NAKED, BLOODY IMPERIALISM -
WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED
October 28, 201
WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER ON GADDAFI?
us-libya-gaddafi-finalhours-idUSTRE79J5Q720111020
Among the many comments we have read and
received on the alleged death of Gaddafi, the one most often repeated
goes something like this: 'Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who deserved
what he got'. The widely-held belief (at least in Western nations) that
Gaddafi was a 'brutal dictator' is the result of over 30 years of
(primarily) US, British and French propaganda against the former Libyan
leader. The reasons for this long-running propaganda campaign are many,
but chief among them is the fact that Gaddafi was not only fiercely
independent as regards his native land, but he persistently sought to
bring financial independence to other African nations. It's The Media
Stupid! - The average person in the street seems to find it difficult to
grasp the idea that the 'national interests' of democratic governments
often run counter to democratic ideals and that, in pursuing such
interests, governments will attempt to maintain the appearance of
remaining faithful to democratic ideals. Another way to say this is that
governments will lie about their undemocratic activities in order to
maintain a facade of democracy and thereby avoid disturbing the
population. (For those who may have, understandably,
forgotten the core democratic principles, check
this link for a short refresher course.) The maintenance of a democratic
facade while pursuing undemocratic 'interests' is today only possible
with the committed and almost unanimous connivance of the mainstream
media, which unfailingly disseminates government propaganda to the
people, and which the people in turn accept as gospel truth in the
belief that the press is free and independent of government control. But
virtually all Western mainstream media outlets today are owned by a
handful of powerful corporations and mega-wealthy individuals who count
high level members of Western governments among their close friends and
confidants. The truth of this can easily be verified by anyone with a
computer and a little time to do some research of their own. The extent
of the actual freedom of the 'free press' can also be ascertained by
revisiting the way in which the Western media blindly accepted and
reported as truth government lies prior to and after the invasion of
Iraq in 2003. It is reasonable then to conclude that the Western media,
THE FLAGRANT HYPOCRISY OF THE LIBYA INTERVENTION
by and large, acts as a 'Ministry of Propaganda'
for Western governments, especially in situations where government(s)
are pursuing policies that are at variance with democratic ideals.So, in
light of all that, let's consider the question: "was Gaddafi really a
'brutal dictator'?" Throughout his reign, Gaddafi insisted on a much
larger (and fairer) share of his country's oil profits than
multinational oil companies were used to accepting. Indeed, in a 2009
talk given to students at Georgetown University, Gaddafi threatened to
kick Western oil companies out of Libya altogether by nationalising its
oil and natural gas. What is beyond dispute is that Gaddafi used his
nation's oil wealth to turn Libya into the most progressive and modern
of all African nations. In a 2007 African executive magazine it was
noted that Libya, "unlike other oil producing countries such as Nigeria
[where major Western oil companies have a stranglehold on the
government], utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country."
Throughout most of Gaddafi's rule, Libyan citizens
enjoyed free health care, free education and free electricity and water.
Car purchases for every citizen were 50% subsidized by the government.
Gas in Gaddafi's Libya was $0.14 per liter. Under this 'brutal
dictator', the mother of every newborn child received $5,000. All these,
and many other social benefits under Gaddafi, make the supposedly
socialist systems of France and other European nations look like
predatory capitalist regimes. Today, with Gaddafi gone, Libya's generous
social benefits and the formerly high standard of living of its
citizens are under serious threat from the new pro-Western puppet
regime. Gaddafi was also instrumental in establishing the African Union.
He invested heavily and generously, to the tune of $6 billion, in many
other African nations. Throughout Africa, hospitals, schools, hotels and
roads bear Gaddafi's name as a sign of gratitude to the 'brutal
dictator'. Libyan investments have helped to connect most of Africa by
telephone, television, radio broadcasting, etc.
