Click on the headline to link to a The New York Times Bob Herbert column on the madness of the American imperialist-led Libya attacks.
Markin comment:
I don't usually post things from the key mouthpiece of the American imperium, The New York Times, at least not for anything other than information but this one sets just the right tone.
Showing posts with label hands off Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hands off Libya. Show all posts
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Once Again On Libya-Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)-Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
Markin comment
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition! Down With The NATO No Fly-Zone! Saudis Out Of Bahrain!
Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) calls on workers around the world to take a stand for military defense of semicolonial Libya against the attack begun yesterday by a coalition of rapacious imperialist governments. The French, British and U.S. rulers, in league with other imperialist governments and with the blessings of the sheiks, kings and military bonapartists of the Arab League, wasted not a moment in acting on the green light given by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to slaughter countless innocent people in the name of “protecting civilians” and ensuring “democracy.” French air strikes were quickly followed by U.S. and British missile attacks, while Egypt’s military regime is providing arms to the Benghazi opposition forces. From Indochina and the Korean peninsula to the U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan today, the “democratic” imperialist rulers wade in the blood of millions upon millions of their victims. Recall that Britain and France historically carried out untold massacres in the Near East, Africa and the Indian subcontinent in order to pursue their colonial subjugation of those areas. Recall that Italy, now providing the use of its air bases for the attack, is responsible for the deaths of up to half the population of Cyrenaica in eastern Libya during its colonial rule prior to World War II.
Prior to the current attack, the conflict in Libya had taken the form of a low-intensity civil war, heavily overlaid by tribal and regional divisions, between the Tripoli-centered government of strongman Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi and imperialist-backed opposition forces concentrated in the country’s eastern areas. Workers Vanguard No. 976 (18 March), newspaper of the U.S. section of the ICL, noted that “Marxists presently have no side in this conflict.” But as the article continued: “In the event of imperialist attack against neocolonial Libya, the proletariat internationally must stand for the military defense of that country while giving no political support to Qaddafi’s capitalist regime.” The civil war in Libya has now been subordinated to the fight of a neocolonial country against imperialism. Every step taken by the workers of the imperialist countries to halt the depredations and military adventures of their rulers is a step toward their own liberation from capitalist exploitation, impoverishment and oppression. Defend Libya against imperialist attack! U.S. Fifth Fleet and all imperialist military bases and troops out of North Africa and the Near East!
Recall that the slaughter of well over a million people in Iraq began with the imposition of a UN-sponsored starvation embargo and a “no fly zone” in the 1990s. The latest action by the Security Council, including the neo-apartheid South African regime led by the African National Congress, underscores yet again the character of the United Nations as a den of imperialist thieves and their lackeys and semicolonial victims. The abstention by the representative of China, a bureaucratically deformed workers state, gave tacit approval to imperialist depredation, emboldening the very forces which seek to overturn the 1949 Chinese Revolution.
The crocodile tears shed by the imperialist rulers and their media mouthpieces over the Libyans killed by the Qaddafi regime during the recent wave of protests stands in sharp contrast to their muted response to the continuing massacre of protesters in Yemen—whose dictatorship is a key component of Washington’s “war on terror”—and their ongoing support to the Bahraini kingdom, which hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. To aid in crushing mass protests, Bahrain last week invited in troops from the medievalist and theocratic Saudi monarchy, a key bulwark of U.S. imperialist interests in the region. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority and the Yemeni masses are less than human, with no rights they are bound to respect.
Numerous social-democratic leftists, typified by the United Secretariat (USec) and the British Cliffite Socialist Workers Party, have done their part to prepare the ground for imperialist massacres in Libya by cheering on the so-called “Libyan Revolution.” Having urged support for the cabal of pro-imperialist “democrats,” CIA stooges, monarchists and Islamists that comprise the Benghazi-based opposition, these reformists now feign to balk at imperialist military intervention in support of the opposition. The New Anti-Capitalist Party, constituted in 2009 by the USec’s French section, signed a call for a demonstration yesterday demanding that the Benghazi outfit be recognized as “the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”—which French ruler Sarkozy had already done! At the same time, those left groups that have promoted illusions in Qaddafi’s “anti-imperialist” pretensions—such as the Workers World Party in the U.S.—seek everywhere and at all times to chain the working class to a mythical “progressive” wing of the bourgeoisie.
We pledge today, as we did at the time of the U.S. Reagan administration’s bombing of Libya in 1986, to “undertake every effort to propagandize the need for the world working class to take the side of Libya” against its imperialist enemies (“Under Reagan’s Guns in Libya,” WV No. 401, 11 April 1986). In the pursuit of profit and domination, the same capitalist ruling classes that brutally exploit the working class “at home,” only to throw workers on the scrap heap during periods of economic crisis, as today, carry out murderous imperialist attacks abroad. The struggle against imperialist war cannot be conducted separately and apart from the class struggle. Only socialist revolution can overthrow the system of capitalist imperialism which breeds war. Our path is that of the October Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, which was a beacon of revolutionary internationalism for the proletariat everywhere. We struggle to reforge the Fourth International as an instrument that can lead the working masses, from the Near East to the imperialist centers, forward to new October Revolutions and a world socialist society.
