Human Rights Hero: Vote for Muammar Gaddafi Posted: 2011/12/27 From: Mathaba Muammar Gaddafi transformed Libya from the poorest country in the world to the most prosperous country of Africa, more prosperous than Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International, which has proven to be responsible for the deaths of many Libyans by supporting the American-European war on the country and by remaining silent throughout, is now looking for a Human Rights Hero. Styling itself as a "human rights defender", Amnesty International has chosen to ignore the major human rights violations that took place and are still taking place in Libya by not even mentioning Libya once in their magazine "Human Rights Defender" published in Australia, one of the major sources for its funding, in the midst of the war in June, July and August. Though Amnesty International has admitted "it was told" that many of the so-called mercenaries who were detained, tortured and killed by the NATO-backed Libyan rebels were nothing but migrant workers from sub-Saharan Africa, the human rights organisation has not undertaken anything to help them or the black Libyans who had full rights under Jamahiriya government and who were tortured and massacred by the NATO-rebels in the name of democracy and humanitarian intervention (see The Humanitarian War in Libya - there is no evidence). With no evidence whatsoever and nothing justifying the "humanitarian" bombing and destruction of Libya, there is full proof that Muammar Gaddafi is the greatest Human Rights Hero of our time (for example see The Big Picture: War on Libya is War on Entire Africa; How Gaddafi improved the situation of the Libyan women and 16 Things Libya Will Never See Under NATO-Rebel Regime) and therefore the biggest threat to the West and its "human rights organisations", like the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has pointed out:

"Gaddafi used billions of dollars to connect states in Africa. This man has something to make Western powers, who have grown strong sucking the blood of Africa, fe aring that if Africa became independent and used the tremendous resources that Africa has, and that the Western world needs, in order to become powerful and stay powerful in the 21st century. So he became a threat. In order to vamp on him and destroy him and destroy what he was doing with Africa and for Africa, they manufactured this false play that he was killing his own people in order to put him out of power, assassinate him, destroy the good that this man has done and put a puppet regime in power so that they would no longer have to contend with the idea of the United States of Africa, which the African Union was moving towards under Brother Gaddafi's guidance, help and monetary assistance. What was also leading to this humanitarian award to Gaddafi and the Libyan Jamahirya was the UN report that was issued around January 2011, a multi-country report that seemed to give Libya, and subsequently the Jamahiriya government, rather high marks and praise as early as January 2011 around a whole range of issues. What Brother Gaddafi did coming to power in a bloodless coup is, he nationalized the oil, he removed Britain and America from their bases in Libya and he used Libyan oil to finance revolutionary movements against puppet regimes in Africa and other parts of the world. This made him persona non grata in the West, and it also set him up as an enemy of those who have traditionally misused Africa and poisoned African leadership.

When I say poison, I don't mean with physical poison, but African leaders who wanted more for themselves than they wanted for the liberation of our people - these are the types of leaders that America supported. They did not support Osageyfo Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Ture and many of those revolutionaries and many of those revolutionary thinking Black leaders, Patrice Lumumba and others. These are the Black Leaders who were murdered or abandoned or who were set up to destroy their power, because they were the leaders who understood a United Africa. Not all of these separate states. Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Adel Nasser, they wanted to lift up the idea of the Honorable Marcus Garvey-that there should be one Africa. That is what Nasser wanted, that is what Nkrumah wanted, that is what Muammar Gaddafi spent billions of dollars trying to promote: an African Union on the way to a United States of Africa. This is what made him such a threat to the West, and unfortunately for them, he's still there, he's still alive. They will ultimately have to deal with that man. If I can make a point with this. He raised the standard of living with the Libyan people to the highest on the African continent and even the highest in the Middle East. He freed women who were Muslims to be a part of government, to be a part of a society where they don't sit back and allow men to do everything.

The women are partners with the men in Libya. He was a socialist in orientation in the early days, but as he became involved deeper and deeper with the Quran, he saw himself as a reformer of Islam, and he was in the process of reforming Islam in his country and influencing the development in others. I was there with him when he spent $33 billion to create a marvel in the 20th century where they discovered water under the desert. And he invested $33 billion to bring that water up out of the desert, and I was with him on the day that we pushed a certain button and the water began from near Benghazi into Tripoli, almost to the Tunisian boarder. He made agriculture an absolute must for Libya, that they would produce their own food. He made it possible for the Libyans to get land and equipment to farm the land so that Libya would never have to depend on others for the basic necessities of food. This is what this man was doing, not only for Libya, but he was doing it for Africa as well. He became a thorn in the side of Europe, so now they want regime change. The man was not in any office of power, he's the revolutionary leader. We call him Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi. He set up a participatory democracy where the people make the decisions for the future, and he guides the revolution.

I was with him when African presidents would come in, and he encouraged them and said, "Look, we are revolutionaries and you cannot have a revolution and every four years or eight years you bring somebody else in who may or may not continue the trend that you have started." So when people say he has been in power too long, it takes a long time to bring a mind out of a colonial and slave mentality. He is not interested in power in that sense for himself, but he wants to empower the people. Everybody there has a place to live. And he has sent hundreds of thousands of Libyans all over the world to study and the Libyan government pays for their education. If there is an operation that a Libyan needs and they have to go to Europe or America for that operation, the Libyan government pays for it. There is no government on the earth that does that for their people to the degree that this man has done. That kind of leader with that kind of work for his people is an enemy to those who want to live off the sweat, blood and labor of the poor, but not give the poor anything in return. This is why some say that if this man came to America with what he has done for Libya and was trying to do for Africa, maybe they would renounce the 22nd Amendment and change it and make Gaddafi president in America for life."

Therefore, do not support the fake human rights organisation Amnesty International, but support the true Human Rights Hero Muammar Gaddafi and the human rights standards of the Jamahiriya instead. Go to www.amnestyusa.org/heroes and add "Muammar Gaddafi" as Human Rights Hero. Please spell his name exactly like that as this is how a true human rights activist has submitted his name; any other spellings will not be added to the already existing votes. Also please support us so that we will be able to hold Amnesty International and other fake human rights organizations to account for committing crimes against humanity, along with the United Nations, NATO and officials of those entities; donate today and support the www.worldcrimes.org / www.peoplesconference.org/cah initiative.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS): Too Big to Fail

An idea whose time has come resonates globally. (See social.mathaba.net search #occupy or #ows). The masses in the western bankrupt states that bombed Libya for 8 months to destroy People's Power (Jamahiriya) there, are now calling for the same as what the Libyans had: power and wealth in their hands

by Stephen Lendman
November 17 marked two months since beginning in New York. Earlier Middle East and European protests inspired it. Now it's spreading everywhere across North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.
In America within weeks, hundreds of large and small cities in all 50 states got involved. Protesters weathered snow, rain, cold, pepper spray, tear gas, beatings, arrests, and evictions. Police confrontations, in fact, inspired larger turnouts.
Mother Jones magazine said participants represent "a horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist thought." In fact, they're revolutionaries in the best sense of the term.

They've "tap(ped) into the rising feeling among many Americans that economic opportunity has been squashed by corporate greed and the influence of the very rich in politics."

One protester's sign read, "You can't shut down occupation - We're everywhere."
Another said, "You cannot evict an idea whose time has come."
Still another lifted high read, "OCCUPY EVERYTHING."
In fact, it's long overdue after decades of social injustice, heading America toward banana republicanization.