OBAMA'S LIBYAN INTERVENTION HAS LOW
EST APPROVAL RATING OF ANY MILITARY OP
has-lowest-approval-any-military-op-polled-gallup-4-decades
Many major African companies, in which Gaddafi had
invested via the 'Libya Arab Africa Investment Portfolio', now face
financial ruin as Libyan oil money is diverted to the West under Libya's
new rulers. But undoubtedly the greatest threat posed by Gaddafi to
NATO warmongers was his efforts to fast-track the creation of an African
Monetary Fund and an African Central Bank and to establish the gold
dinar as a pan-African currency (Libya has 144 tons of gold with a
population of jut 6 million, no external debt and $150 billion in cash
reserves). Gaddafi's idea was that African and Muslim nations would join
together to create this new currency and use it to purchase oil and
other resources to the exclusion of the dollar and other currencies.
While a Russia Today report called it "an idea that would shift the
economic balance of the world", Gaddafi's plans for a radical financial
overhaul of African economies would undoubtedly have sounded the death
knell for IMF looting of African economies,
not to mention the 'CFA Franc', a colonial currency
tied to the Euro and the French central bank and used in twelve
formerly French-ruled African countries (hence the unbridled enthusiasm
with which the French government joined the fray). Peace Maker Writing
in April 2011 for the London Evening Post, writer Jean-Paul Pougala had
this to say about Gaddafi: "For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous
man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle
against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he
wouldn't have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both
militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why
Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break
the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. Mandela didn't
mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit
was an 'unwelcome' one: "No country can claim to be the policeman of
the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do."
GADAFI AND MANDELA - BROTHER LEADERS
He added, "Those that yesterday were friends of our
enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi,
they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the
past. "A "generous humanist"? Dare we say a genuine socialist? The late
African freedom fighter, Kwame Ture, further characterised Gaddafi as 'a
diamond in a cesspool of African misleaders'. "African misleaders"
installed and financed by Western governments.Writing in September this
year in the Guardian, Julian Borger and Terry Macalister pointed out
that Western oil companies had planned to carve up Libyan oil before the
so-called 'revolution'. Are we surprised? Is it mere coincidence that
the NATO bombing campaign began on the 8th anniversary of the invasion
of Iraq? The Egyptian uprising was more or less legitimate based on the
psychopathic policies of a real 'brutal dictator' - Hosni Mubarak - who
had brought millions of Egyptians to the brink of starvation. And take
note how Mubarak was dealt with in comparison to Gaddafi.
But no such conditions existed in socialist
Libya.The plain truth is that there was no widespread popular revolution
against Gaddafi; there were only ever hired mercenaries, a
well-orchestrated Western media campaign, which played out a script
dictated to it from start to finish, heavy infiltration by military
intelligence agents of the US and European countries, and NATO bombs.
Lots of NATO bombs. Media War Lies - Perhaps all of this helps us to
understand why, in July this year, huge crowds of Libyans thronged the
streets of Tripoli in support of Gaddafi and why recent polls suggested
that 90% of the Libyan population supported their 'brutal dictator'.
Perhaps we can also understand why images such as the one below are
being touted by the Western media as 'crowds of Libyans queuing to
'gawp' at the 'brutal dictator's dead body':It should come as no
surprise then to realise that allegations of 'war crimes' leveled at
pro-Gaddafi forces and that Gaddafi "bombed his own people" during the
NATO bombing campaign were simply a continuation of the decades-long
demonization of the Libyan Leader,
LIBYANS BACK GADAFFI IN TRIPOLI'S GREEN SQUARE
and were designed to cover up the fact that, just
as we saw during the prelude to the 'humanitarian war to save Kosovars'
in 1999 (when "tremendous efforts were undertaken to discover evidence
of war crimes"), it was NATO bombs which took the lives of thousands of
Libyan civilians. During a bombing raid on 30 April, Gaddafi's son, Saif
el-Arab, 29, as well as three of his grandchildren, were killed. The
four-month-old daughter of Gaddafi's daughter Aisha was among those
murdered. Down The Rat Hole - Was it really Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who
was dragged out of that 'rat hole'? The story of Gaddafi's 'death'
strikes me as a little too similar to that of Saddam Hussein (pulled
from a 'spider hole', 'hiding like a rat', etc.) and the images and
videos that are doing the rounds on the mainstream media sites are far
too grainy to be proof of anything. At least one of them (below) is
clearly a doctored version of an image purportedly taken at the site of
Osama Bin Laden's death, which in itself could be taken as evidence that
the same people were involved in both staged events. Decades of Lies -
I'm still eagerly waiting on the scenes of mass
jubilation among Libyan citizens at the alleged demise of their 'brutal
dictator'. I suppose it might take a while to convince the 90% of the
Libyan population which supports Gaddafi that a Western puppet
government and economic occupation by Western corporations is actually a
good thing. The statements made by Western leaders about Gaddafi's
'crimes' as they gloated over the brutal televised murder of some poor
unfortunate in Libya were revolting, to me anyway. British Prime
Minister David Cameron said that October 20th was:"a day to remember all
of Gaddafi's victims, from those who died in connection with the Pan Am
flight over Lockerbie, to Yvonne Fletcher in a London Street, and
obviously all of the victims of IRA terrorism who died through their use
of Libyan Semtex.We should also remember the many many Libyans who died
at the hands of this brutal dictator and his regime." Omitted from the
end of Cameron's statement was 'and we should also remember that I'm
lying through my teeth.'