—20 March 2011
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition! Down With The NATO No Fly-Zone! Saudis Out Of Bahrain!
Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) calls on workers around the world to take a stand for military defense of semicolonial Libya against the attack begun yesterday by a coalition of rapacious imperialist governments. The French, British and U.S. rulers, in league with other imperialist governments and with the blessings of the sheiks, kings and military bonapartists of the Arab League, wasted not a moment in acting on the green light given by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to slaughter countless innocent people in the name of “protecting civilians” and ensuring “democracy.” French air strikes were quickly followed by U.S. and British missile attacks, while Egypt’s military regime is providing arms to the Benghazi opposition forces. From Indochina and the Korean peninsula to the U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan today, the “democratic” imperialist rulers wade in the blood of millions upon millions of their victims. Recall that Britain and France historically carried out untold massacres in the Near East, Africa and the Indian subcontinent in order to pursue their colonial subjugation of those areas. Recall that Italy, now providing the use of its air bases for the attack, is responsible for the deaths of up to half the population of Cyrenaica in eastern Libya during its colonial rule prior to World War II.
Prior to the current attack, the conflict in Libya had taken the form of a low-intensity civil war, heavily overlaid by tribal and regional divisions, between the Tripoli-centered government of strongman Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi and imperialist-backed opposition forces concentrated in the country’s eastern areas. Workers Vanguard No. 976 (18 March), newspaper of the U.S. section of the ICL, noted that “Marxists presently have no side in this conflict.” But as the article continued: “In the event of imperialist attack against neocolonial Libya, the proletariat internationally must stand for the military defense of that country while giving no political support to Qaddafi’s capitalist regime.” The civil war in Libya has now been subordinated to the fight of a neocolonial country against imperialism. Every step taken by the workers of the imperialist countries to halt the depredations and military adventures of their rulers is a step toward their own liberation from capitalist exploitation, impoverishment and oppression. Defend Libya against imperialist attack! U.S. Fifth Fleet and all imperialist military bases and troops out of North Africa and the Near East!
Recall that the slaughter of well over a million people in Iraq began with the imposition of a UN-sponsored starvation embargo and a “no fly zone” in the 1990s. The latest action by the Security Council, including the neo-apartheid South African regime led by the African National Congress, underscores yet again the character of the United Nations as a den of imperialist thieves and their lackeys and semicolonial victims. The abstention by the representative of China, a bureaucratically deformed workers state, gave tacit approval to imperialist depredation, emboldening the very forces which seek to overturn the 1949 Chinese Revolution.
The crocodile tears shed by the imperialist rulers and their media mouthpieces over the Libyans killed by the Qaddafi regime during the recent wave of protests stands in sharp contrast to their muted response to the continuing massacre of protesters in Yemen—whose dictatorship is a key component of Washington’s “war on terror”—and their ongoing support to the Bahraini kingdom, which hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. To aid in crushing mass protests, Bahrain last week invited in troops from the medievalist and theocratic Saudi monarchy, a key bulwark of U.S. imperialist interests in the region. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority and the Yemeni masses are less than human, with no rights they are bound to respect.
Numerous social-democratic leftists, typified by the United Secretariat (USec) and the British Cliffite Socialist Workers Party, have done their part to prepare the ground for imperialist massacres in Libya by cheering on the so-called “Libyan Revolution.” Having urged support for the cabal of pro-imperialist “democrats,” CIA stooges, monarchists and Islamists that comprise the Benghazi-based opposition, these reformists now feign to balk at imperialist military intervention in support of the opposition. The New Anti-Capitalist Party, constituted in 2009 by the USec’s French section, signed a call for a demonstration yesterday demanding that the Benghazi outfit be recognized as “the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”—which French ruler Sarkozy had already done! At the same time, those left groups that have promoted illusions in Qaddafi’s “anti-imperialist” pretensions—such as the Workers World Party in the U.S.—seek everywhere and at all times to chain the working class to a mythical “progressive” wing of the bourgeoisie.
