Has nobody anything to say on this blatant piece of BBC lying propaganda? They showed footage of INDIANS waving their national flag somewhere in INDIA as a celebration of something to do with INDIA but broadcast it as "Live from Tripoli" and purporting to be LIBYANS joyously celebrating their liberation from Gaddafi!!!! It doesn't get much worse than this. Hitler and Goebbels would be ashamed to behave like this.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:28 pm Post subject:
I have posted page 9 of this thread to Media Watch UK.
I couldn't find any reference to Libya/India 'live footage' in a quick scan of their August news.
I believe there is another similar organisation in Scotland, but I can't remember the name.
It would be a good idea to pass the BBC Building 7 'collapse' video on to them as well, but I haven't got time to find it at present.
I don't know if they have reported on any other 9/11-7/7 skewed reporting, either. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:51 pm Post subject:
'The Rape of Libya', by Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site:
'After being terrorized for five months by NATO bombs and missiles, the people of Tripoli are now facing sudden death and a looming humanitarian catastrophe as a result of the NATO campaign to “protect civilians”.
Kim Sengupta of the Independent reported Thursday from the Tripoli neighborhood of Abu Salim, which the “rebels” stormed under the cover of NATO air strikes. Known as a pro-Gaddafi area, its residents have been subjected to a reign of terror....'
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a26.shtml _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:42 pm Post subject:
A friend I met told me this 'fake' footage has been exposed in the Guardian, he didn't know what date, but said it was one day this week.
The guy volunteered the info when I was about to explain about it, and he is not online, so his info is pukka.
Anyone got this week's Guardians, to check? I know many of us don't bother buying papers these days, as we know how 'controlled' they are.
Public libraries will have back issues. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
How are the BBC going to wriggle out of this one? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Journalists trapped in a Tripoli hotel say there are heavy explosions close-by, power is down, and there's gunfire outside. Journalist Thierry Meyssan, who's founder and chairman of online newspaper the Voltaire Network is in the Rixos hotel in Tripoli and says NATO forces are doing everything to back up rebels...
Tripoli inside report: 'Snipers target reporters, NATO bombs falling'
Government tanks are shelling parts of central Tripoli despite rebels claiming they are in control of most of the Libyan capital. One of Gaddafi's sons is reportedly leading forces towards the city centre. Earlier three of his other sons were said to have been arrested. Heavy fighting has been reported near the Libyan leader's residence. Meanwhile state TV is still airing pro-Gaddafi programmes. Rumours are circulating that Gaddafi may be in talks with South Africa about a possible escape despite denials from both sides. Following a night of chaos in the capital, crowds were seen in the city's central square with people waving revolutionary flags. Journalist Mahdi Nazemroaya says the hotel in Tripoli where the foreign press has been obliged to stay during the conflict has been looted.
This video has been removed, but is still available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=difM7QWj4sY _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Journalist Mahdi Nazemroaya, who is in the hotel in Tripoli where the foreign press have been obliged to stay during the conflict is afraid for his safety and says he's been threatened.
Rebels say they now control most of Tripoli, and have taken Libyan state TV off air. But some reports also suggest that opposition fighters have been looting private houses. Three of Gaddafi's sons are now thought to be in rebel hands. Opposition leaders say a large number of their fighters have been killed. There are reports rebels are closing in on Gaddafi's compound, but the whereabouts of the Colonel are unknown. Some rumours suggest Gaddafi may be in talks with South Africa about a possible escape route, despite denials from both sides. And NATO insists it will continue combat air patrols until all government forces surrender. Following a night of chaos in the capital, crowds have been seen in Tripoli's central square waving revolutionary flags.
Rebels enter Tripoli as Gaddafi urges Libyans to take up arms
Rebels have reportedly entered Tripoli from the west as fighting in Libya appears to be intensifying. Some estimates put the death toll from this weekend alone in the hundreds - with around a thousand injured. It's also believed that major clashes have seen the rebels capture the capital's Mitiga airbase. Opposition forces also claim to have freed prisoners locked up during the uprising against Gaddafi's regime.
'NATO Not Winning' video removed: still available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRJncOdgPgc _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
But it needs some competent, knowledgeable people to handle it.
Building 7 could also be brought into the case. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject:
Sirte – the Apotheosis of “Liberal Intervention”
by Craig Murray on August 26, 2011
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/08/sirte-the-apotheosis-of -liberal-intervention/
There is no cause to doubt that, for whatever reason, the support of the people of Sirte for Gadaffi is genuine. That this means they deserve to be pounded into submission is less obvious to me. The disconnect between the UN mandate to protect civilians while facilitating negotiation, and NATO’s actual actions as the anti-Gadaffi forces’ air force and special forces, is startling.
There is something so shocking in the Orwellian doublespeak of NATO on this point that I am severely dismayed. I suffer from that old springing eternal of hope, and am therefore always in a state of disappointment. I had hoped that the general population in Europe is so educated now that obvious outright lies would be rejected. I even hoped some journalists would seek to expose lies.