HERE WE GO AGAIN - THE LIBYAN INTERVENTION
Of course, British tabloids like The Sun, are only
too happy to parrot Cameron's nonsense in typically jingoistic fashion:
But let's have a quick review of 'Gaddafi's crimes' as reported by
Cameron.The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. This
was clearly a false-flag operation designed to demonize Libya. See the
website of the father of one of the victims, Dr. Jim Swire, for the
evidence. Libya has never accepted responsibility for the bombing of
Flight 103, but instead paid compensation to the families to "buy peace"
i.e. attempted reintegration into the Western elite. The murder of
Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in St. James' Square, London, in April
1984. Blamed on Libya, there is in fact a wealth of evidence to support
the theory that Fletcher was shot by a CIA/MI6 operative in an effort
to, again, demonise Libya. Despite the fact that a Channel 4 Dispatches
documentary spelled it out in scientific detail, Cameron is happy to
propagate the lie. The 'victims of IRA terrorism' through the use of
Libyan Semtex.
There is little doubt that, on a few occasions, the
IRA leadership successfully bought Libyan weapons. There is also little
doubt, however, that all alleged major IRA attacks which involved the
death of civilians were the work of British intelligence. The British
media's mendacity and complicity in this lie was further exposed in
September this year when it was revealed that a major British media
network had taken CGI video footage from a violent computer game and
passed it off as real video footage in an effort to portray Gaddafi as a
supporter of terrorists: - ITV/MI5 -The British network claimed it was
"human error" that led to a scene from a computer game having "IRA film
1988" pasted on it as the narrator worked through a list of the past
(non-existent) sins of Gaddafi for the British audience in September
this year. Also consider the following interesting link between alleged
IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing.
FIVE MYTHS OF THE LIBYAN INTERVENTION
30-five-myths-of-libyan-intervention/
During the 1970s and early 1980s, one Dr. Thomas
Hayes progressed to become Head of Department at the British Royal
Armaments Research Establishment (RARDE). His testimony was central to
the bogus Lockerbie verdict. A Parliamentary inquiry into the 1974
alleged IRA 'Maguire Seven' bombing and mistrial discovered that key
forensic evidence indicated the innocence of the accused. This evidence,
which was known to Dr. Hayes and two RARDE colleagues, was not
disclosed at the Maguire Seven trial. The Maguire Seven were eventually
freed on appeal after spending fifteen years in jail. That just gives
you some small insight into the lengths to which Western governments and
'intelligence agencies' have gone (and are prepared to go) to 'protect
their interests'. With the mainstream media bought and paid for, global,
corporate, fascist domination is a done deal unless we all wake up to
the reality of the situation and start calling it for what it is -
bullshit, through and through.
