the greatest financial con in Human history.
If one has a grasp of the nature of the Supreme Power behind that curtain, the events unfolding
in the world right now, make much sense.
I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their
Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires,
and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition
and explosives are held.
They were successful in starting an armed revolution against of the Kyrgis government in 2010
in this otherwise peaceful country where Muslims and non-Muslims had coexisted for years in peace
and harmony. (During my visit, I even had a Muslim business owner thank George Bush during my
visit for our USAID support - I was shocked. Muslims are not the enemy. Extremists and authoritarian
governments like SA are. They don't want the two cultures to mix.)
Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest opponent to peace in the Middle East.
one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the
officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts.
look at the 'carlyle group.'
Until the problem of Saudi Arabia is solved, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved.
We thought we could go in the back door by changing Iraq, but we only made things worse. Take
away the oil and we would have invaded after 9/11.
The royal family is basically paying off the radicals to leave them, and their wealth, alone.
Americans have to accept that fact that the U.S. and other western governments prefer fundamentalism
- which sells us oil - to democracy, socialism or Arab nationalism. It loves a good theocracy.
These really are feudal regimes.
In Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Iraq and now Syria, the U.S. and its allies have
DIRECTLY funded Al Quada and its offshoots. Much of the weaponry sent from Libya to Syria for
'secular freedom fighters' ended up in the hands of Daesh. The U.S. has worked to crush partially
secular regimes over and over again, even using the early Islamic Hamas fundamentalists in Palestine
against the PLO, DFLP, PFLP etc. Before that they undermined Nasser, Mossedegh, and ANY left nationalists
in sight.
All for oil. It is still the oil barons and the militarists that back the Saudis and this will
not change until the US. government is undermined itself.
"... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
"... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
"... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
"... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
"... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
"... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
"... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
"... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
"... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert
attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries
against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.
This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe.
Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?
Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB
or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials
who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation
or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused
on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.
Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention
is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!
Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.
And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number
One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more
missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle
Sam can deal with them.
I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind
me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood
for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry
spectacle?
One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest
ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America,
the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan
Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local
Afghan opium-growing stooges.
The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony
troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated
the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.
But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President
Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force.
Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been
swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.
So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always
weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese
or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan
pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed
to defeat the US military.
Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why
expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?
With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief
Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The
shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.
This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and
caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a
war none of them understood.
No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans
are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about
the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.
DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000
of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in
Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's)
cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's
election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
rberger -> doublreed
Lame. When Clinton worked as a lawyer, she did some legal work for Lafarge. She later said
on the board. This was in 1991. The so-called association with ISIS happened in 2014. Clinton
did not take $100,000 from the company. The company donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation,
which is a non-profit organization and not a cent goes to Clinton.
"... Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones. ..."
"... Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought. ..."
"... Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. ..."
"... MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally. ..."
"... I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up. ..."
RUSH: Now,
I mentioned this, I think, in first hour, previously on the program. Obama has been refusing
to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out
ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.
Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first
time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if
Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in
Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just
want to put the exclamation point on this thought.
Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always
seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be
seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria
were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure
to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.
It's in The Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's a long interview. But there is this
knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama, a comment that he made while Hillary was
his secretary of state. Do you remember he praised her, "best secretary of state ever"? She might
be, he said. On the day she resigned or the day they announced of her resignation, there was a joint
presser.
Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about how she may be one of the best secretaries
of state ever, and now here comes Hillary back-stabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help
the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. Right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg: "The former secretary
of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.
"She says this about President Obama's: 'Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't
do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.'" It's a slam, but I wonder: Are reset buttons organizing
principles? Because, let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader...
(pfft, slap myself) a Russian leader with a plastic and red toy that said, in crudely spelled words,
"reset button." I kid you not!
... ... ...
The conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. Remember,
Obama, in the previous summer of 2013, issued this red line and dared Assad not
to cross it. (imitating Obama) "You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have
me to deal with," and we never did anything. But the word was out that Assad was
gassing and harming his own people. And I remember saying on this program -- Koko,
go back to that era and just for the website today, go find what I said on those
days and relink it, 'cause I made the point, I asked the question, "What if it
isn't Assad? What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies
disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make it appear as though
he's doing this, when in fact he's not?"