We pledge today, as we did at the time of the U.S. Reagan administration’s bombing of Libya in 1986, to “undertake every effort to propagandize the need for the world working class to take the side of Libya” against its imperialist enemies (“Under Reagan’s Guns in Libya,” WV No. 401, 11 April 1986). In the pursuit of profit and domination, the same capitalist ruling classes that brutally exploit the working class “at home,” only to throw workers on the scrap heap during periods of economic crisis, as today, carry out murderous imperialist attacks abroad. The struggle against imperialist war cannot be conducted separately and apart from the class struggle. Only socialist revolution can overthrow the system of capitalist imperialism which breeds war. Our path is that of the October Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, which was a beacon of revolutionary internationalism for the proletariat everywhere. We struggle to reforge the Fourth International as an instrument that can lead the working masses, from the Near East to the imperialist centers, forward to new October Revolutions and a world socialist society.
—20 March 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 22 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Masquerading as "humanitarian intervention," Washington launched full-force barbarism on six million Libyans, all endangered by America's latest intervention. More on how below.
Beginning March 19, it was visible. However, months of planning preceded it, including US and UK special forces and intelligence operatives on the ground enlisting, inciting, funding, arming and supporting violent insurrection to oust Gaddafi and replace him with a Washington-controlled puppet like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The scrip is familiar, playing out now in Libya - full-scale "imperial barbarism," a term James Petras used in a September 2010 article titled, "Imperialism and Imperial Barbarism," saying:
"The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war," including:
-- use of mass destruction weapons, unleashed on Libya as explained below;
-- targeting the entire country and society; and
-- dismantling "the entire civil and military apparatus of the state," replacing it with "colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps" - puppets, figures As'ad AbuKhalil calls "useful idiots."
Moreover, as Petras explains:
"The entire modern professional class is targeted (and) replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares. All existing modern civil society organizations are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime. The entire economy is" disrupted by "shock and awe" bombings and ground attacks, affecting essential civilian infrastructure on the pretext of destroying military and "dual use" targets.
As a result, mass casualties follow, many post-conflict from disease, homelessness, starvation, depravation, and environmental contamination. All wars are ugly, especially modern ones Washington wages, unleashing full force human and overall destruction, mostly affecting noncombatant men, women and children - imperialism's hidden victims.
Already, unknown hundreds of Libyans have been killed, wounded, or disabled, besides countless numbers affected overall. Expect much worse ahead, including violent, US-backed proxy insurgence, perhaps later joined by Pentagon troops if current air and ground attacks don't accomplish "Operation Odyssey Dawn's" objectives.
UN Resolution 1973
Claiming authority under the UN Charter's Article VII, it, in fact, violates Article 51, stating:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Effectively, UN Resolution 1973 authorized war, not peace. Moreover, it denied a sitting government, despotic or otherwise, the right of self-defense. A Western-backed insurgency initiated attacks, permitting a head of state to respond.
Further, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Libya.
In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.
Ostensibly to protect civilians, Resolution 1973's paragraph 4 authorized Member States "to take all necessary measures...." As a result, a giant interventionist loophole was created they knew Washington would exploit.
Under paragraph 6, moreover, "establish(ing) a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians," in fact, harms them by US "shock and awe" attacks.
Further, paragraph 7's authorization for "flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian" denies them because Pentagon-controlled airspace will destroy any encountered Libyan aircraft, claiming it hostile, not delivering food, medical or other essential supplies or personnel.
In addition, supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions violates paragraph 13, "Call(ing) upon Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya.
In fact, besides covertly supplying its own weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other regional and/or NATO countries are arming insurgents, at the behest of Washington - violating Resolution 1973.
As a result, Libyans are at the mercy of US imperial aggression, disdaining all international laws, principles and standards. At war, Washington causes mass casualties and destruction. Now begun, expect much more ahead.
In addition, "coalition" participation is fig leaf cover for US aggression. AFRICOM's General Carter Ham has full command authority, directing UK, French and other belligerent partners, besides America's full air, sea and ground might.
Expect protracted conflict, perhaps "boots on the ground," putting a lie to Obama's promise for "humanitarian intervention" to end in "a matter of days, not weeks." Already, insurgency has been ongoing for weeks, perhaps months covertly, the worst yet to come, but already conditions are bad. They always are when Washington arrives.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Used
Since the 1991 Gulf War, Washington used nuclear weapons covertly - in depleted uranium (DU) form. Contaminating exposure is deadly. All US missiles, bombs, and shells have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them. Even bullets because in all forms, DU-tipped munitions easily penetrate armor, irradiating air, ground and water when used. DU, in fact, painfully kills from later contracted illnesses and diseases, including cancer and many others.
When weaponized DU strikes, it penetrates deeply, aerosolizing into a fine spray which then contaminates wide areas. Moreover, its residue is permanent. Its microscopic/submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or swept into it from contaminated soil.
Atmospheric winds then carry it far distances as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, falling indiscriminately to earth and water. Virtually every known illness and disease may result from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. As a result, permanent disability or death may follow.
Moreover, DU use is illegal under international law. Although no specific convention or treaty bans radioactive weapons, including DU, they're, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure under the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting use of any "poison or poisoned weapons."