So yeah, Cameron et al gloating and lying to the
cameras; Hilary Clinton just happening to be in Libya a few days ago
and demanding Gaddafi 'dead or alive' one day before someone looking a
bit like him is produced from a 'rat-hole' and then quickly executed and
(soon to be) buried in a 'secret location' far from prying eyes; the
deliberately conflicting stories of how he was killed being spread far
and wide by the mainstream media; Gaddafi being feted (and armed) by
British, French, American, Italian Prime Ministers and Presidents just a
couple of years ago and then suddenly demonised as a 'brutal dictator'
and his country and citizens bombed back to the stone age - all of that
pisses me off. But what really concerns me here is not my own rising
blood pressure, but the future of Libya. Already the vultures are
circling, eying their prize in the form of Libya's natural resources.
Take it away, French Minister of Defence, Gérard Longuet:New Libyan
leaders 'owe' France - France will seek a leading role in post-war
Libya, Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said on Friday, arguing that
Libya's new leaders "owe" Paris for leading the campaign to oust Muammar
Gaddafi.
LIBYA INTERVENTION DRIVEN BY OIL INTEREST
Speaking in an interview to Le Monde on the day
after Libya's ousted strongman was captured and killed, Longuet said
France is poised to take advantage of its leading role after a
successful campaign. France "will strive to play the role of a principal
partner in the country where the leaders know they owe us a lot".
"Everyone will throw their hat into the ring. We will neither be the
last nor the most blatant," he said of Libya's relations with various
Western countries in the coalition. Libya, which produced 1.6 to 1.7
million barrels of oil daily before the conflict, is a coveted market
for many countries that are also eyeing potentially massive contracts
for rebuilding its infrastructure. Ah yes, 'reconstruction', Libyans can
kiss goodbye to the relatively decent standard of living they enjoyed
under Gaddafi. Just look at post-invasion Iraq; 'reconstruction' there
has left the country impoverished and in ruins, looted by the
war-mongers.
The bottom line here is that people like Gaddafi do
not remain leader of a major nation for 40+ years without having
self-preservation high on their list of priorities. The idea that
Gaddafi would have waited until he was dragged from a sewer by a gang of
bloodthirsty hoodlums and then beaten and shot dead is stretching his
reputation as a true 'man of the people' a little far. Gaddafi's decades
of experience gleaned from dealing with and observing the treachery of
'Western diplomacy', both up close in person and from afar, would have
left him in no doubt as to what lay in store for him if US-imposed
regime change ever came to Libya. He would also have been egotistical
enough to realise that he would be of better service to his beloved
Libya alive than dead. We cannot then, at this stage, rule out the
possibility that, like Saddam Hussein,
LIBYAN OIL WAR - IS IT THAT SIMPLE?
Gaddafi left Libya long before
he was forced to resort to martyrdom in a sewer with only his 'golden
gun' between him and a baying mob of paid CIA killers. As with the case
of Saddam, there is evidence that this is what happened. As Joe Quinn
noted at the time, the death of Saddam Hussein was more than likely
faked. See his article on the Capture, Trial and Conviction of Saddam
Hussein for evidence that Saddam too was spirited out of the country
long before someone that looked like him was pulled from a 'rat-hole'.
Consider also the very convenient way in which the alleged body of
Gaddafi has now been secretly buried in an unmarked grave in the desert.
Much like the alleged dumping of the body of Osama bin Laden 'at sea',
this little maneuver stinks of a cover-up. In attempting to uncover and
expose government and media lies, it is often helpful to consult media
reports that were released early on in any major news event.
In a 21 February report, the British Foreign
Secretary, William Hague, was quoted as having said that Gaddafi had
already left the country. Then in August Ynet News reported that: "A
convoy of six armored vehicles has crossed the Libyan border to Algeria
on Saturday night, the Egyptian news agency reported. While it is
unclear who was riding in the cars, a rebel forces source estimated that
the convoy transported senior Libyan officials - including the
embattled leader, Muammar Gaddafi." The report quoted a Libyan military
council source as saying that troops loyal to Gaddafi's regime
accompanied the convoy to the border. In a 24 August IOL News story we
were told: "Burkina Faso, a former recipient of large amounts of Libyan
aid, has offered Muammar Gaddafi exile but has also recognized the rebel
National Transitional Council (NTC) as Libya's government. " On 1
September, Reuters reported that:
LIBYA AND THE MYTH OF THE TAIL THAT WAGGED THE DOG
"Muammar Gaddafi called Algerian President
Abdelaziz Bouteflika to negotiate a passage into his country but the
latter refused to take his call."And then on 11 October, the Bulawayo
News reported that: "An official on Libya's governing council says he
believes Muammar Gaddafi is hiding in the south-western desert near the
borders with Niger and Algeria."We submit that the publishing of grisly
(and grainy) photos and video of the alleged death of Gaddafi is not for
the benefit of the global public at all (even though many seem to have
relished the lynching). Rather, it is for the benefit of the leaders of
any other nations who might be thinking about disobeying the dictates of
the US Empire and the World bank. British deputy prime minister Nick
Clegg seemed to confirm my earlier thoughts about this when he declared
on 22 October that: "The death of Muammar Gaddafi sends a huge signal
to others in the region that the sins of grotesque dictators eventually
catch up with them."