Wealth disparity is extreme. Ordinary people are increasingly marginalized, exploited, and left on their own to survive, sink or swim.
Jobs are harder than ever to find. Good ones paying living wages and benefits are disappearing. College students end up debt entrapped for life.
Super-rich crooks and corrupt politicians conspire to grab everything for themselves. Freedom is an endangered species. Growing poverty, hunger, homelessness and despair are increasing.

Federal, state and local officials plan budget cuts instead of help. Human deprivation isn't discussed in high places, only ways to grab more wealth and power. In plain sight, America's no longer fit to live in. Neither are other Western countries, depriving the many for the few.
Targeting Wall Street, corporate greed, and power brokers in high places, OWS protesters demand change. November 17 marked two months of activism. Occupy Wall Street.org called it a "Historic Day of Action for the 99%."

In New York, over 30,000 rallied. NYPD estimated 32,500. Likely it was thousands more, the most anywhere in America so far on one day. Protesters sense "a powerful and diverse civic movement for social justice is on the ascent."

Hopefully they're right. One protester spoke for others saying:
"Our political system should serve all of us - not just the very rich and powerful. Right now, Wall Street owns Washington. We are the (left out) 99%, and we are here to reclaim our democracy."

Dozens of other cities participated nationwide and globally. Occupy Police got involved. They call themselves part of the 99%. An anonymous sergeant said, "I'm a cop and I support the ideal of Occupy. We're on the same team."
A web site logo read, "We are the 99% protecting 100%." Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis joined New York's OWS and got arrested. He vowed to stay involved when released. He doesn't fear arrest, he said, when people are starving or freezing to death on streets.

"All the cops are just workers for the 1%, and don't even realize they're being exploited," he said. "As soon as I'm let out of jail, I'll be right back here, and they'll have to arrest me again."
Occupy Marines (OccupyOMC) are involved, saying they'll "support the movement. We will support demonstrators with organization, direction, supply and logistics, and leadership." They feature a logo saying "Semper Occupare."

They also highlight Operation Returning Freedom, including a New Common Sense Charter for equality and participation in government for change. They represent the 99%'s "collective conscience" against "oligarchic" America.
Occupy Veterans, Veterans for Peace, Occupy Writers, and Occupy Filmakers are involved. So are people from all walks of life who care and want change. Fordham University Professor Paul Levinson said OWS represents direct democracy. Cornell University Professor Cornel West called it a "democratic awakening."

Over 1,000 writers signed an online petition, saying:

"We the undersigned writers and all who will join us, support Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Movement around the world."
Celebrities are involved, including folk singer Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, and Arlo Guthrie.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek said:

"They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare."
World systems analyst Immanuel Wallerstein calls OWS "the most important political happening in the United States since the uprisings in 1968...."
Conditions are right. Accurately calculated, not Census data based on a long out-of-date threshold, poverty in America affects 100 million or more and rising. Unemployment's at 23%. Over 26 million Americans wanting work can't find it. Nothing's being done to help them.
Every social measure shows Depression-level human need. America's middle class is its working poor. People everywhere in need are mad. Global protests show it.

"It doesn't really matter" what spark ignited things. They're happening, growing, and inspiring others because real grievances demand addressing responsibly at a time politicians are turning a blind eye.
Asked what they wanted, people said long denied justice. Even the initially dismissive New York Times said "(e)xtreme inequality is the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, dominated by a financial sector that is driven as much by sCheckpeculation, gouging and government backing as by productive investment."

It was a remarkable admission by the nation's leading establishment broadsheet - wealth and power's longstanding voice.

According to Wallerstein, "(t)he movement has become respectable," but with that comes "danger." Already, federal, state and local overt and covert counterattacks are apparent.

Success also breeds other problems, including a "diversity of views." At issue is not becoming "the Scylla of being a tight cult....too narrowly based, and the Charybdis of no longer having a political coherence because it is too broad."

No simple way exists to avoid either extreme or other  pitfalls. One is lack of leadership, including a national voice like Martin Luther King for civil rights. Another is a coherent, unified message, focusing on what matters most.
It's not enough to denounce Wall Street and corporate greed. Key is demanding real solutions and sustaining  long-term struggle. This one's the mother of them all.
Most important is returning money power to public hands where it belongs. Without it, little else is possible long-term.

It's vital to make banking a public utility, break up too-big-to fail giants, close or nationalizing insolvent ones, establish laws and regulations with teeth, and prosecute crooks when they're caught, especially high level ones so everyone knows grand theft won't be tolerated.

Other key issues include ending corporate personhood, getting money out of politics, ending duopoly power and imperial wars, making corporations and the rich pay their fair share, and forcing government, in fact, to be of, by and for everyone, not solely for America's privileged like now.

None of this can happen short-term. Decades perhaps are needed to transform today's America into a socially just new society. In other words, little is accomplished by achieving things part way. Total change is needed. Softening today's system won't work. It never did before and won't now because gains are easily lost.

Wage slavery replaced its chattel antecedent. Hard won labor, civil, and social gains are gone or on the chopping block to disappear. So aren't voting rights when corporate-controlled machines do it for us, yet does it matter under a duopoly money-controlled system offering no choice whatever.
Wallerstein believes "the movement (may go) from strength to strength." Perhaps it can "force short-term restructuring of what the government will actually do to minimize" real pain people experience.

Longer-term perhaps people will address capitalism's "structural crisis (and) the major geopolitical transformations" now occurring "in a multipolar world."
Even if OWS wanes, its legacy will last, like "the uprisings of 1968...." Better times are possible. Change never comes easily or quickly. Enough committed people can make a difference. OWS "is making a big difference."

Indeed, building a global movement is significant. Key though is giving it legs in the face of exhaustion, winter cold, police repression, and political leaders paying it little more than lip service so far while they slash social justice programs to continue serving wealth and power interests at the expense of all else.

Off to an impressive start, what's ahead for OWS isn't known. Given the state of today's America and where it's heading, the stakes are too high for failure. There's no turning back now!

Tribunal Finds Bush & Blair Guilty of War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its fourth and final day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Tribunal had decided the previous day that a prima facie case had been made out against both the accused. The Defence team presented their case and submission defending the accused. Some of the points submitted and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Defence adopted their prior submissions and proceeded to raise additional grounds, relying additionally on the memoirs of the first and second accused. The Defence highlighted that as an amicus curiae, his function is to assist the Tribunal by raising points of law that are in doubt and to organise information or raise awareness of some aspect of the case that the Tribunal otherwise may miss.

No one knows what it is like to have the weight of the nation on his shoulders except a head of state. Both the accused, as former heads of state, took their nations to war. The question now is whether their actions amounted to the offence of Crimes against Peace. Did they ‘plan, prepared and invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the UN Charter’?

9/11 changed the world and cast it into a new atmosphere of fear. The world would be a different place. The Prosecution objected to the Defence attempts to show a video recording of the 9/11 attack, as there is no factual basis for the association of 9/11 with Iraq. The fact that the war occurred had been admitted. The war has taken its toll. The question is, was a crime committed by the accused. The Tribunal ruled that it has taken judicial notice (not having to tender evidence to established a fact) of the 9/11 attack and there was no need for the showing of the video.

The Defence submitted, that the first accused in his memoirs, on the issue of the absence of WMD, the accusation that ‘Bush lied, and people died’, would be illogical because he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernable after the war. 

The second accused in his memoir said that he understood the need for the 2nd UN resolution for political legitimacy but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members. And also that there was no UN resolution for the action in Kosovo. While the first accused was of the view that Saddam had not adhered to numerous UN Security Council resolutions

There was a moral ground that many critics of the war do not appreciate. Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam seems to be lost on the critics. The Defence also referred that the first accused had said that Saddam was a threat. Saddam had invaded two neighbours, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s. He had killed his own people. Had used chemical weapons. Had links with terrorists. And Saddam was developing WMD. And after 9/11, Saddam was a threat that could no longer be ignored.