I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
The “rebels” are actively hitting Sirte with heavy artillery and Stalin’s organs; they are transporting tanks openly to attack Sirte. Yet any movement of tanks or artillery by the population of Sirte brings immediate death from NATO air strike.
What exactly is the reason that Sirte’s defenders are threatening civilians but the artillery of their attackers – and the bombings themselves – are not? Plainly this is a nonsense. People in foreign ministries, NATO, the BBC and other media are well aware that it is the starkest lie and propaganda, to say the assault on Sirte is protecting civilians. But does knowledge of the truth prevent them from peddling a lie? No.
It is worth reminding everyone something never mentioned, that UNSCR 1973 which established the no fly zone and mandate to protect civilians had
“the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;”
That is in Operative Para 2 of the Resolution
Plainly the people of Sirte hold a different view to the “rebels” as to who should run the country. NATO have in effect declared being in Gadaffi’s political camp a capital offence. There is no way the massive assault on Sirte is “facilitating dialogue”. it is rather killing those who do not hold the NATO approved opinion. That is the actual truth. It is extremely plain.
I have no time for Gadaffi. I have actually met him, and he really is nuts, and dangerous. There were aspects of his rule in terms of social development which were good, but much more that was bad and tyrannical. But if NATO is attacking him because he is a dictator, why is it not attacking Dubai, Bahrain, Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, or Uzbekistan, to name a random selection of badly governed countries?
“Liberal intervention” does not exist. What we have is the opposite; highly selective neo-imperial wars aimed at ensuring politically client control of key physical resources.
Wars kill people. Women and children are dying now in Libya, whatever the sanitised media tells you. The BBC have reported it will take a decade to repair Libya’s infrastructure from the damage of war. That in an misunderestimation. Iraq is still decades away from returning its utilities to their condition in 2000.
I strongly support the revolutions of the Arab Spring. But NATO intervention does not bring freedom, it brings destruction, degradation and permanent enslavement to the neo-colonial yoke. From now on, Libyans like us will be toiling to enrich western bankers. That, apparently, is worth to NATO the reduction of Sirte to rubble.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/08/sirte-the-apotheosis-of -liberal-intervention/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195236.html _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
WikiLeaks cables expose Washington’s close ties to Gaddafi
by Bill Van Auken
Global Research, August 27, 2011
World Socialist Web Site
US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday and Thursday expose the close collaboration between the US government, top American politicians and Muammar Gaddafi, who Washington now insists must be hunted down and murdered.
Washington and its NATO allies are now determined to smash the Libyan regime, supposedly in the interests of “liberating” the Libyan people. That Gaddafi was until the beginning of this year viewed as a strategic, if somewhat unreliable, ally is clearly seen as an inconvenient truth.
The cables have been virtually blacked out by the corporate media, which has functioned as an embedded asset of NATO and the so-called rebel forces that it directs. It is hardly coincidental that the WikiLeaks posting of the cables was followed the next day by a combination of a massive denial of service attack and a US judge’s use of the Patriot Act to issue a sweeping “production order” or subpoena against the anti-secrecy organization’s California-based Domain Name Server, Dynadot.
The most damning of these cables memorializes an August 2009 meeting between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his son and national security adviser, Muatassim, with US Republican Senators John McCain (Arizona), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Susan Collins (Maine) and Connecticut “independent” Joe Lieberman.
McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, has in recent speeches denounced Gaddafi as “one of the most bloodthirsty dictators on Earth” and criticized the Obama administration for failing “to employ the full weight of our airpower” in effecting regime change in Libya.
In the meeting held just two years ago, however, McCain took the lead in currying favor with the Gaddafis. According to the embassy cable, he “assured” them that “the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security” and “pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress.”
The cable continues to relate McCain’s remarks: “He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome. He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation.”
The cable quote Lieberman as saying, “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi.” It states that the Connecticut senator went on to describe Libya as “an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.”
The “common enemies” referred to by Lieberman were precisely the Islamist forces concentrated in eastern Libya that the US then backed Gaddafi in repressing, but has now organized, armed and led in the operation to overthrow him.
The US embassy summarized: “McCain’s meetings with Muammar and Muatassim al-Qadhafi were positive, highlighting the progress that has been made in the bilateral relationship. The meetings also reiterated Libya’s desire for enhanced security cooperation, increased assistance in the procurement of defense equipment, and resolution to the C130s issue” (a contract that went unfulfilled because of previous sanctions).
Another cable issued on the same meeting deals with McCain’s advice to the Gaddafis about the upcoming release from a Scottish prison of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who had been convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. McCain, who now fulminates about Gaddafi having “American blood on his hands,” counseled the Libyan leader that the release was a “very sensitive issue” in the US and that he should handle it discreetly, “in a way that would strengthen the growing relationship between our two countries, rather than hinder its progress.” Ultimately Gaddafi and other leading Libyan officials gave a hero’s welcome to Megrahi, who has proclaimed his innocence and had been set to have his appeal heard when the Scottish government released him.