In making this statement, Clegg has departed from
the British government's original rationale for an attack on Libya -
humanitarian intervention - and has made clear the real reason for the
eight month-long bombing of Libya, its people, and their freedoms -
naked, bloody imperialism, launched - quite coincidentally - on 19
March, the same date as the invasion of Iraq eight years ago. Assuming
for a moment that that really was Gaddafi they murdered in broad
daylight, then the unctuous words of British foreign secretary William
Hague... "We would have preferred him to be able to face justice at the
International Criminal Court or in a Libyan court for his crimes. We
don't approve of extra-judicial killings. "...are such fantastical
bullshit that I think Hague deserves a prize. If Gaddafi was in fact
executed on October 20th, then Hague and his ilk in the US and France
are undoubtedly delighted.
Gaddafi in the dock at The Hague was the very last
thing any members of the US, British or French criminal enterprises (aka
governments) would have wanted to see, mainly because of the large
quantities of beans he would have spilled. They didn't want a rerun of
Slobodan Milosevic's truth-letting tainting their blood-spattered image
as liberators, an embarrassing judicial episode which thankfully, for
NATO governments, came to an abrupt end with the termination of the
former Serb leader in his jail cell. As we ponder the dark implications
of living in a world where the large numbers of people rejoice at
gruesome stage shows of death and merrily embrace the murder of decent
men, I'll leave you with the final, disgusting words of the clearly
psychopathic Hillary Clinton: WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED
Cameron Salisbury Wrote - I've
been so unnerved by the hype against Gaddafi coming from all quarters,
including many progressive who should know better than to trust anything
the gvmt says, that I was going to write about it myself. You did it
better. Over and over we hear the Gaddafi was a bad guy with no
supporting evidence whatever. What did he do that was bad? This year a
few of those taking part in the civil war were killed, but Human Rights
Watch says nothing about 'human rights' violations prior to 2011. One of
his assassins was quoted on American TV a few days ago saying that
Gaddafi repeatedly asked his tormentors why he was being treated so
badly. "
THE DEBATE OVER THE US LIBYA INTERVENTION
He forgot that he killed millions of us" said the
gleeful killer. Killed millions of them? In a country of 6 million
without the world knowing anything about it? Sounds much more like this
guy was swallowing the same Western propaganda that the media was
spewing. It makes perfect sense to believe that American propaganda was
used as extensively in Libya as it was in the U.S. and for the same
purpose: To create support for yet more illicit 'regime change'. Gaddafi
said over and over that he didn't understand the insurgence. His
country was well run, his people were well educated and well fed, the
roads were paved, the government was largely uncorrupt. But, even after
dealing with the West for 40 years, he underestimated the capitalist
cause, as this article shows. May he rest in peace.
LIBYAN INTERVENTION AIMED TO SQUELCH GOLDBACKED DINAR
ntervention-in-libya-aimed-to-squelch-gold-backed-african-dinar/
VIDEO - LIBYA INTERVENTION BY NATO CRIMINAL
Obama over-ruled his own legal advisers in the
Pentagon and the CIA and went ahead with the NATO action against Libya.
Americans are saying, what is going on here? Another war? We're still in
Afghanistan, we're still very heavily involved in Iraq and now we're
going into Libya? This is madness. The rebels are being heavily armed
and advised by the CIA and Pentagon Special Forces. With what money???