Some have seen the brutality of war while many are fortunate to have experienced peace. In any event the Defence urged the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence and return a verdict of non-guilty.

Prosecution in their reply stated that everyone has a right to lead unmolested lives governed by law. And in the case before the Tribunal that law is international law. We have to adhere to treaties and conventions that govern international relations. From the documents tendered the first accused had conducted himself in manner that showed that he had decided to invade Iraq long before 2003. And this is also evident from his memoir, which amounts to an admission.

In a criminal trial such as this, there are two elements that need to be proven. The actus rea (the act), which was the war, which is an accepted fact. The mens rea (intention) is shown clearly from the planning and preparation as early as November 2001 when he had asked his Secretary of Defence to draw up plans for the invasion of Iraq.  And that in September 2002, the Defence Secretary had informed the first accused, who was the commander in chief that it would take six months to mobilise for invasion. On 4 November 2002, the UN resolution 1441 was passed and the invasion was launched on 19 March 2003. On 17 March 2003 the first accused stated “…Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. And on 19 March, the ‘shock and awe’ campaign called Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

The same is true of the second accused who had attacked Iraq. And that he had planned and prepared to invade since 1998. The reason is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from Saddam through the use of military action.

There are 40 UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel but no action is taken. But Saddam had not adhered to 16 resolutions and Iraq is invaded. This is gangsterism.

This is a historic moment for the Tribunal to hear the distance drums of war rumbling even today due to the actions of the first and second accused. War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice.

The Verdict

The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George W Bush and second accused Anthony L Blair have been found guilty of the Crimes against Peace.

The second accused at the material time as heads of state launched an invasion on Iraq on 19 March 2003. The charge was duly served in accordance with the Charter of the Commission. The accused did not appear and an amicus curiae was appointed.

The evidence showed that as far back as 15 September 2001 the accused had planned to invade Iraq. Documents showed that this plan was conveyed by the first accused to the second accused. The accused had attempted to seek he UN approval for invasion. On 2 November 2002, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force against Iraq.   Weapons investigators had confirmed that there were no WMD. It was also established that the Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.

Humanitarian intervention was not a basis for the invasion. The UN Security Council must authorise any use of force. An individual state cannot replace the UN in deciding the use of force. The 9/11 attack did not show any connection with Iraq but instead the US had used this as a pretext to invade Iraq. Invasion to effect regime change has no legal basis under international law.

The Evidence showed that the drums of wars were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their own intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law. Unlawful use of force threatens the world to return to a state of lawlessness. The acts of the accused were unlawful. 

The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty. The Tribunal orders that the names of the 2 convicted criminals be included in the war register of the KL War Crimes Commission. And the findings of this Tribunal be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statue.

Despite all the facts both the accused had nevertheless invaded Iraq. A detailed written judgment will be published at a later date.

The trial was held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Further Information

For further information, please contact:

Dato’ Dr Yaacob Merican
Secretary General of the KLWCC Secretariat
Tel: +6012-227 8680

Ms Malkeet Kaur
Media Representative of KLWCC
malkeet@dbook.com.my
Tel: +6012-3737 886

Libya - what is the truth today?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru

After the criminal and inhumane terrorist attack by NATO and the gangs of bandits, rapists, murderers, looters, arsonists, terrorists and torturers it unleashed against the people of Libya, what is the truth today? We examine the stories coming out of Libya, whose people certainly do not want this scourge thrust upon them as a Government.

For a start, what “dictator” educates his people for free, sends them to Universities abroad, including in the countries which were endemically hostile to the Jamahiriya system of Government (direct rule by people’s communities), what dictator houses his people for free, what dictator gives them free healthcare, what dictator gives them 50% of the price of their first car, what dictator distributes the country’s wealth directly into his people’s bank accounts (in so doing annoying those who made a pretty penny through corruption and who then sided with NATO against Colonel Gaddafi)?

NATO has now fled with its tail between its legs, knowing it broke every rule in the book in Libya, knowing it breached the terms of its mandate, knowing it breached UNSC Resolutions, knowing it breached the UN Charter, knowing it breached the terms of the Geneva Conventions. NATO committed terrorist acts in Libya strafing civilian structures with military hardware, attacking water supplies, the factories which made pipes to repair them, bombing the electricity grid, interfering in communications, bombing schools, healthcare centers and hospitals.

The result is a massive indictment of NATO and its leaders for war crimes*, the result is a de facto defeat of NATO (for it was not able to achieve its goals by following the rules of engagement – you do not win a soccer match by strafing the opponents with machine guns and grenades and then packing the field with 50 players).

The result is that the tribes reject pleas from the Al-Qaeda, Salafist and Shiite fundamentalists which constitute the rats and the result is that the rats (terrorists supported by NATO – for those who claim otherwise, check their horrendous acts of cruelty throughout the campaign) do not enter Libya south of the coast. The Tuareg consider the rats as enemies, the Warfallah tribe considers the rats as enemies.

And what about the situation on the ground? While the rats deny it, Tajoura, Tarhouna and Bani Walid are under Green (Jamahiriya) control, because the people want to live in the Jamahiriya system and do not want to be controlled by gangs of terrorists and their foreign masters who wish to siphon off Libya’s oil. Rat graffiti is being replaced with Green walls.

The rats are showing clear signs that they are about to start a massive firefight amongst themselves. Benghazi wants to be independent from Tripoli, Misratah wants to become independent from Tripoli, Derna wants to be independent from Tripoli, Misrata brigades are now speaking about attacking Tripoli.

Meanwhile southern Libya is Green (pro-Jamahiriya and anti-rats) and the population is resolute to rid the country of traitors, terrorists and criminals who sold out to NATO so that the FUKUS countries (France, UK and US) could steal the country’s sovereign funds and its massive resources.

God writes the history book, never Satan.

Libya: Media blackout, why?

Libya: Media blackout, why?
Posted: 2011/11/17
From: Mathaba

Saif-al-Islam: The story is far from over.

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Has anyone noticed the virtual silence on Libya among western news agencies? If Libya was today quiet, and without any conflict, we could believe the Lies on Sky and friends incorporated that a dictator had been toppled and his enraptured people freed, living now in peace, preparing for democracy. But this is not the case...

What I am about to say comes as no surprise at all for those of us who know Libya, know Colonel Gaddafi and who warned NATO about the monumental mistake being made before the invasion began, as indeed was the case before Iraq in this column back in 2003. NATO, however, in its greed, just does not learn.

As the IAEA invents lies about Iran, and includes in its team elements who are wholly unqualified for the task to monitor the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme, we see the same old story being repeated. It begins with the lies about a bloodthirsty dictator or a dangerous regime posing a threat to the USA or its allies, the UNO is bullied into naming NATO as the world policeman, skulduggery and blackmail then replace diplomacy, after which NATO bombs the crap out of a country, murdering men, women and children alike, using DU, using cluster munitions, and breaching every rule in the book. Then in swing the kangaroo courts to clear up the mess and lo and behold, a country's sovereign funds have been literally stolen, its infra-structures destroyed with NATO military hardware, rebuilding contracts are handed out to bolster the economies of the invading forces and a nice puppet regime is installed.

However, in the case of Libya, the story is far from over.