Other cables highlight the increasingly close US-Libyan military and security cooperation. One, sent in February 2009, provides a “security environment profile” for Libya. It notes that US personnel were “scheduled to provide 5 training courses to host government law enforcement and security” the next month. In answer to whether the Libyan government had been able to “score any major anti-terrorism successes,” the embassy praised the Gaddafi regime for having “dismantled a network in eastern Libya that was sending volunteer fighters to Algeria and Iraq and was plotting attacks against Libyan security targets using stockpiled explosives. The operation resulted in the arrest of over 100 individuals.” Elements of this same “network” make up an important component of the “rebels” now armed and led by NATO.
Asked by the State Department if there existed any “indigenous anti-American terrorist groups” in the country, the embassy replied “yes”, pointing to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which it noted had recently announced its merger with Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Again, elements of the LIFG are active in the leadership of the so-called rebels.
An April 2009 cable preparing Muatassim Gaddafi’s trip to Washington that month stresses plans for anti-terrorist training for Libyan military officers and potential arms deals. In its conclusion the embassy states: “The visit offers an opportunity to meet a power player and potential future leader of Libya. We should also view the visit as an opportunity to draw out Muatassim on how the Libyans view ‘normalized relations’ with the U.S. and, in turn, to convey how we view the future of the relationship as well. Given his role overseeing Libya’s national security apparatus, we also want his support on key security and military engagement that serves our interests.”
A May 2009 cable details a cordial hour-long meeting between Gaddafi and the then-head of the US Africa Command, General William Ward.
An August 2008 cable, a “scene setter” for the “historic visit” of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tripoli, declares that “Libya has been a strong partner in the war against terrorism and cooperation in liaison channels is excellent … Counter-terrorism cooperation is a key pillar of the U.S.-Libya bilateral relationship and a shared strategic interest.”
Many of the cables deal with opportunities for US energy and construction firms to reap “bonanzas” in the North African country and note with approval privatization efforts and the setting up of a Tripoli stock exchange.
Others, however, express concern, not about the Gaddafi regime’s repressive measures, but rather foreign policy and oil policy moves that could prejudice US interests. Thus, an October 2008 cable, cynically headlined “AL-QADHAFI: TO RUSSIA, WITH LOVE?” expresses US concern about the Gaddafi regime’s approach to Russia for lucrative arms purchases and a visit to Tripoli harbor by a flotilla of Russian warships. One month later, during a visit to Moscow, Gaddafi discussed with the Putin regime the prospect of the Russian navy establishing a Mediterranean port in the city of Benghazi, setting off alarm bells at the Pentagon.
Cables from 2008 and 2009 raise concerns about US corporations not getting in on “billions of dollars in opportunities” for infrastructure contracts and fears that the Gaddafi regime could make good on the Libyan leader’s threat to nationalize the oil sector or utilize the threat to extract more favorable contracts from the foreign energy corporations.
The cables underscore the hypocrisy of the US and its allies in Britain, France and Italy, who have championed “regime change” in the name of protecting Libyan civilians and promoting “democracy.”
Those like Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Berlusconi who have branded Gaddafi a criminal to be hunted down and murdered were all his accomplices. All of them collaborated with, armed and supported the Gaddafi regime, as US and European corporations reaped vast profits from Libya’s oil wealth.
In the end, they seized upon the upheavals in the region and the anti-Gaddafi protests in Libya as the opportunity to launch a war to establish outright semi-colonial control over the energy-rich country and rid themselves of an ally who was never seen as fully reliable or predictable and upset his patrons with demands for better deals with big oil, closer ties with Russia and China and the threat of replacing the euro and dollar with a “gold dinar.”
Bill Van Auken is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Bill Van Auken
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:48 am Post subject:
Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil
25.03.2011 http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_ war_oil-0/
The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009.
On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices.
"The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously," said Gaddafi.
"Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production," said the Libyan leader.
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_ war_oil-0/
THE ROVING EYE
Welcome to Libya's 'democracy'
By Pepe Escobar http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH24Ak01.html
The Big Gaddafi has barely left the building - the Bab-al-Aziziyah compound - and the Western vultures are already circling overhead; the scramble is on to seize the "big prize" - Libya's oil and gas wealth. [1]
Libya is as much a pawn in a serious ideological, geopolitical, geo-economic and geostrategic chessboard as a pedestrian morality play sold as a TV reality show; idealistic "rebels" win against Public Enemy Number One. Once the public enemy was Saddam Hussein, then it was Osama bin Laden, today is Muammar Gaddafi, tomorrow is President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, one day it will be Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. The enemy is never the ultra reactionary House of Saud.
How NATO won the war
The spectacular reappearing act of Gaddafi's son Saif al-Gaddafi notwithstanding, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has virtually won the Libyan civil war (or "kinetic military activity", according to the White House). The masses of "Libyan people" were spectators at best, or bit part actors in the form of a few thousand "rebels" carrying kalashnikovs.