In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus fitting the definition of poisonous weapons Hague banned. America is a signatory. As a result, DU weapons use for any purpose violates international law. Moreover, all DU weapons meet the U.S. federal code WMD definition in 2 out of 3 categories:
The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:
"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."
As a result, commanders up the chain of command, including civilian ones to the highest level, authorizing DU weapons use for any purpose are war criminals.
Moreover, under various UN Conventions and Covenants, weapons causing post-battle environmental or human harm are banned. Nonetheless, Washington uses them indiscriminately, including DU. As a result, millions of Iraqi, Serbian/Kosovar, and Afghan nationals, as well as belligerent US troops have been gravely harmed, yet Pentagon and administration authorities deny all responsibility.
Libyans will now be victimized by DU poisoning. Wherever it strikes and spreads, it's unforgiving, disabling and deadly. If enough is used, a future cancer epidemic will follow, too late to help those harmed.
Helen Caldicott calls radiation a "Destroyer of Worlds," doing it by killing people silently, painfully, illegally, and at times genocidally.
In 2005, before his death, no wonder Nobel laureate Harold Pinter condemned US aggression saying:
"(T)he United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Under Bush, Obama or anyone else, it does what it pleases - the law, human welfare, and environmental considerations be damned.
A Final Comment
On March 21, Reuters said missile and air attacks on Libya continue. The New York Times headlined, "Allies Target Qaddafi's Ground Forces, but Resistance Continues (unconfirmed) Reports Say." The Washington Post said, "Libyan rebels launch offensive; coalition pounds Gaddafi forces," that may be observing a ceasefire. Al Jazeera reported "Rejoicing in Libya's Benghazi," continuing its biased war reporting, siding with anti-Gaddafi forces.
In contrast, independent web sites, analysts, and on-air programming offer detailed, truthful information, including the Progressive Radio News Hour this writer hosts on the Progressive Radio Network.com, featuring distinguished guests, dominant media sources spurn.
Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is one of many reliable sources. On March 20, his Global Research.ca article headlined, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed. Qatar has joined the War," saying:
-- unconfirmed "(i)nternal Libyan sources reported....the capture of an Italian vessel and military personnel, who were detained;"
-- Gaddafi's government "started supplying (Libyans) with food rations, medicine, and weapons to defend themselves;"
-- unconfirmed "Libyan sources reported" downing two more "coalition" jets, "identified as Qatari military planes;" and
-- unconfirmed Libyan sources claim five "coalition" jets downed, three attacking Tripoli, two others over Sirt.
March 21 marks day three of a protracted conflict. It's certain to cause widespread deaths, injuries, disabilities and destruction. It's assured when America arrives - on cruise missiles, bombs and shells, not white horses promoting peace and democratic values, what all US administrations disdain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) 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/.
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 22 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Masquerading as "humanitarian intervention," Washington launched full-force barbarism on six million Libyans, all endangered by America's latest intervention. More on how below.
Beginning March 19, it was visible. However, months of planning preceded it, including US and UK special forces and intelligence operatives on the ground enlisting, inciting, funding, arming and supporting violent insurrection to oust Gaddafi and replace him with a Washington-controlled puppet like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The scrip is familiar, playing out now in Libya - full-scale "imperial barbarism," a term James Petras used in a September 2010 article titled, "Imperialism and Imperial Barbarism," saying:
"The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war," including:
-- use of mass destruction weapons, unleashed on Libya as explained below;
-- targeting the entire country and society; and
-- dismantling "the entire civil and military apparatus of the state," replacing it with "colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps" - puppets, figures As'ad AbuKhalil calls "useful idiots."
Moreover, as Petras explains:
"The entire modern professional class is targeted (and) replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares. All existing modern civil society organizations are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime. The entire economy is" disrupted by "shock and awe" bombings and ground attacks, affecting essential civilian infrastructure on the pretext of destroying military and "dual use" targets.
As a result, mass casualties follow, many post-conflict from disease, homelessness, starvation, depravation, and environmental contamination. All wars are ugly, especially modern ones Washington wages, unleashing full force human and overall destruction, mostly affecting noncombatant men, women and children - imperialism's hidden victims.
Already, unknown hundreds of Libyans have been killed, wounded, or disabled, besides countless numbers affected overall. Expect much worse ahead, including violent, US-backed proxy insurgence, perhaps later joined by Pentagon troops if current air and ground attacks don't accomplish "Operation Odyssey Dawn's" objectives.
UN Resolution 1973
Claiming authority under the UN Charter's Article VII, it, in fact, violates Article 51, stating:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Effectively, UN Resolution 1973 authorized war, not peace. Moreover, it denied a sitting government, despotic or otherwise, the right of self-defense. A Western-backed insurgency initiated attacks, permitting a head of state to respond.