For a start the terrorist forces NATO launched, the RATS, are continuing their horrendous human rights abuses, torching buildings, raping women and girls, destroying public and private property, murdering, torturing, stealing and looting and sowing chaos among the beleaguered citizens who were perfectly happy with the Jamahiriya (government through people's councils, the country's assets deposited in the citizens' bank accounts). Witness of this is the 70 per cent approval rating from unofficial polls in favour of the Jamahiriya, were Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi to stand in the next election. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO's democratic deficit

Would NATO allow the Libyans to include the Jamahiriya in a future election? No, because in a NATO-ruled Libya, no Government which protected the interests of the country would be allowed to participate, only a political force constituted by traitors willing to hand the resources over to foreigners. NATO's democratic deficit was shown most clearly by the refusal to allow the Jamahiriya to hold an election for people to choose between the old system and the RATS - bands of terrorists who sow havoc wherever they go. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO's terrorist darlings

Graffiti has now appeared in Benghazi telling Negroes to leave or be executed - proof once more, as if any were needed, that the RATS are racists and murderers. These are precisely the "people" who Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy supported. In plain English, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy supported terrorists, murderers and racists. The RATS call it "slave cleansing". The Misrata Brigade already committed ethnic cleansing in Tawergha, murdering all people with black skin. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

The fight is not over, that is why NATO is still there

Exactly, yet again breaching international law, with its remit expired, NATO continues present in Libya with troops on the ground and with bombing raids. The bill for the British public must be somewhere in the region of two billion pounds by now. Wonderful, isn't it? Where is your hospital, your school, your medical centre, your supplementary benefit? It is in Libya. "Sorry Mr. Johnson, the NHS simply does not have the financing for your son's leukaemia treatment, I am afraid he will just have to die. You see, the money we waste on his treatment has to be invested in murdering Down's Syndrome children in Libya, to make us popular and so that the UK can get the rebuilding contracts". What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO and its mercenaries' aircraft are operating from Sudan and Chad, while there are reports of direct flights from Tel Aviv. Tuareg camps have been strafed, military centers in the south have been attacked, more civilians have been massacred. These crimes will be added to the indictment drawn up and delivered to the ICC and the ECHR. Sources inside Libya linked to the Green Resistance have indicated that in the last two weeks, these NATO forces have lost 37 aircraft - 8 Israeli fighter planes, 13 Qatar Apaches, 11 French Mirage, 5 French Rafael fighters, shot down trying to evade and invade the Libyan Southern Airspace, with all their pilots and crew killed and enter into green Libyan Jamahiriyah territory.

Introducing the Libyan Green Resistance: The Libyan Liberation Front

The Libyan Liberation Front (LLF) is composed of elements of the Libyan Armed Forces loyal to the legitimate anti-terrorist Government of Libya (the Jamahiriya), the armed tribal forces and the volunteers who have taken up arms to protect their villages, towns and cities against the terrorists unleashed by NATO. Despite 9,000 murderous terrorist bombing raids by NATO's missile diplomacy approach, these heroic forces have stood firm and have inflicted massive casualties on the terrorists, racists, murderers, looters, torturers, sexists, arsonists, rapists and thieves that NATO calls the "rebels".

The Green Resistance recently liquidated the terrorist leader in Zlitan, Al-Berss Abuajaila; fighting was ongoing in Tripoli on Friday after prayers, in Green Square and Bab Al-Aziziya; Southern Misrata patriots are fighting against the terrorist traitors, North Misrata Brigades; LLF is active in Thawergah; LLF active in Tobruk, Zlitan, Gharyan and Sabha. Indeed, the LLF is active in all regions of Libya. The RATS know very well that without NATO's skirts to hide behind, they would not win a single battle. A traitor is basically a coward, the RATS are both.

Another NATO disaster. This time, supporting terrorists and racists, murderers and rapists. How low can NATO get? This time it will have consequences. NATO's reputation, along with thousands upon thousands of RATS, are buried beneath the sands of Libya, in tatters, while from the desert emerges a pride of lions, chasing the RATS back to the sewers of Qatar, Misratah and Benghazi, from which they emerged.