The top billing was R2P ("responsibility to protect"). From the beginning R2P, manned by France and Britain and backed by the US, magically turned into regime change. That led to the unsung stars in this production being Western and monarchical Arab "advisers", as in "contractors" or "mercenaries".
NATO started winning the war by launching Operation Siren at Iftar - the break of the Ramadan fast - last Saturday evening, Libya time. "Siren" was the codename for an invasion of Tripoli. That was NATO's final - and desperate - power play, after the chaotic "rebels" had gone nowhere after five months of fighting Gaddafi's forces.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH24Ak01.html
Wonderful cartoon on Yesterday's Guardian but as far as I know no proper Guardian article yet on this story
If Al Quaeda is no longer a US corporation then is it something new?
Is it now an islamic jihadist operation with its own mind and foreign fighters who are running Tripoli?
How does Tarpley know all this? From Washington?
Yup, I think if we are aware the 'al Quaida' terrorists are run by 'Uncle Sam', so are Tarpley and Jones aware of this. Jones wasn't the interviewed in the article, but I assume you've got good reason to include him in the people claiming the 'Terrorists' are now in charge of Libya.
They are, of course, right if you accept that the US is using these gangsters as proxies.
But Tarpley (and it appears Jones, if your allegations are correct) seem to have 'lost the plot' somewhere along the line.
The US (and who wags the dog?) are behind this enterprise.
The Frogs, Brits and Berlusconi-ites (good old Berlusconi! One of the P2, but unchastised and thriving; but then, P2 was set up by the CIA, just like 'Gladio' was) are willing and eager to dance to the NWO tune.
Even the Norwegians got involved, but ran out of bombs.
We are in deep doo-doo!
Tarpley has a very heavy Russian bias; Jones a heavy 'red-neck' bias ( he believes, or at least states, that the US-Mexican war was started by Mexico, amongst other stuff); but both are doing a good job 'getting the message (of 9/11 and historic skulldugery) to places other beers don't reach'; God bless 'em both, IMO.
None of us are perfect, but Tarpley and Jones are on the side of the angels (us!).
One 'Our Father' & three 'Hail Mary's' should suffice for them! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:02 am Post subject:
seems obvious to me - to give Al Q a boost so they are more easy to set up for a false flag & preared for the next big fight - and NATO loves to fight
conspiracy analyst wrote:
Alex Jones and Tarpley are running the line that Al Quaeda has taken over Libya.
If Al Quaeda is no longer a US corporation then is it now an islamic jihadist operation with its own mind and foreign fighters who are running Tripoli?
Make No Mistake: NATO committed War Crimes in Libya
by global research tv - Montreal Canada
- by Julian Teil, Mathieu Ozanon, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-08-28
Expose the Lies. This Global Research video was produced and directed in Tripoli by a team of committed journalists, researchers and cameramen.
NATO massacre in Zliten, August the 8th/9th 2011.
This Global Research video was produced and directed in Tripoli by a team of committed journalists, researchers and cameramen, who decided to defy the consensus of the Western media which consists in spreading lies and misleading public opinion.
This video reveals the crimes committed by NATO, as well as those committed by the Western media, which has decided to obfuscate the casualties and human suffering of the Libyan people and uphold the humanitarian fiction of NATO's R2P mandate.
War propaganda is defined under international law as a war crime.
-Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, April 12, 2011
Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com - Aug 28, 2011
For what it’s worth, here is a response from the BBC concerning footage it ran on August 24, claiming a gathering in India, with people waving Indian flags, was actually footage of celebrations from a liberated Green Square in Tripoli:
Dear Mr Watson,
Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Breakfast’ broadcast on 24 August on BBC One.
We understand you were concerned that incorrect footage was shown during a report on the latest developments from Tripoli, and that images from India were broadcast instead.
We forwarded your complaint to ‘Breakfast’ Editors who explained in response that they realised within moments that they were showing the wrong footage and quickly took it down.
They also apologised immediately and pointed to how the problem was caused by confusion over a “feed” coming in to television centre from the international agencies.
We apologise for any concern this may have caused and we’d like to assure you that your feedback has been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Finally, I have attached an invitation from the Head of BBC Audience Services, asking you to participate in our customer survey. We would welcome your views on our service.
Kind Regards
Robert Regan
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:39 pm Post subject:
Leaked UN report outlines plan for Libya
A leaked document apparently detailing United Nations preparations for its role in post-Gaddafi Libya reveals plans for the world body to deploy military observers and police officers to the North African country.
The document was obtained and published by Inner City Press, the UN watchdog website.
Al Jazeera spoke to Matthew Russell Lee, a journalist who runs the Inner City Press.
Interesting debate on political forces/history of Libya...
Stop the NATO-Libyan Rebel Genocide against Sirte; Outrage Grows in
Washington DC Over the Rebel Commander in Tripoli, the al Qaeda
Terrorist Killer Belhadj/Hasadi/Hasidi
Tarpley still pushes the US based line hostile to Islamic revolutionism - even though it was created as a backlash to Global Imperialist New World Orderism.