Further, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Libya.
In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.
Ostensibly to protect civilians, Resolution 1973's paragraph 4 authorized Member States "to take all necessary measures...." As a result, a giant interventionist loophole was created they knew Washington would exploit.
Under paragraph 6, moreover, "establish(ing) a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians," in fact, harms them by US "shock and awe" attacks.
Further, paragraph 7's authorization for "flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian" denies them because Pentagon-controlled airspace will destroy any encountered Libyan aircraft, claiming it hostile, not delivering food, medical or other essential supplies or personnel.
In addition, supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions violates paragraph 13, "Call(ing) upon Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya.
In fact, besides covertly supplying its own weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other regional and/or NATO countries are arming insurgents, at the behest of Washington - violating Resolution 1973.
As a result, Libyans are at the mercy of US imperial aggression, disdaining all international laws, principles and standards. At war, Washington causes mass casualties and destruction. Now begun, expect much more ahead.
In addition, "coalition" participation is fig leaf cover for US aggression. AFRICOM's General Carter Ham has full command authority, directing UK, French and other belligerent partners, besides America's full air, sea and ground might.
Expect protracted conflict, perhaps "boots on the ground," putting a lie to Obama's promise for "humanitarian intervention" to end in "a matter of days, not weeks." Already, insurgency has been ongoing for weeks, perhaps months covertly, the worst yet to come, but already conditions are bad. They always are when Washington arrives.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Used
Since the 1991 Gulf War, Washington used nuclear weapons covertly - in depleted uranium (DU) form. Contaminating exposure is deadly. All US missiles, bombs, and shells have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them. Even bullets because in all forms, DU-tipped munitions easily penetrate armor, irradiating air, ground and water when used. DU, in fact, painfully kills from later contracted illnesses and diseases, including cancer and many others.
When weaponized DU strikes, it penetrates deeply, aerosolizing into a fine spray which then contaminates wide areas. Moreover, its residue is permanent. Its microscopic/submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or swept into it from contaminated soil.
Atmospheric winds then carry it far distances as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, falling indiscriminately to earth and water. Virtually every known illness and disease may result from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. As a result, permanent disability or death may follow.
Moreover, DU use is illegal under international law. Although no specific convention or treaty bans radioactive weapons, including DU, they're, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure under the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting use of any "poison or poisoned weapons."
In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus fitting the definition of poisonous weapons Hague banned. America is a signatory. As a result, DU weapons use for any purpose violates international law. Moreover, all DU weapons meet the U.S. federal code WMD definition in 2 out of 3 categories:
The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:
"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."
As a result, commanders up the chain of command, including civilian ones to the highest level, authorizing DU weapons use for any purpose are war criminals.
Moreover, under various UN Conventions and Covenants, weapons causing post-battle environmental or human harm are banned. Nonetheless, Washington uses them indiscriminately, including DU. As a result, millions of Iraqi, Serbian/Kosovar, and Afghan nationals, as well as belligerent US troops have been gravely harmed, yet Pentagon and administration authorities deny all responsibility.
Libyans will now be victimized by DU poisoning. Wherever it strikes and spreads, it's unforgiving, disabling and deadly. If enough is used, a future cancer epidemic will follow, too late to help those harmed.
Helen Caldicott calls radiation a "Destroyer of Worlds," doing it by killing people silently, painfully, illegally, and at times genocidally.
In 2005, before his death, no wonder Nobel laureate Harold Pinter condemned US aggression saying:
"(T)he United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Under Bush, Obama or anyone else, it does what it pleases - the law, human welfare, and environmental considerations be damned.
A Final Comment
On March 21, Reuters said missile and air attacks on Libya continue. The New York Times headlined, "Allies Target Qaddafi's Ground Forces, but Resistance Continues (unconfirmed) Reports Say." The Washington Post said, "Libyan rebels launch offensive; coalition pounds Gaddafi forces," that may be observing a ceasefire. Al Jazeera reported "Rejoicing in Libya's Benghazi," continuing its biased war reporting, siding with anti-Gaddafi forces.
In contrast, independent web sites, analysts, and on-air programming offer detailed, truthful information, including the Progressive Radio News Hour this writer hosts on the Progressive Radio Network.com, featuring distinguished guests, dominant media sources spurn.
Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is one of many reliable sources. On March 20, his Global Research.ca article headlined, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed. Qatar has joined the War," saying:
-- unconfirmed "(i)nternal Libyan sources reported....the capture of an Italian vessel and military personnel, who were detained;"
-- Gaddafi's government "started supplying (Libyans) with food rations, medicine, and weapons to defend themselves;"
-- unconfirmed "Libyan sources reported" downing two more "coalition" jets, "identified as Qatari military planes;" and
-- unconfirmed Libyan sources claim five "coalition" jets downed, three attacking Tripoli, two others over Sirt.