The Libyan War did not take place

The media and politicians have done all within their power to convince us that the Libyan situation is a civil war and a popular uprising.   By Jonas Thomsen Sekyere In 1991, during the historic events commonly referred to as the ”Gulf War”, the French intellectual Jean Baudrillard wrote an essay titled ”The Gulf War did not take place”. Baudrillard’s contention was that the UN-authorised mission in the Gulf was not an actual war, despite it being portrayed as such. According to Baudrillard, the kind of actions that normally fall within the ambit of war did not really take place. Instead, the conflict was monitored on maps and radar, and the use of force was decided far away from the battlefield. There was no real or grave risk involved for the US-led coalition, and there was never any doubt of an inevitable victory. Baudrillard called it an ”asexual surgical war, a matter of war-processing in which the enemy only appears as a computerised target”. As he provocatively noted, it was safer for the US soldiers to go to war than it was to stay at home due to the fact that more of the soldiers would statistically have died in traffic accidents in the US than by participating in Operation Desert Storm. Moreover, he argued it was an attempt by the West to rediscover and reinvent itself, to find and create a mission rather than remain stifled from the West’s lack of political vision and purpose. Notwithstanding the unwarlike operation, the media and the Western powers did all they could to try to show their populations that what was going on was actually dangerous, that it had an actual political purpose and that it was an actual war. Information dissemination By the same token, it could be argued that the Libyan Uprising did not take place. The media and politicians have done all within their power to convince us that the Libyan situation is in fact a civil war, a popular revolution and a battle between the good and the bad, the despots and the revolutionaries, the regime and the freedom fighters.  If we examine the role of media and information in the conflict, the picture might not turn out as black and white as it is portrayed. Libya became a matter of international urgency when it was reported that Gaddafi had used airstrikes against his own population. This information was presented both as fact and as an action to which the international community was required to respond. The widespread news of Gaddafi’s brutal and disproportionate use of air force against peaceful civilians gave rise to a no-fly zone over Libya, and thus the Western intervention commenced. What the media forgot to spread around just as vividly as the news of a massacre, were comments on March 1 by US Secretary of Defence Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen that the had seen "no confirmation whatsoever" of Gaddafi's aerial assualt on his own people.  Indeed, Russian military satellite monitoring concurred with the high-ranking American officials. What has been referred to as the “media war” by Libyans and foreign journalists had begun, and conflicting information has seemed to characterise the conflict ever since. A continuation of the Arab Spring? Initially, the Libyan conflict was coupled with the Arab spring and reported as a natural consequence and identical to the movements in Tunisia and Egypt. This was questionable on two counts. Firstly, because the Tunisian and Egyptian protestors were mainly peaceful. The Libyan rebels, on the other hand, initiated their campaign to topple Gaddafi by burning and attacking government buildings and by taking up arms immediately - for example by breaking into military barracks and supplying themselves with heavy weaponry, making it hard to categorically affirm that this so-called popular uprising was ever really “civilian”. Secondly, the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have been identified as being caused by socio-economic factors such as unemployment, rising food prices and poverty. In Libya, arguably one of the most independent countries in post-colonial Africa, education is free, the GDP per capita is one of the highest on the continent, the country has no debt whatsoever (unlike European powers and the US), and offers fully-subsidised healthcare to all Libyan citizens. This is, among other things, a consequence of Libya getting amongst the most revenue globally out of its own oil resources in part due to the late Muammar Gaddafi’s policies. The comparison the media and governments have made is thus difficult to justify and misleading to say the least. The disingenuous portrayal of the events does not stop there. To name just a few other misleading media stories, “credible Western intelligence reports” claimed that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela and Gaddafi was accused of bombing the “Mizda habour”. Aside from the (now obvious) truth that nothing indicated that Gaddafi had or was intending to leave Libya and the fact that Mizda does not have a harbour, other strange stories that are yet to be confirmed have emerged. In late August, NATO claimed that it had shot down four scud missiles fired by Gaddafi directed at the rebels. Other reports, however, state that shooting down a raging scud missile is a technical impossibility whilst others find that it is theoretically possible, but that it has never been done before in live conflict, let alone to four scud missiles. In the midst of this conflicting information, there have been instances in which the reality of the events have revealed themselves to great confusion to spectators. After Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to name some regional occurrences, one would think that there would be no doubt if a civil war was taking place. That is also why the sudden appearance of Gaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Islam, standing in a crowd of supporters as big as any shown of the rebels was an almost disturbing scene. He was supposed to be caught, defeated and under rebel authority. The International Criminal Court had issued an official statement confirming that they were discussing his transfer to the Court. Instead, he rolled up in an armored white limousine claiming that all the allegations were part of an “electronic and media war”. In the same manner, the final rebel campaign to take over Sirte was billed as a final and classic showdown with guns blazing in urban warfare. Besides so-called “pockets of resistance”, there was hardly any fighting - maybe because NATO had already cleared the way. And all in one day, within nine hours on October 20, Gaddafi allegedly assembled 12,000 fighters to take back the country and reignite the war (that never took place) and hide in a drainage culvert wounded and defenseless in his last hours. Real combatants So why do the media have such a success with these stories? It could stem from the Western public having been taught that Gaddafi was a madman for decades. Why would he not slaughter his own people? After all, he wears strange clothes, brings tents to New York and is accompanied by Eastern European nurses. But while the conflict in the media and by governments have been reduced to a map with arrows pointing from Benghazi to Tripoli in the typical old good guy/bad guy fashion, with “frontlines” and percentage of control over cities constantly shifting on the TV screen, the actual combatants have been glossed over: Gaddafi and the NATO-coalition. While it is difficult to substantiate that the rebels were ever peaceful citizens, and while we have been led to believe that the conflict consists of “Gaddafi-loyalists” and “rebels”, disregarding that Libya is a nation with multiple interests: tribal, regional, political and so on: and that resistance towards the “rebels” does not automatically make you loyal towards or under the command of Gaddafi, NATO has been surprisingly honest towards the Libyan people. Then again, how do you fool those who are actually on the ground? You can’t. And that might be why, as the viewers in the West have been shown pictures of a civil war, the leaflets published by NATO and dropped over Tripoli showed the conflict as it really was. As the leaflet shows, this is an operation of computerised drones and Gaddafi’s army, not between civilians and the government. Another leaflet claims that Gaddafi has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. That was not true. The prosecutor had requested an indictment, something that must be decided on by the judges, who have refused to confirm charges before, for instance in the case of Sudanese president Al-Bashir. Future identities A civil war or popular uprising as seen in other parts of the Arab World did not take place. There was no risk on the part of the West and no question of defeat. The conflict may very well be the West’s attempt to reinvent itself. After the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the human rights abuses in the “war on terror” and the declining financial power of the “free world”, the governments of Europe and the U.S. may have wanted to remind the people that they are still the world's arbiters. Because if that is not the identity and the role of the West, what is? Libya was quick and easy, and the Western populations were given a fairytale including dictators, human rights, rape, civil war, revolution and concerned Western leaders. The West is no longer reluctant to go into Africa if they feel that they need to, warnings of Western presence as neocolonialism has been replaced by the new principle of the Responsibility to Protect. US drone operations in Ethiopia, the Seychelles and Uganda seems to support this new presence. What the scenario has also shown is that even Nigeria, South Africa, China and Russia combined in the Security Council are not able to withstand the pressure of Western diplomacy and media as in the end they provided the necessary support to initiate the mission in Libya. The limits of the Security Council, NATO and international law have been expanded, and this reignited self-understanding of the West could mean that the decade we thought would be marked by Africa’s growing influence in the world will instead be replaced by renewed Western presence in Africa. As for Libya, just as the, now former, 'Interim Prime Minister' Mahmoud Jibril expressed recently, the risk of chaos breaking loose is very real, especially due to the spread of weapons among the public. Just because there has been no civil war does not mean that one is not waiting under the surface. Only time will tell.