Notice the diatribe by the "African American" academic against the "racism" of the "rebel forces". It is almost mandatory for well paid
Yanks in academia to say that - even when he means that he does not share the hostility of this Arab nation to the immigrant flood that displaces them both economically and culturally.
I suppose in his case when he cannot see the same effect on the Black working people of the USA - due to Bankster/Transnational inspired Open Doors immigration - it's no wonder he cannot see it in Libya. Ditto
for Tarpley and most of the rest of the US intelligentsia.
At the end of the tape (also on audio) Sabri Malek Spokeman for the "Libyan Democratic Party" (with its own axe to grind) tries to refute
Tarpley and the "African American" by saying huge amounts of the oil wealth didn't go to Libyans but to foreigners - that is why Gadaffi
has/had so many foreign spokesmen/supporters
And the mercenaries fighting for Gadaffi come from all over the World
- Latin America/Eastern Europe/Africa... All this a huge blow to Libyan pride...cut off "due to time"
What was the cause of the Libyan revolt?
Foreign corporations dominating the oil industry after 2003 and the Libyan working man not getting a slice of the pie....
8,000 bombing raids. Average of 4 bombs used per attack. NATO has already dropped over 30,000 bombs on Libya. 200 bombs per day for 6 months. Estimated 2 Libyans killed per bomb & without a single NATO casualty.
60,000 Libyans in the past 6 months have been killed. One hell of a 'humanitarian' intervention, isn’t it?'
by: Exposing The Truth
Now they are drug importers from Afghanistan and are trying to contain and control Libya.
It is wishful thinking that 30k or 60k Libyans have died.
Its more of a show like it was in Serbia.
You cant win wars from the air. You never could and you never will.
You have to follow them up with ground troops.
Humans for all their faults are ingenious creatures. It would be good to recall these events from the NATO war against Serbia
NATO failures, 1
adrian on 23rd April 2009, 01:38
.http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/19_army.htm
Chapter 19. Damage to the Yugoslav Army
By Sergei Alschen
Shortly after NATO’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia began, Allied Commander Wesley Clark stated that one of the Alliance’s goals was to "degrade and destroy" the Yugoslav Army. It seemed quite clear this was most certainly a goal that the NATO air campaign would achieve. Surely, the eighteen-member alliance had the formidable fire power and technology to fulfill their stated task.
During the 78-day war, NATO crews flew 33,000 combat missions over Yugoslavia, dropped more than 20,000 laser or satellite-guided weapons and concluded that 99.6% found their targets.1 Of the more than one thousand planes used in the operation, 725 were American. Four hundred and fifty precision Tomahawk and 90 air-launched Cruise missiles were used.2 All told, 79,000 tons of explosives were dropped, including 152 containers with 35,450 cluster bombs, thermo-visual and graphite bombs.3 Despite this tremendous firepower used against a country the size of Ohio and a military that heavily relied on 1960-70’s Soviet technology, more and more reports are surfacing that the Yugoslav Army emerged from this war virtually unscathed.
1. THE YUGOSLAV ARMY
At the very outset of the bombing campaign that began on March 24, members of the United States military had shown concern about the strength of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, the sixth largest in Europe, numbering 115,000 troops.4 The focus of that concern was the number of Yugoslav Army troops in the Serbian province of Kosovo. According to initial U.S. intelligence reports, approximately 20,000 Yugoslav troops were in Kosovo and another 20,000 were on the border of the province when the bombing began.5 By the last week of the war, the CIA believed the number was as high as 55,000.6
The first detailed admissions that NATO’s extensive bombing campaign had a negligible damaging effect on the Yugoslav Army came in late April, five weeks into the war. According to senior military and intelligence officials in Washington, the Yugoslav Army was able to escape serious damage for a number of reasons. First, while NATO’s initial stage of the bombing campaign focused almost exclusively on air defenses, the Serbs were able to clear out barracks, headquarters, and staging areas, thus leaving major military targets empty. Second, many Yugoslav troops dug into defensive positions along the Kosovo border with Albania and Macedonia.7 As long as the KLA remained too weak to mount substantial raids within Kosovo as well as from Albania, and as long as there was no serious threat of a NATO land invasion, the Serbs could remain in their positions and wait. Also, most Serb troops dispersed into small mobile units that were very difficult for NATO pilots to pinpoint from 20,000 feet in the air.
Another important factor in the war was terrain. Unlike Iraq where American, British, and French forces were dealing with an extremely flat and open terrain, Kosovo is very mountainous. This condition is extremely conducive to a defensive war where the enemy is trying to destroy you from the air. In addition, after the Yugoslav-Soviet split in 1947, Yugoslav President Josip Broz (Tito) seriously built up the defense capability of Yugoslavia. The whole country is fortified with a web of underground bunkers and shelters. A former soldier in the Yugoslav Army who served in Kosovo told this reporter that the mountains in Kosovo were heavily fortified with airplane hangars that were impenetrable.