And after I'd mentioned that, I got an e-mail from a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances
in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew. And Hillary is now coming along and essentially
saying the same thing. She's not suggesting that ISIS was there. She is suggesting that our lack
of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS
all along. ISIS was doing it and they were making it look like Assad did it. And just like the media
was biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type of people in Syria who are
trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.
I had never seen any evidence that Bashar Assad -- his father was different. His father, Hafez
al-Assad, was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line. But there's no evidence
that Bashar had really done it. I knew that Al-Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control.
The Muslim Brotherhood's trying to gain control, that whole area. It was a lot of Christians in Syria
that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you, and it was made to look like it was
Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.
The point is I called it. I was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed
and that she was right about, but she never said it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's me, folks, from this program on September 11th, 2013. By the way, Koko, if
you want to find the website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September
2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is. But this was September 11th of last year.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Here we are 12 years later after 9/11, and think about it. Twelve years later we
are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria. Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians
if they don't convert to Islam. That's who our allies are. Those are the rebels that Bashar Assad
is supposedly gassing. So we're aligned with 'em because we're aligned against Assad. They're threatening
to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.
RUSH: This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad. It was made to look like Assad was doing the
gassing. He wasn't, as it turns out. This morning on Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade spoke to retired
Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling
of ISIS and here's what the general said about Hillary's remarks.
MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing
for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there,
and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't
create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and
protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
RUSH: Well, that's General McInerney. I've got 15 seconds before the break. It turns out that
my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right, that Assad was not the bad guy.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I tell you what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton. It's clear to me that Hillary
Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still gonna be her strong pantsuit, as she heads
into the campaign. She really does. That's why she's doing all of this. But I want to play this audio
sound bite again from General McInerney, because there's a gem in this that is another example of
how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years, 2004 to 2009. Actually, 2003
to 2008 would be the specific time period, bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the
year.
One other thing. Koko has found exactly what I was talking about. There was a post at RushLimbaugh.com
on September 3rd, "What if Assad Didn't Do It?" And my memory has now been refreshed. I had a couple
of sources and an e-mail from a friend confirm, so three different confirmations here from people,
that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people probably wasn't
true. That it was, it turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was doing it, and
making it look like it was Assad, and that's who our allies were. We were anti-Assad and we actually
had an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.
I remember I took my fair share of heat, and I always do when I'm not part of the conventional
wisdom. Assad's easy to hate. Assad's a dictator. Assad has a typical bad image and when somebody
says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed. And here I came, all of Washington
supports the idea that Assad was doing it, and I said, "I'm not so sure. What if."
"Rush, you didn't have to say anything. Why are you going out on a limb? Why do you want to sound
like you're defending Assad?"
I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't
believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming
out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it
comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence,
and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little
hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up.
MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing
for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there,
and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't
create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and
protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
RUSH: In the early days of 2002 when Bush was traveling the country making the case for invading
Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al-Qaeda,
prior to 9/11, had done some training in Iraq. And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out
shell of an airliner fuselage.
Now, the conventional wisdom was that Al-Qaeda had never been in Iraq, that Bush was making this
up, or that the intel was all wrong, but likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to
make their case, because Al-Qaeda was clearly the enemy after 9/11. Al-Qaeda had hijacked the planes
at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al-Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush
was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.
The Democrats and the media, led by Obama starting in 2002, and other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy,
they were all -- I mean, John Kerry, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al-Qaeda
had anything to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq and nobody can prove it, they said. Saddam
had nothing to do with 911. Now, the Bush people at the time were saying, "We can't afford --" 9/11
had just happened. "What happened here is real. And any time there is anybody in the world vowing
to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously."
They were making the case for preemptive military strikes. That's what all this was called, because
the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore it was
not moral or strategically wise to hit Iraq. They had nothing to do with it. The Bush people were
saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter, they're threatening to do the same thing.
And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people,
and we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.
Saddam at the time was lying to the UN inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction. It turned
out that he was big timing and he was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by
being the most feared. So he was lying about at least the size of his weapons of mass destruction
stock. And part of the lie, part of the illusion was to not let the inspectors in. He wanted everybody
to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff. And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody
we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action. We've got to hit preemptively.