Why Libya Was Attacked

Para volver a la pagina inicial de pulse Generacion F pulse aqui

Posted: 2011/10/29 From: Mathaba

A revolutionary leader, Gaddafi was a visionary. He wanted Libya's society based on equity, justice and fair distribution of wealth. by Stephen Lendman Obama's March 28, 2011 address at the National Defense University was true to form. It reeked of duplicity, hypocrisy, and ball-faced lies, saying: "For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom." "....(W)e are reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges." "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That's what happened in Libya...." For decades, Libya was "ruled by a tyrant....He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized people around the world - including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents." Substitute Washington for Libya and he got it right. America is a rogue terror state, a menacing plague on humanity. Democratic values, human and civil rights, and rule of law principles are non-starters. Only corporate and imperial interests matter, not equity, justice, peace on earth, and government of, by and for the people while respecting the sovereign rights of other nations. NATO's war on Libya was planned many months in advance like all wars. Why is most important, or put another way - cui bono? Official accounts and media scoundrels never explain. Dozens of previous articles discussed relevant issues and answers, including one summarizing what's most important. More on that below. Historical Facts About Libya Like most parts of Africa for centuries, European colonial powers ravaged Libya. During the 1911 Turko/Italian war, Libya was invaded and attacked. Twenty years of resistance challenged Italian colonizers. From 1911 - 1943, Italy's occupation was brutal. Libyans never forgot. After WW II, America, Britain and France dominated the region. In 1951, they combined three distinct regions into Libya - Cyrenaica in the east, Tripolitania in the west, and Fezzan in the south. Britain enthroned King Idriss. He let America, Britain and France retain military bases and pursue corporate interests. America's Wheelus Air Base near Tripoli dominated the Mediterranean Basin. Washington wants one or more super-bases built on Libyan land as launching pads against the region. In 1955, Libyan oil was discovered. Three colonial powers controlled it until Gaddafi's bloodless September 1, 1969 coup, ousting King Idris. It was an anti-imperial socialist revolution. Foreign domination ended. Gaddafi supported pan-Africanism - a United States of Africa, free from imperial domination. It was a vision shared by Marcus Garvey, Kwame Kkrumah, Sekou Toure, Julius Nyerere, Jomo Kenyatta, William Tubman, Gamal Abd Nasser, and others. More on that below. He also wanted Libyans to share in the country's oil wealth, a notion foreign to America and other Western societies. Under 1999 Decision No. 111, all Libyans got free healthcare, education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, as well as generous subsidies to study abroad, buy a new car, help couples when they marry, practically free gasoline, and more. Literacy under Gaddafi rose from 20 - 80%. Libya's hospitals and private clinics were some of the region's best. Now they're in shambles. Some, in fact, were bombed or damaged in other fighting. NATO lied saying only military targets were attacked. NATO's imperial strategy involves targeting civilians and vital infrastructure, including power, communications, medical care facilities, and other essential to life sites. Before war began, Libyans had Africa's highest standard of living. According to David Blundy and Andrew Lycett's book titled, "Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution." "The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated....Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard." "All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car, and most have televisions" and other conveniences. "Compared with most citizens of Third World countries, and with many (others), Libyans have it very good indeed," including decent housing or a rent-free apartment. Gaddafi's Green Book, in fact, states, "The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others." It also covers other beneficial social policies, saying:     •    "Women, like men, are human beings.     •    ....(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means....;     •    In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.     •    The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People's Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.     •    No representation of the people - representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people." The Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy and predatory capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation. It's one of many reasons why Gaddafi was ousted. He provided impressive social benefits, including free land, equipment, livestock and seeds for agriculture to foster self-sufficient food production. Moreover, all basic food items were subsidized and sold through a network of "people's shops." Moreover, since the 1960s, women had the right to vote and participate politically. They can also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they have equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men play leading roles in society. Until Washington and NATO blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council Libyan praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 "Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya." It said his government protected "not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights." It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and "human rights training" of its security forces. In eight months, NATO's killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements, benefitting all Libyans. Why else would overwhelming numbers support him? After NATO attacked, hundreds of thousands rallied openly for him. On July 1, 95% of Tripoli's population (almost 2 million strong) expressed support in Green Square. Before the war, he felt safe enough to drive unprotected through Tripoli streets. Residents lined up to cheer him. Some despot! America and other Western societies should have ones like him. Imperial wars would end. So would homelessness, hunger and human depravation. Instead, "new world order" imperialists want super-wealth and power shared only by their privileged few. Libya is one of many targets. Others will follow to extinguish freedom everywhere if they succeed. Universal opposition needs to stop them. Failure can't be tolerated. The alternative is too grim to imagine. Why Gaddafi Was Targeted Information below was discussed earlier. It bears repeating now. Gaddafi's vision marked him for removal. It was just a matter of when, even though he cooperated with Western powers post-9/11 on matters of intelligence and terrorism. Until vilified and targeted, he was welcomed in Western capitals. In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western ally, and had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others. Para volver a la pagina inicial de pulse Generacion F pulse aqui He also participated in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L-Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union. At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama. Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January 21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, "The One-State Solution" to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He called "living under one roof....the only option for a lasting peace." On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic relations, removing Libya from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At the time, Rice called the move: "tangible results that flow from the historic decisions taken by Libya's leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs....Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes." She also praised Gaddafi's "excellent cooperation" in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya's markets to Western interests by arranging deals with Big Oil giants BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental, France's Total, Italy's Eni Gas and others. By all appearances, he joined the club, so why turn on him? Though on board in some ways, he very much wasn't on others. He supported Palestinian rights, opposed Israel's occupation and Gaza's siege. Earlier he backed anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa, as well as others in Northern Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere. He had nothing to do with downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Neither did Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but were pressured to convict. Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned. America tried and failed numerous times to assassinate him, including Ronald Reagan's 1986 attempt. CIA covert efforts financed opposition groups. In 1981, they helped establish the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) and its militant wing called the Libyan National Army based in Egypt near Libya's border. Along with US and UK Special Forces, it was directly involved in instigating insurrection last February. It wasn't homegrown. As in Syria, it was externally generated. Gaddafi opted out of AFRICOM. It's one of nine global Pentagon commands to control Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, including its strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial to keep open for world economies. All African countries participate except Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Eritrea, and Libya until now. He also backed an initiative to create a United States of Africa, whereas Washington wants easily exploitable divisions. More on that below. Besides ranked ninth in the world with 42 billion proved barrels of oil reserves (and large amounts of gas), its untapped potential is believed much greater. Moreover, being nearly sulfur-free, it's even more valued for its extremely high quality. At issue isn't access, it's control over who develops, produces and receives it in what amounts. In January 2009, Gaddafi wanted to nationalize Libyan oil, but his timetable faced internal resistance. According to Pravda.ru's March 25, 2011 article titled, "Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil," he considered the option because of low oil prices at the time, saying: "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. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production." In February 2009, he asked for public support to distribute Libya's oil wealth directly to the people. However, senior officials feared losing their jobs "due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption." Possible capital flight was also an issue. As a result, Libya's Popular Committee voted 468 - 64 to delay nationalization plans, even though a 251 majority viewed doing so as positive. Note: Gaddafi didn't consider how powerful insiders manipulate all markets up or down for profit, including oil, irrespective of demand. It's brazen fraud but goes on all the time, especially on Wall Street in collusion with Washington. Libya's Great Man-Made River (GMMR) was developing an ocean-sized aquifer beneath the desert for irrigation, human consumption, and other uses. At 2007 consumption rates, it could last 1,000 years. No wonder Gaddafi calls his Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) the "Eighth Wonder of the World." At issue, of course, is privatizing it, making water unaffordable for many, including most Libyans. In other words, Western predators want it exploited for maximum profits, not equitable use as a public resource. Ellen Brown's April 13 article titled, "Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?" raised another, easily overlooked, issue. Who controls Libya's money, the lifeblood of every economy? In 1970, Henry Kissinger said, "Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control people." He left out money, the supreme power to control everything because without it economies collapse. At issue is public or private control like most nations, including America under Wall Street's owned and operated Federal Reserve. Under Gaddafi, the Central Bank of Libya was state owned. In other words, it created its own money, the Libyan Dinar, interest free to be used productively for economic growth, not speculation, profits and bonuses for predatory bankers. However, after Washington's led NATO intervention, the privately controlled Central Bank of Benghazi was established to let Western bankers, not Libyans, run things. Money control indeed appears an important reason for intervening, perhaps most important of all. On April 24, Manlio Dinucci's Global Research article headlined, "Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)," saying: Besides money, oil, gas, water, and other reasons, the "Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages" an estimated $70 billion, "rising to more than $150 billion (including) foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more." Confiscation gives US/NATO interests easy money for their own purposes. In fact, besides war, the business of America is grand theft in league with Western partners, Wall Street and other corporate interests. Gaddafi promoted pan-African unity, a United States of Africa he hoped to lead against Western powers wanting balkanized easily-controlled states. Libya was central to Africa's independence, including freedom from predatory central banks and international lending agencies, acting as loan sharks of last resort. He also funded Africa's only communications satellite. In doing so, he saved hundreds of millions of dollars for low-cost incoming and outgoing calls. In addition, he allocated two-thirds of the $42 billion needed to launch a public African Central Bank (HQ'd in Nigeria), an African Monetary Fund based in Cameroon, and an African Investment Bank HQ'd in Libya. The Obama administration stole the money and prevented it. If established, it would have provided low-cost (or perhaps interest-free) loans for health, education, and other social projects, as well as vital infrastructure development in participating African states. Washington and NATO partners destroyed his vision to rape Libya for profit and exploit its people. That imperialism's core element. Gaddafi wanted none of it. As a result, he had to go. He advocated a new "Gold Standard," replacing dollars with gold dinars. African and Muslim states supported it to provide real monetary wealth and value, free from predatory lending agencies and depreciating fiat currencies. Washington determined to prevent it to maintain petrodollar recycling and dollar hegemony as the world's reserve currency. In 1977, Gaddafi transformed the Libyan Republic into the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - a "state of the masses." In 1979, he established direct participatory democracy, devolving power to tribal leaders. In 1986, Libya became the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. A revolutionary leader, Gaddafi was a visionary. He wanted Libya's society based on equity, justice and fair distribution of wealth. Nasser said he represented Arab nationalism and unity. His faults aside, Libyans supported him overwhelmingly. They still do. His spirit drives their revolutionary struggle for freedom. They won't quit until it's achieved. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. # http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya

Para volver a la pagina inicial de pulse Generacion F pulse aqui

VFriday, 21 October 2011 08:10:15
Al-Libya Television Denied Ghadaffi's Death
Thursday, 20 October 2011 20:54
The story, which NATO lackeys launched about the capture or death or brother leader Muammar Gaddafi is groundless,' Al-Libya TV

Hamsayeh.Net - Pro-Ghaddafi sources reject western media rumors of their leader's capture or death today during a firefight in the Mediterranean town of Sirte. It said the Libyan Leader was alive and well leading the resistance against NATO-backed rebels.
The Al-Libya television channel brushed aside rumors of Muammar Ghaddafi's death saying the story was concocted by western news agencies in order to show progress in its illegal war in Libya. ' The story, which NATO lackeys launched about the capture or death or brother leader Muammar Gaddafi is groundless,' Al-Libya TV said today after images on Ghaddafi's  capture made headlines around the world.
The TV Station also said that NTC and NATO have previously made numerous false claims about Ghaddafi and his sons being killed or captured.
Western media  and Qatar based Al-Jazeera reported images of a person critically wounded that looked like Muammar Ghaddafi on television screens around the world .
Last Updated on Thursday, 20 October 2011 20:59
 

YouTube removes VSMRK's "Truth on Libya" reporting account

Zionist controlled Google-YouTube has removed one of the few Truth on Libya accounts after it revealed the results of NATO bombings on Sirte hospital. Yet, what should we expect, and it is our fault, says Mathaba ICT News Editor. If you click at VSMRK's YouTube account address, as from today you'll get the following screen and message: This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement. Those "severe violations" exist of videos which were uploaded on October 5 and which showed the results of the heavy NATO bombings on the hospital of Sirte which has been repeatedly hit over the past few days during the indiscriminate bombardments on Libyan leader Gaddafi's hometown. The videos showed part of the hospital being blackened by explosions and hit by bullets from the NATO-rebel forces as well as the numerous victims of the criminal NATO bombing and shelling, and included the following descriptions: Red Cross reported that NATO Mercenaries were directly attacking Sirte hospital, Hichem Khadhraoui said that "Several rockets landed within the hospital buildings while we were there. We saw a lot of indiscriminate fire At the same time, NATO is stopping civilians from reaching the hospital by bombing roads, residential areas, causing hundreds of wounded civilians to die in the process. Khadhraoui reported that "other wounded or ill people cannot get to the hospital because of the fighting and NATO air strikes". and (quoting Libya's spokesman Moussa Ibrahim who visited Sirte on September 26): The hospital already had stopped working altogether because there is little water, the hospital lacks food and any sort of electricity, it lacks medicine and lots of medical equipment has stopped working. Above that the sewage system of Sirte stopped working so many streets are flooded at the moment, which is of course a ripe environment for diseases, and a reference was made to the World Socialist Web Site article The slaughter in Sirte. Another reason why the VSMRK account was terminated has been this video which at this moment is still available at another YouTube account, showing shocking but true images of the NATO rebels losing in Sirte: One of the last videos VSMRK uploaded included an undated report by a rebel who has been caught by the Libyan army and who told of abductions and killings of Libyan civilians by NATO. Another video mentioned PressTV has become more and more a NATO tool. During the passed few months the account of VSMRK has shown lots of demonstrations by the five million Libyans who have been protesting against the NATO aggression on Libya which has killed thousands of Libyan men, women and children. Those demonstrations as well as the results and victims of the NATO "humanitarian" bombing of Libya are not showed by the mainstream media and therefore must have been a reason for censorship by Zionist controlled YouTube. NATO already has tried to cut off any kind of communication in an attempt to hide their criminal actions in Libya by bombing TV stations and phone lines. On the occasion of the anniversary of the Al-Fateh Revolution on September 1, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said about that: "They [NATO] cut off all communications because they can’t breathe. They fear my voice, to only hear me is already dangerous to the colonizers. Those colonizers and agents fear us communicating and being in touch with each other, which proves that the enemy is weak. If they weren’t weak they wouldn’t have bombed our TV and they would have allowed us to communicate with each other." ICT News Editor of Mathaba News Agency however says that YouTube are completely within their rights. "When users sign up for an account at YouTube, they sign a 'Terms of Service' agreement, that almost nobody reads." They are being provided with a 'free' service, and hosted by a company which is owned by Zionist Jews (Google) who have historically placed themselves in hostility to Arabs and Muslims, and their terrorist state has never been recognized by neither Muammar Qaddafi, leader of the green committees, nor the Libyan Jamahiriya. "Libya had ample chance for a great many years, and sufficient wealth, to sponsor hundreds of alternative companies to provide services to compete with YouTube, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Skype and even media houses such as BBC and CNN, but failed to do so, and for this, have to take blame", Mathaba Libya news editor said.

Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi Message on October 6, 2011

Qaddafi warns African countries against a NATO invasion and urges the Libyan people to march in their millions against the American-European aggressors in an audio message broadcast by Syria-based ArRai television on October 6. "Bani Walid, Sirte, Warshfana and Nawhi, those four tribes are very well armed and they will never be defeated; those honourable people can't be enslaved. All the people in Libya, all true Libyans will never surrender to the invaders and the colonizers. We will fight for our freedom and we are willing to sacrifice more. The traitors and colonizers and NATO will be destroyed soon. They already no longer trust each other and they don't trust their leaders; the traitors are unable to continue because they are divided and their basis is weak. The NTC has no legitimacy because it hasn't been nominated or appointed by the people. How did it get its legitimacy? Did the Libyan people elect them? Did the Libyan people appoint them? If only the power of (NATO) fleets give legitimacy, then let the rulers in the Third World be ready for a (NATO) invasion too. To those who recognize the National Transitional Council: be ready for the creation of transitional councils imposed by the power of (NATO) fleets to replace you one by one from now on. I call on all Libyan people to go out and march in their millions in every square, in every city, in every village, in every. Go peacefully and go with pride. Be courageous, rise up, go forth! Forward! Go to the streets and raise our Green Flag to the skies. Even if there comes a time when you don't hear my voice anymore, don't stop fighting. Don't panic. Don't give up. Keep fighting for your freedom till victory arrives!"

Posted: 2011/10/07 From: Mathaba

كلمة قائد الثورة معمر القذافي

Occupy Wall Street: Friday Afternoon

On Friday afternoon, the crowd density at Occupy Wall Street had thickened quite a bit from earlier in the week. Many of the new attendees were journalists. I counted close to thirty media types as I canvassed Zuccotti Park, watching TV vans and cameramen and reporters taking notes on their notebooks and BlackBerries. I saw NY1, CNN, Slate, a concatenation of outlets I had not seen when I hit the park on Tuesday.
“Cough drops!” barked a man with several lozenges in his hand. “Get your cough drops! So when CNN talks with you, you’ll have a clear head for your ideas.”

I hit Zuccotti Park in the late afternoon: just before a march upon NYPD headquarters. I estimated the crowd at a few thousand. More poured into the park, some lured by the prospect of a rumored Radiohead appearance at 4PM.
While the park’s perimeter remained open to pedestrian traffic and the cops remained fairly calm (perhaps due to the heightened media), I wondered it the increased media attention would cause more people to come, testing the limits of occupation. I also wondered what plans the NYPD had in store. Cops clad in riot gear? By now, a hackneyed effort to intimidate. Yet across the street from the park, I noticed a badly dressed undercover cop, wearing sunglasses and very much on his own, feebly pretending to be an activist with brand new crutches and a limp that didn’t match the way he was clutching his aluminum.