Instead of demoralizing the Yugoslav Army, the NATO bombing campaign had the opposite effect on the morale of the troops through the first half of the war. An American military official was quoted in the New York Times as saying "Indications are that the young men are responding to the draft now and in significantly higher numbers than in the past." The bombing had "rallied the Yugoslav Army to the defense of their country, sharply increased the willingness of recruits to serve in the military and given senior army officers a mission they finally feel is legitimate."8 The bombings also "enraged" Serb soldiers when they found out their cities or villages were hit.9
The morale of the Yugoslav Army seemed to have wavered around the eighth week of the war. Reports started surfacing about antiwar demonstrations in Krusevac, Alexandrovac, Raska and Cacak. They began when the coffins of seven soldiers killed in Kosovo were brought to Krusevac. There, demonstrations lasted from May 19 until the 21st. The demonstrators demanded the cessation of further military conscription and deployment of the demonstrators’ family members. Another reason for the people to take to the streets was the building resentment of the draft evasion by the children of officials or wealthy businessmen in the underground economy.10
Ironically, it was not the relentless NATO bombing that inspired anywhere from 500 to 2,000 mostly conscripts and reservists to desert their positions. The soldiers feared for their relatives’ safety when they heard rumors that police were mistreating people involved in the demonstrations.11 The demonstrations were said to have thrown the government of President Slobodan Milosevic into "near panic." With the benefit of hindsight we may now conclude that although the potential spread of the desertions and simultaneous antiwar demonstrations throughout the country threatened the Yugoslav Government’s war effort, the fact that a large number of deserters were conscripts and not professional soldiers (80% from a brigade based in Istok, western Kosovo headed for Krusevac in the first days of the protests were conscripts)12 made this threat less of a factor. We only got a real sense of the condition and morale of the Yugoslav Army once the peace agreement was signed and the pullout from Kosovo began.
When it came time to withdraw the troops after the end of the bombing, NATO estimated that nearly 50,000 Yugoslav troops left - 10,000 more than were thought to be there in the first place and seriously putting into question the NATO claims that between 5,000 to 10,000 troops were killed.13 The Yugoslav Government, on the other hand, claimed that only 462 soldiers and 114 police officers were killed during the war.14
NATO commanders and western journalists were very surprised at the high morale exhibited by the retreating Yugoslav troops. ITAR-TASS, the Russian news agency, reported that according to sources from London, NATO military officials that witnessed the withdrawal concluded that the Yugoslav Army had left Kosovo "fully combat ready and with a high moral spirit." Further, they were "close to shock" when they saw the multi-kilometer columns of tanks and military technology brought out of the province.15 Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times wrote on June 28th:
"The Yugoslav Army that completed its withdrawal from Kosovo a week ago—tired and battered, to be sure, but defiant, orderly, and clearly not as weak as NATO officials believed."16
Stratfor.com, a private intelligence company that provides news on the internet, wrote that the Yugoslav soldiers appeared to observers "in good shape and in high spirits."17 Peter Goodspeed of the National Post characterized the Yugoslav retreat as "robust" and the Serb soldiers "defiant."18 The Times ran an AFP (Agency France Presse) story on June 16th that stated:
"The soldiers seemed calm and their vehicles and equipment well maintained, with no signs that they had suffered from air attacks which NATO claimed had severely reduced the army’s effectiveness."19
In the same edition, interviews with Yugoslav soldiers did not convey the impression of a defeated army. In fact, the feeling was that they were prepared to continue fighting against NATO/KLA aggression. One soldier said "I did my job honourably but the politicians spoiled everything. No one likes war, but we had no choice." Another soldier, a junior officer added that the retreat "was not a good thing." When asked about the damage to the Yugoslav Army, another junior officer replied, "I’m not sure but I don’t think we lost very much material."20 Even at the antiwar demonstrations in Krusevac, soldiers reportedly told Commander of the Yugoslav Third Army General Nebojsa Pavkovic that they would go to the border to fight against any invader, but they would not be killed like birds, from the skies." This defiant attitude came from soldiers who had deserted their positions. NATO commanders must have known that the more hardened professional soldiers were even more willing to fight a land war that would have resulted in untold casualties. It is precisely this reason that NATO avoided launching a ground invasion of Kosovo and instead used the KLA, which it had denied doing all along, to launch operations on the ground with NATO providing the air cover. In effect NATO became what it denied it would become all along, the air force of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army.
2. THE EQUIPMENT
As the 78-day bombing campaign progressed, we were informed at the daily NATO briefings by smug generals and the ever-exuberant Jamie Shea that the precision bombing was taking a substantial toll on the Yugoslav Army. As in the Gulf War, we were treated to a video game verification of the destruction of our "enemy’s" war machine. Only four weeks into the air war, the Pentagon estimated that 10 to 20 percent of the 300 tanks that the Yugoslav Army had in Kosovo had been destroyed.21 When KFOR troops were finally deployed in Kosovo, NATO officials were able to make a preliminary assessment of the overall success of their bombing campaign. What they found was startling.