I'll never forget any of this, folks. Because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it.
Because the Democrats, even after 9/11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived
a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting
credit for any policy he instituted following 9/11.
Also remember this, along those same lines. Bill Clinton, it was reported -- he later denied it
-- but Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9/11 didn't happen
on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership. He was upset
that it had happened with Bush. If it was gonna happen, why couldn't it have happened during his
time? We reported that and all hell broke loose. A string of denials were forthcoming.
But the point is they politicize everything. There was unity for a week and after that the Democrats
devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive
achievement in the aftermath of 911. So these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when
it came to Iraq. At first they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan. That's when they asked
for the vote a second time.
Remember, there was a memo uncovered, a memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat senator
from West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy -- and this had come from James Carville
and Stan Greenberg in a memo. It was then written up by Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee
ranking Democrat in the Senate. He said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar.
And it said if they were to succeed with this, that their strategy depended on convincing people
that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers. So,
as I say, here's the gem that was in McInerney's piece ('cause I'm running out of time here). Throughout
all of this in the run-up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al-Qaeda might have been
in Iraq came up, the Democrats said, "No way!
"Al-Qaeda never found its way to Iraq! They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if you gave 'em a
map. They haven't been to Iraq. They don't have anything to do with Saddam! They were helpless."
Now listen to what we just heard here. ISIS was originally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now, some of
you might be saying, "Well, maybe so, Rush, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked."
It did!
We were able to confirm that elements of Al-Qaeda did connect with Saddam for training exercises
and so forth. But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here. ISIS and Al-Qaeda
in Iraq are all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. And in Syria, we were actually,
stupidity and maybe unknowingly (given this bunch, I could believe it was unknowingly) supporting
them
Because we had concluded that Bashar Assad was the one gassing his own people. I had never seen
any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way. I knew he treated political enemies that
way, which is why it was not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own
people if he's gassed others. Ditto, Saddam and the Kurds. But there hadn't been any evidence that
Bashar Assad gassed his own people.
So, anyway, that's that, and it's just... Some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just
last year and some of it's just yesterday, and so much of it is lies. And so many of these lies are
why we're even here today. So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large
reasons why Obama was elected in the first place. It's just dispiriting in a way -- and in another
way, surely frustrating, and that's why I've been so ticked off all day.
"... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
"... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted
in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse
to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead
has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the
Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight
a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?
I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no
matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work
for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C.
(and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).
It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the
U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered
the Hillary admission:
"The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America
created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
"'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.
"'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.
"'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand
of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"
"What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased
to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty
good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:
"Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High
command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
"The more fundamental question:
"Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without
a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging
nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."
The report continues:
"The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.
"Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their
foot soldiers.
"'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia)
is an integral part of US foreign policy."
The report further states:
"It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.
"Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an
Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its
allies.
"In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he
is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to
politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".
Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that
justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt
plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect
our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim
refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable
percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which
to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.
Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help
Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy
is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but
in the name of "helping" Israel?
Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:
"A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately
provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'
"In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the
'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.
"In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way
to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."
It continues:
"Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a
hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use
these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."
And again:
"The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor
of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.
"It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens
to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there
are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.
"In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to
Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires
of war in Syria."
If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy
to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!"
I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians
going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.
The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam
about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians
and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating
world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.
Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it
through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will
also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.
That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget
that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing
Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.
Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:
On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have
no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve
is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill
to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their
murderous hands.
And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation
of them:
"The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely
insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since
Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have
wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan
and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence
to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had
to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'
"The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear
weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial
for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.
"Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false
flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the
US and Russia to war."
"... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
"... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
"... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
"... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
"... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
"... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
"... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
"... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévière back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance
to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly
an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But,
that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.
According to
at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy
version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military
Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S.
and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of
a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit,
Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance
special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton
quotes:
Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation,
in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America
manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?
One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors
to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another
version,
as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS
caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic
and economic interests.
The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs (
#مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون)
quickly started trending across social media in the region,
Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims
about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the
restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."
Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.
Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however.
Writing in his "Open Source" column for the
New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world
are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and
that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims
who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.
For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed
wrote
on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give
birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued
the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply
rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to
confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh
century."
That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has
spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.
Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!
Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World
plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview
and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.
America is better than that.
Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in
Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.
U.S. Policy in Chechnya
In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News
reporter James Gordon Meek got
an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise:
"Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.
ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007,
after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It
wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with
the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra,
lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.
"Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been
conducting
terror
campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success,
for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens:
the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and
the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above).
In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the
CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words,
with proven experience in a professional terror setting.
When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with
weirdly
bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington
have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United
States with infamously fatal consequences. Both
the 9/11 Commission Report and
FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic
terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as
actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias
Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp
run by the Saudi-funded
World Assembly
of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen
bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo,
ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by
Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.
Upon further digging by Palast:
Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin
Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence
had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden
brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis
to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians
grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to
roost.
As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said,
"It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been
on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing,
career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."
A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their
Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has
been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army,"
a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard
Labévière back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains
of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."
Granted: The events of September 11th made this
grand strategy
a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years,
particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you
want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their
hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law,
all you need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no
problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now
they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their
toes and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with
new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about
oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France)
still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has
had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was
in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of
the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western
civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy.
Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being
invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit
the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after
the demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab
Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi
and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up
and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along
with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators
and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions
and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run
by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo
today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time
in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues
of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think
their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its
presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance
examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute
of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con
cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad
bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to
sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation
is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off
than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster
like you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments
intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people
had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded
(National Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting
what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over
Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias
compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources
under the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the
going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human
life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder
why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed
their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD,
ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but
the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to
death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as
he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and
murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist
elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling,
snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim
world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi
left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way
to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary
Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the
victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun
by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in
somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected
or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the
Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns'
to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson
of planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the
euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about
not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our
well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the
Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it
themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface
in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.
Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's
as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so
it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from
Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat"
from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the
thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that
the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate
Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of
our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy
outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner
got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent
objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan,
Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world
to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend
the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian,
as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and
American Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The
so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their
looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army,
used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned
a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across
North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext
of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular
leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
"... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
"... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
"... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
"... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
"... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
"... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
"... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
"... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
"We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction
to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry
to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."
That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the
seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past
year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday
as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest
oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,"
Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State,
and the eastern city of Benghazi."
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks
in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in
Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard
told Bloomberg over the phone.
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary
operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the
group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure,
much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As
Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been
strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields,
where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."
"I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the
oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from
local security from isolated towns."
This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true
measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he
ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer
job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.
The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would
hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an
even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of
sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap
slime ball
fleur de lis
Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality
you already have.
John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his
transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.
Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy
riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag
entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.
They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin
to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks
dirty.
No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations
later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their
mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.
''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot'
'....
Blankone
You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone
in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.
It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the
resources.
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give
consent for the destruction.
Volkodav
What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you
know better, but choose dishonesty
froze25
Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had
charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees
with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control
bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced
is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family
tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio
is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian
planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist.
Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.
kita27
Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and
incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly
what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important
resources.
ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast
is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities
can be pilfered safely.
Bastiat
And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries
formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately
removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.
Hohum
Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)
Sanity Bear
In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War".
(Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).
Jack Burton
First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs
ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army
forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.
Jack Burton
Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya,
and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air
lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function
in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria
is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.
falak pema
well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.
And they get : ISIS --
Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.
trader1
we came, we saw, ...
TeaClipper
So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence
She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief.
Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread
ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really
was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.
RevIdahoSpud3
I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited,
"We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and
now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded,
we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new
complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers.
After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich!
Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special
interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen
oil has higher octane!
Duc888
Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya
"We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.
jldpc
What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker
or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it
down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American
soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end
buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any
of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that
out on their own?
BarkingCat
Lets see if I understand the plan.
Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.
Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.
Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.
Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping
the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.
Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.
Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists
and other barbarians.
When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:
Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that
has value ....oil production for example.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