When attending a large-scale event, it is often my practice to stand in one spot and listen to the surrounding people. The protesters were fully aware that they were putting on a show. Many greenhorns — some considering themselves journalists — had come to gawk. Their intent was to document. They wondered why these people were still sticking after two weeks. Some of the bona-fide journalists appeared to be mystified about why they had been assigned this story.

If these slogans and sentiments on cardboard and posterboard appear flip and cliched, what then is the best method to get a message across? In recent days, there has been a modest debate about whether the protesters should dress up and improve their aesthetic.

But from what I have seen in my visits to the park, it isn’t just scruffy kids wearing tie-dye tees. There are many lingering into the park from their day jobs, wearing dress shirts and backpacks. I suppose your sartorial flair depends on the degree to which you’re participating and how long you stick around. (For my own part, I was wearing a red George Orwell shirt.)

Obama Lies 7 Times In Under 2 Minutes!

The bones were no humans

Medics confirm the mass grave site of Abu Saleen Prison is fake

12:48 AM  ozyism  14 comments

26/sept/11

Medics on the scene testified that the supposed mass grave of a massacre is fake, and the bone fragments are not human. Another devastating blow to NATO propaganda.

NATO has accused the Libyan Jamahariya Government of committing a massacre in Abu Saleen prison, but similar to most accusations, no evidence has been provided. Although some people were sentenced to death for treason from that prison, a massacre has never taken place, a fabricated propaganda lie orchestrated by Libyan enemies. Many CIA agents were executed by the Libyan Government after a failed coup which was headed by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who was operating from USA.

"medics with CNN staffers on the scene said the bones did not appear to be human." (from the mouth piece of NATO propaganda (source - CNN))

Russia, China and Iran are considering a Joint Missile Shield directed against the US and NATO

Iran, Russia, China mulling joint missile shield VS NATO/ US missile shield of unknown threat and unknown cost Unofficial sources have announced that Iran, Russia, and China are currently holding talks on a proposal to establish a joint missile defense shield as a counterweight to a NATO defense shield, Mehr news agency reported. The report, which was published in the Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan on Sunday, said that the sources cited two reasons why serious consultations have been held on the initiative. First, all three states have come to the conclusion that U.S. officials’ assertion that their concern over the alleged missile and nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea is the reason for the decision to establish a NATO missile defense shield is just a pretext and the true objective of the shield is to threaten Russia and China. Also, now that the US and Turkey signed a memorandum on Wednesday to establish an early warning radar system (the AN/TPY-2 THAAD) in Malatya, southeast Turkey, by the end of the year which is one component of the NATO missile defense shield which is supposedly to protect Europe from missile attacks from rogue states, the U.S. is now planning to establish other components of the new system in South Korea and Taiwan, which clearly shows that Washington is using the alleged threat from Iran and North Korea as a pretext to target China and Russia. An informed expert believes China, which has not taken any action on the issue so far, is beginning to comprehend the level of danger posed by the new system, Mehr quoted the report as saying. Russia’s analysis of the situation is similar to Iran’s view, which was expressed during Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev’s recent visit to Tehran. Therefore, it seems the three countries have realized that the time has come to seriously start discussions on the plan. Some sources say Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO, who is scheduled to travel to Iran before the end of September, will probably hold operational discussions on the plan with Iranian officials. According to RIA Novosti, Rogozin is going to discuss "strategic issues" in Tehran. Military experts are of the opinion that since Iran, Russia, and China have made great progress in designing anti-aircraft defense systems, the construction of such a missile shield system will not be a difficult task for them. Furthermore, Romania agreed to a deal with Washington under which land-based SM3 interceptor missiles and over 100 military personnel will be based on Romanian soil. The deal also includes the deployment of American Navy cruisers with naval versions of the interceptors along the Romanian coast. The project has caused concern in Russia, which believes the system may be targeted against its nuclear deterrence capabilities. Washington refused to build a joint Russian-NATO anti-missile system to protect Russia, as suggested by Moscow. Apart from the potential to tip the strategic military balance, the anti-missile defense (AMD) system may prove costly once you count in the maintenance, argued Ludo de Brabander, spokesman for the Belgium peace movement Verde. “The US and NATO are arguing that this is small cost for big advantage,” he told RT. “It is estimated that this project will last 10 years and cost 200 million euros shared by all 28 NATO countries. So it seems little investment for each country. But maintaining this kind of system could cost much more. So it will not be easy to sell this project to the public.'' Bruce Gagnon from Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space says the plan has nothing to do with threats from Iran or North Korea. “It is all about surrounding Russia and China today, and these systems are part of a larger US first-strike attack systems underway,” he told RT. “The United States is reintroducing the Cold War, both with Russia and China. The obvious response that we see from Russia and China – they’ve asked for negotiations, they’ve gone to the United Nations for many years seeking a ban on all weapons in space – the United States, through Democrat and Republican administrations, has ignored that offer to negotiate. So sadly, what we are seeing now is Russia and China having to take counter measures to deal with these growing US missile defense deployments surrounding their borders,'' Bruce Gagnon continued. Mark Avrum Gubrud, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, believes Washington is pursuing goals other than ensuring security. “The real purpose of this move is political,” he told RT. “The AMD is being used as a tool of diplomacy and as a tool of domestic politics. I don’t think the high officials in the Obama administration believe the system really has great effectiveness as a defense against a potential threat that does not even exist.”

Obama Lies About Libya...The Shocking Truth Behind The Facade

Wall street sigue ocupada

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse aqui

Families Sufferings from shortages & Bombing in Sirte, NATO Crime In Libya

Dr. Moussa Ibrahim spoke with Reuters yesterday, he slammed the brutal mass murder of NATO over night. At least 151 innocent women and children were killed in Sirte, this is what they call saving civilian lives. The media has gone predominantly silent, for what ever reason, one thing is for sure, the media is fully complicit with these crimes against humanity, alongside UN and other world bodies.

She is saying that the region where she was , was bombed by nato while it has only ladies and childs on it , she mentioned a lack of food and water and kids in a humanitarian critical situation , she finished by saying that they will join their men in case needed to fight against nato and its loyalists .......

Dr. Ibrahim also spoke about the irony of Monarch flag being raised in the UN compound, he said that Palestinians have been asking for a UN seat for 60 years, and still waiting, but a bunch of thugs who control not even 20% of the country, helped with foreign aggressors are given a seat. All UN credibility is mute.

Confirmation comes regarding NATO Mercenaries who were trapped, gained heavy casualties in Sabha and fled. At least 45 killed and hundreds captured, the green flag still flying over Sabha according to new reports.

22/sept/11 Source from within Libya state that many NATO mercenaries have been captured by the Tarhuna Tribe, and the Tribe promised to continue fighting until every inch of the town is liberated, and all remnants of Mercenaries are kicked out.
Previously scenes of celebrations were reported in Tarhuna as thousands sang and cheered at the cover of the night, joyful faces emerged, waving green flag and chanting pro-Jamahariya slogans.
Rape was just one of many brutal tools used by NATO mercenaries to silence Libyans, and force them in to submission. Many brutal cases emerged, but no organization condemned such atrocities, nor promised to hold NATO responsible for the atrocities.

Cases after cases of brutal and merciless rapes in the hands of NATO mercenaries came forward, but the media completely silent.Instead the media with International organizations fabricated stories about the Libyan Government using rape as a weapon of war, which was quickly sent to rubbish as a fabricated lie.

Lea tambien Como dejamos que pasara? Solo 17 en contra?...

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse aqui