Two weeks after the war commenced, NATO’s Supreme Commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that the alliance had destroyed 110 of the approximately 300 tanks that the Yugoslav Army had deployed in Kosovo. That number was down from the 150 that NATO believed it had destroyed in the last days of the war, according to a senior NATO official.22 A higher figure of 122 destroyed tanks and 220 troop transporters was rejected by a military expert in Paris. "I do not believe these figures at all. I think that in strictly military terms, the effects of the strikes were limited. Very disappointing."23 Overall, NATO claimed that it damaged or destroyed 40% of the Yugoslav Army’s main battle tanks and 60% of its artillery and mortars. As of June 24, KFOR troops found only three damaged and outdated T-55 tanks left behind in Kosovo. The Yugoslav Army acknowledged an additional ten damaged tanks.24 With dozens of western monitors observing, the Yugoslav forces evacuated at least 220 tanks and more than 300 armored vehicles as reported by a major French press agency.25 If these numbers are correct then the Serbs lost around 80 tanks, not the 110 figure that NATO believes. In any event, according to the observations of David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, "There were a lot of tanks that looked as though they were in very good condition."26
Even in Junik and the villages around Mount Pastrik, the damage to military equipment was negligible. These areas were the targets of some of the most intense NATO bombing campaigns at the tail end of the war. While NATO used massive 500-pound Mark-82 gravity bombs as well as cluster bombs, only a few signs of scorched carcasses of tanks or other military equipment could be found. "We found positions, we found bomb damage in those positions, but we didn’t find any vehicles or tanks," said Lieut. Col. Dietmar Jeserick, a spokesman for the German peacekeeping troops based in Prizren.27.
Is it possible that the Yugoslav Army was able to effectively conceal the true extent of the damage done to its military equipment by hiding or taking destroyed material back with them into central Serbia before KFOR moved in to Kosovo? According to a French military expert, no.
"If we had smashed as many tanks as NATO said, we would see them. They did not have the time or the means to evacuate them. Transporting a damaged armored vehicle is a logistical nightmare, which takes time and effort."28
So why the discrepancy in the initial NATO assessments of damage inflicted on the Yugoslav Army and the post-war preliminary findings? The technologically superior NATO used a web of satellites, high-speed computers, precision-guided bombs, stealth radar evading aircraft and ground-hugging cruise missiles. The United States alone spent $4 billion, the size of the entire Russian annual military budget, to put Yugoslavia on its knees. Despite all of these factors, the Yugoslav military improvised, outsmarted, and used a series of tricks to deceive NATO into believing they were hitting real military targets.
By analyzing unexploded cruise missiles, Yugoslav specialists were able to determine that in the final stage of flight, these missiles use thermal sensors instead of computer-guided maps to hit their target as was thought earlier. As a result, soldiers would light automobiles on fire in the vicinity of large targets. The cruise missiles would then hit the burning auto.29 The soldiers also painted bridges and railroad tracks different colors to confuse the missiles because every color has a different heat intensity. As a result, the missiles frequently missed their targets.30
NATO commanders and KFOR troops also learned that the Serbs used "dozens, maybe hundreds of decoys, some of which were simple wooden frames with plastic sheeting designed to look like tanks."31 Other artillery batteries were made of cardboard. In Pristina, one decoy resembled a tank crossing a bridge near the airport. In reality the road was a collection of black plastic sheets leading to a fake bridge. Some fake bridges were made out of logs.32 The tank was made of wood and pipes covered with tarpaulin.33 It’s also highly likely that the Serbs used inflatable decoys for tanks and missile sights that deflated upon impact.34 Old and unused vehicles were left on roads that from 20,000 feet in the air looked like functioning military equipment worthy of targeting. The effective use of decoys by the Serbs to fool the smart bombs and the pilots launching them led to Wesley Clark’s admission that they "did skillfully deploy lots of decoys."35
Clever strategy helped the Serbian forces minimize their losses. According to Col. David Hackworth (ret.), Serb commanders figured out that NATO did most of their reconnaissance during the day. When night came, they moved to new positions and began the mock-up game. Hackworth quotes a Serb commanding officer as saying, "From the 300 projectiles which NATO has fired, only five have hit something of substance."36 Another Serb commanding officer told Hackworth that his unit would fire at attacking NATO planes and then quickly move his firing batteries, replacing them with dummies. The Serb goes on to say:
"The time it took NATO’s photo-reconnaissance people to identify the point of fire… and return to bomb the mock-up was a minimum of twelve hours. So we knew we had to move our equipment every twelve hours."37
I advise you to read the 2 url’s below. By ordering its’ european patsies to attack Ghaddafi in March 2011 (with not-a-little-help from NATO & attack helicopters), it is now quite clear that America has acted wrongly - and hypocritically. Alf Mendes
excerpt from: Libyan 'extremist’ Britain allowed to stay was link to al-Qaeda in Iran, papers show
by Richard Spencer, Daily Telegraph, 5 September 2011
Quote:
An alleged Libyan extremist who sought political asylum in Britain regularly travelled to Iran from 2002 to provide forged documents to extremists linked to al-Qaeda, secret [MI6] files found in a Tripoli intelligence service building have disclosed.