March 21 marks day three of a protracted conflict. It's certain to cause widespread deaths, injuries, disabilities and destruction. It's assured when America arrives - on cruise missiles, bombs and shells, not white horses promoting peace and democratic values, what all US administrations disdain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) 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/.
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
Monday, March 21, 2011
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman-Guest Commentary
Markin comment
Hands Off Libya! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
Imperial War on Libya
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 21 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.
In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.
Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.
A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:
"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."
False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.
According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.
Military and government targets include:
-- command-and-control centers;
-- air defense systems;
-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
-- communications systems;
-- government buildings and other facilities; and
-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.
About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.
Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.
Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.
In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.
In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.
Pack Journalism Promotes War
A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-li
Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:
Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."
On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:
Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."
Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."
On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:
Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.
On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.
As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.
Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."
Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.
Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-l
On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:
Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."
Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."
Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."
No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."
In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.
Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:
"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.
Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.
Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.
On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.
In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.
On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."
Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.
On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:
"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.
Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:
"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."
Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."
As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.
On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:
Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."
Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.
Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."
Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.
Libya's So-Called "Opposition"
Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.
Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.
NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.
At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.
As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.
On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:
In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.
Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It
At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.
Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.
On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."
Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.
Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.
A Final Comment
On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:
"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.
AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.
In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.
Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.
Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.
Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) 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/.
See also:
Hands Off Libya! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
Imperial War on Libya
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 21 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.
In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.
Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.
A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:
"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."
False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.
According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.
Military and government targets include:
-- command-and-control centers;
-- air defense systems;
-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
-- communications systems;
-- government buildings and other facilities; and
-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.
About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.
Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.
Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.
In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.
In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.
Pack Journalism Promotes War
A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-li
Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:
Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."
On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:
Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."
Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."
On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:
Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.
On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.
As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.
Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."
Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.
Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-l
On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:
Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."
Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."
Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."
No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."
In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.
Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:
"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.
Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.
Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.
On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.
In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.
On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."
Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.
On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:
"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.
Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:
"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."
Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."
As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.
On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:
Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."
Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.
Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."
Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.
Libya's So-Called "Opposition"
Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.
Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.
NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.
At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.
As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.
On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:
In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.
Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It
At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.
Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.
On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."
Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.
Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.
A Final Comment
On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:
"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.
AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.
In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.
Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.
Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.
Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) 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/.
See also:
Friday, March 11, 2011
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman- A Guest Commentary
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Major Media Promote War on Libya
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:
"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.
"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."
Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.
Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.
Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No
For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.
A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.
The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.
Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.
Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.
As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.
The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:
His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."
This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."
Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.
Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:
"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."
Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.
Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.
The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:
His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.
On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:
"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"
Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!
Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.
On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:
"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.
Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.
In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.
Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.
Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:
Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.
Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.
Breaching Libyan Sovereignty
Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.
In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."
Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.
Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.
Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.
Final Comments
According to Russia Today (RT) television:
Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.
Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.
On March 2, he said the following:
-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."
-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."
-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."
-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.
-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."
-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."
-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."
-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."
It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.
While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:
During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.
"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.
Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.
On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.
In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.
US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.
Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.
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/.
Major Media Promote War on Libya
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:
"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.
"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."
Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.
Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.
Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No
For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.
A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.
The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.
Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.
Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.
As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.
The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:
His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."
This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."
Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.
Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:
"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."
Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.
Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.
The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:
His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.
On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:
"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"
Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!
Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.
On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:
"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.
Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.
In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.
Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.
Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:
Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.
Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.
Breaching Libyan Sovereignty
Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.
In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."
Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.
Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.
Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.
Final Comments
According to Russia Today (RT) television:
Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.
Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.
On March 2, he said the following:
-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."
-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."
-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."
-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.
-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."
-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."
-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."
-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."
It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.
While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:
During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.
"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.
Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.
On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.
In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.
US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.
Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.
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/.
From The Renegade Eye Blog- From The In Defense Of Marxism- Venezuela and Libya: it is not an April 11 coup, it is a February 27 Caracazo -Hands Off Libya!
Venezuela and Libya: it is not an April 11 coup, it is a February 27 Caracazo
Written by Jorge MartÃn
Friday, 04 March 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in Latin America about the events unfolding in Libya. This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention. We also critically examine the position adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Zawiyah. Photo: bandolero69The governments of Venezuela and Cuba have correctly stood up in international institutions to oppose any imperialist intervention in Libya. They have criticised the hypocrisy of those countries who raise a hue and cry over human rights violations in Libya while at the same time having participated in murderous imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supported the brutal repression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
The Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, explained it this way:
“Who pays for the more than one million dead in Iraq? Who pays for the permanent massacre against the Palestinian people? Why is it that those responsible for these crimes of war, genocide and against humanity – who are known to all and publicly recognise their deed – are not taken to the International Court of Justice? What does the Security Council do faced with these horrible massacres that take place?”
Quite correctly, the Venezuelan representatives denounced the real aims of the intervention of imperialism in the region:
“Those who promote the use of military force against Libya, do not seek to defend human rights, but to establish a protectorate in order to violate them, as is always the case, in a country which is one of the most important sources of oil and energy in the Middle East”.
The people of Iraq are a testimony to this fact. Washington made up an excuse (so-called “weapons of mass destruction”) in order to attack Iraq so that they could reassert their power and regain direct control over crucial oil resources. The aim of the invasion was not to “establish democracy” and certainly there is very little democracy in Iraq now under the Maliki government. Thousands of Iraqis marched last month demanding electricity, water, jobs and bread and they were met with the brutal repression of government forces, leading to deaths, injuries, arrests and kidnappings. And yet no one is suggesting taking the government of Iraq to the International courts!
The United Nations is in fact a farce. It is a body that merely reflects the domination of US imperialism. When the US are able to get resolutions passed in order to justify their actions, they use the UN as a fig leaf. When, for whatever reason, they are not able to get their aims endorsed by the UN, they ignore the UN and carry them out regardless. And, finally, when resolutions are passed against their imperialist aims (for instance against the blockade on Cuba or condemning Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people), they simply ignore them, and they are never enforced. In the recent case of the resolution on Israeli settlements on Palestinian Territory, the US used its veto to block resolution. So much for justice and human rights.
In the last few days there has been a lot of noise and some concrete actions on the part of imperialist nations regarding Libya. The US has now moved two amphibious warships, the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, carrying helicopters and fighter jets, into the Mediterranean. Under the cover of so-called “humanitarian intervention”, imperialist powers (including the US, UK, France and Italy) amongst others, are discussing what action they can take to secure their own interests. European countries are mainly worried about the possible arrival of a mass of refugees on their shores. Another worry is control over oil resources and above all the impact of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Arab world on oil prices and the knock on effect this could have on the capitalist economy as a whole.
The most discussed option is a “no-fly zone”, which has been advocated amongst others by both Republican senator John McCain and Democratic senator John Kerry. For his own reasons, British Prime Minister David Cameron, has also made belligerent noises, attempting to puff up a role in world politics for Britain that it can no longer really play.
However, the truth is that even a limited intervention in the form of a no fly-zone would be risky and complicated to implement. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that “there’s a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options.” He warned of the implications of such an action: “Let’s just call a spade a spade: a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya, to destroy the air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone... It also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. So it is a big operation in a big country.”
The US military is already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he stressed: “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” he said. “And what other allies are prepared to work with us in some of these things?”
However, the main worry imperialist planners have regarding intervention in Libya is the backlash this would generate throughout the region. The masses are sick and tired of imperialism and the revolutionary wave which is sweeping the Arab world is directly aimed at US-sponsored regimes. Gates showed that the US ruling class is aware of this when he said: “We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the US military in another country in the Middle East.”
These considerations, of course, do not rule out imperialist intervention in Libya or anywhere else, if their vital interests come under threat. However, they do underline the fact that the US has been caught unawares by the present revolutionary wave and has been unable to intervene decisively to steer the course of events in their favour.
In the face of imperialism’s manoeuvres, and also the inconsistent manner in which they deal with the matter of “human rights” and “crimes against humanity”, Venezuela and Cuba are correct in exposing the hypocrisy of imperialism and agitating against any foreign powers intervening in Libya.
However, the case that is being made by both countries, and most prominently by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, is undermined by the fact that they are perceived as being supportive of Gaddafi, instead of supporting the masses of the Libyan people who have risen up against his regime.
It is true that Venezuelan ambassador to the UN said in his speech that Venezuela “greets the Arab peoples who are in a process of peaceful and justice seeking rebellion, and looking for a better future through peaceful roads”. But at the same time Fidel Castro has argued that the problems faced by Libya are different to those faced by Tunisia and Egypt. He has added that while “there is no doubt that the faces of those protesting in Benghazi expressed real indignation”, there has been a “colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media, which led to great confusion on the part of the world’s public opinion”.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has also said that he “refuses to condemn Gaddafi” who has been “a long-time friend of Venezuela” because apparently there is not enough information on the situation. He has used the example of April 11, 2002, when the world’s media accused Chavez of having ordered the army to fire on unarmed demonstrators in order to justify the coup against him. As we all know, it was later on proven that it had all been a set up, with hired snipers firing on opposition and revolutionary demonstrators alike.
However, in the case of Libya, the situation is completely different. In Venezuela what we had was a reactionary movement against a democratically elected government attempting to implement progressive reforms and standing up against imperialism. In Libya we have a popular uprising against an oppressive regime which had made all sorts of deals with imperialism.
To a certain extent, it can be understood why there is confusion in Venezuela about the real nature of what is really happening in Libya. The Venezuelan people no longer trust the capitalist media, completely discredited by the role they played in the coup in 2002. Furthermore, the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition is attempting to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolution, saying that “the next dictator to fall will be Hugo Chavez”.