The documents, seen by The Daily Telegraph, unearth British intelligence suspicions about links between Iran and al-Qaeda dating back almost a decade.
excerpts from: Treasury accuses Iran of aiding Al Qaeda
by Helene Cooper, New York Times, 28 July 2011
Quote:
The [U.S.] Treasury Department on Thursday accused the Iranian authorities of aiding Al Qaeda [...] [U.S.] Treasury officials asserted that the Iranian government had entered into an agreement with operatives of the terrorist group and was allowing the country to be used as a transit point for funneling money and people from the Persian Gulf to Pakistan and Afghanistan. [...]
“By exposing Iran’s secret deal with Al Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism,” said David S. Cohen, the [U.S.] Treasury under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
_____________________________________
from the archives:
Iran: "Regime change" or all out war?
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 14 June 2011
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject:
The spy who quit MI6 for BP's oil cash... and set in train Labour's love-in with tyrant Gaddafi
By Steve Bird - Daily Mail - 6th September 2011
He likes to proclaim in his Who’s Who entry that he enjoys the arts of Islamic calligraphy and falconry in his spare time.
But one boast the veteran Arabist Sir Mark Allen is unlikely be making to the pinstriped cronies he mixes with in London’s clubland is that he was the man who brought Colonel Gaddafi in from the cold.
Or that he forged close links with Gaddafi’s son, Saif, who has a PhD from the London School of Economics, which tarnished its name accepting vast sums from the Gaddafi clan.
As it happens, Sir Mark is on the advisory board of the LSE’s centre for the study of international affairs. He is also an adviser to the Monitor Group, the global consultancy firm and equity firm that Saif used to carry out the research for his doctorate.
As an MI6 spy, Sir Mark has for decades moved in a shadowy world that could have come from the pages of a John le Carré novel.
The 61-year-old father of two is thought to be the author of a fawning 2004 letter to Gaddafi’s ruthless former intelligence chief, Musa Kusa, discovered in an abandoned Libyan government building.
The letter appears to show that MI6 provided intelligence which led to the rendition of a Libyan dissident who was tortured.
Quite what all those other Libyans who were also tortured at Mr Kusa’s behest – he is known in Libya as the ‘fingernail-puller-in-chief’ – will make of the letter’s solicitous enquiries after the Kusa family is open to question.
Few Britons can claim to have met Gaddafi as many times as Sir Mark.
It was he who paved the way for Tony Blair to visit the dictator in Tripoli in 2004 and strike a pact with the dictator who promised to renounce weapons of mass destruction.
The deal helped secure extensive drilling rights in Libya for the oil giants BP and Shell, and it came as little surprise that Sir Mark should soon move seamlessly at around this time from the diplomatic service to become a £200,000-a-year adviser to BP.
The key to Sir Mark’s extensive contacts in Libya lies in his obsession with the Middle East. From Catholic private school at Downside in Somerset he went up Oxford to study Classics but quickly changed to Arabic.
From university he went to Jordan, bought a camel and explored the country. It was there that he fell in love with falconry, a sport he had dabbled in since the age of 14 and one mastered to an art by the Bedouin tribes.
He went on to study at the Middle East Centre for Arabic Studies, a British ‘spy school’ in a village near Beirut.
At 23 he joined the Diplomatic Service and became known as one of the ‘camel-core Arabists’. To this day, Sir Mark can be seen occasionally wearing his black and white Palestinian keffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress regularly worn by the late Yasser Arafat.
Working under diplomatic cover in Abu Dhabi and Cairo, he quickly developed contacts in the Arab world that were ‘second to none’. In 2003, he met Gaddafi and set in train Labour’s love-in with the tyrant. He was even said to have held a secret London meeting with Kusa, the Libyan spy chief, in the Travellers Club in Pall Mall. That summer, sanctions against the country were lifted.
But in 2004 Sir Mark quit the service early when he learned he would not be succeeding his boss Sir Richard Dearlove as head of MI6, and joined BP, although he never quite left his old diplomatic role behind.
In 2007, Sir Mark had made two telephone calls to Jack Straw, the then Justice Secretary, to discuss a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, although BP insists it had not lobbied specifically for Megrahi’s inclusion in any deal.
It just so happened that negotiations over prisoners were blocking a £15billion oil drilling deal that Sir Mark was helping to broker between BP and the Libyan regime. Weeks after those telephone calls, Mr Straw allowed Megrahi to be part of the prison transfer agreement with Libya. It was a decision that put the White House on a collision course with the UK. And last year the American Senate Committee announced that it wanted to cross-examine the former spy over his role in the shameful affair.
In one of Sir Mark’s books, Arabs, he admits he has ‘avoided’ naming sources, adding: ‘Those who read it and see their influence in it will know how much I owe them.’ How much he owed Musa Kusa is clear from the tone of that 2004 letter.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