It is a matter of public record that the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition receives funding, training and support of all kinds from Washington. On a number of occasions they have organized their forces on the streets to make it look as if Chavez were a tyrant facing popular opposition (in the run up to the April 11, 2002, coup, during the oil lock out in December 2002, during the guarimba in 2004, the student protests in defence of RCTV, etc). They will not hesitate in doing it again. However, what we are seeing in the Arab world is precisely the opposite: a series of revolutionary uprisings against US backed dictatorial regimes.
It is true that the Libyan regime of Gaddafi came to power at the head of a movement with large popular support against the rotten monarchy of Kind Idris in 1969. In the 1970s, influenced by the previous wave of the Arab revolution, and under the impact of the 1974 worldwide recession, the regime moved further to the left, expelling imperialism and making deep inroads against capitalist property. Basing itself on the oil wealth of the country and the small size of its population, it was able to implement many progressive reforms and substantially increase the standard of the living of the overwhelming majority of Libyans.
However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the regime started making openings to imperialism. Already in 1993 laws guaranteeing foreign investment were passed. And it was after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 that Gaddafi decided to settle affairs with imperialism signing a number of deals for decommissioning its weapons of mass destruction, paying reparations to the victims of terrorist bombings, etc. The regime became a loyal partner of imperialism in the so-called “war on terror” and collaborated with the European Union in order to strengthen “fortress Europe” against the entry of sub-Saharan illegal immigrants.
This was accompanied by requesting entry into the WTO, creating Special Trade Zones, privatizing large parts of the economy, allowing back oil multinationals into the oil industry and eliminating subsidies on basic foodstuffs. The aim was to privatise 100% of the economy, according to Libyan officials. It was precisely the implementation of these policies that led to increased unemployment (between 20 and 30%), poverty and inequality, that played a key role in the current uprising.
In his latest article about the situation, Fidel Castro stresses the fact that, “it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent,” adding that Libya “opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment” and that, “many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies.” And as a result “Aznar was full of praise for Gaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain, they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased.” (Cuba Debate)
Illustration: CROIn his recent interviews with the BBC and ABC news Gaddafi himself explained how he felt “betrayed” by the Western powers. After having supported them and followed their policies for a number of years now they are abandoning him. Even the rhetoric he uses demonstrates that. When accusing the rebels of being manipulated by Al Qaeda, he is using the same scare-mongering tactics that Ben Ali and above all Mubarak used earlier on, and in reality is asking the West for support against the common enemy. The real character of Gaddafi’s regime can be deduced from his position regarding the revolutionary uprising in Tunisia, where he came out firmly on the side of Western ally Ben Ali and criticized the Tunisian workers and youth for having overthrown him!
As for the truth of what is really happening in Libya, one does not need to listen to the Western media. Saif al Islam, Gaddafi’s son and right hand man, himself admitted to the use of the army against unarmed demonstrators in his speech on February 20:
“Of course there were many deaths, which angered many people in Benghazi, but why were there people killed? The army was under stress, it is not used to crowd control so they shot, but I called them. The army said that some protesters were drunk, others were on hallucinogens or drugs. The army has to defend its weapons. And the people were angry. So there were deaths, but in the end Libyans were killed.”
Gaddafi himself has admitted that “a few hundred were killed”, but put it down to Al Qaeda distributing drugs to the youth!!
The story reported by TeleSUR’s correspondent in Libya, Reed Lindsay (twitter.com/reedtelesur), confirms the reports coming from other sources: there were popular, peaceful and unarmed demonstrations and the army opened fire (see for instance this report: Telesur). In a report he sent from Brega on March 2 (Telesur), he described how there were soldiers that had joined the rebellion but also “citizens of all kinds, I have spoken to doctors, engineers, workers from the oil company, here they are all in rebellion, part of the uprising and armed” adding that “this rebellion started peacefully, two weeks ago, but now the people are armed to struggle until they achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi.” He also rejected the notion that there is a civil war in Libya: “We are not talking about a civil war here… this started as peaceful demonstrators being attacked by security forces using heavy gunfire.”(Union Radio)
As part of his reporting, Reed Lindsay, has also confirmed all the reports that show how the Libyan people who have risen up against Gaddafi are staunchly against foreign intervention. “They say that if the US troops arrive here, they will fight them in the same way they are fighting against the government of Gaddafi.”
The other important point that Lindsay has made in his reports is regarding the attitude of the people, both in Benghazi and Brega, towards Latin American governments, and particularly those of the ALBA countries. In Brega many people are asking “why the Venezuelan president and other Latin American presidents who are in favour of social justice and revolutionary change are supporting a dictator who is using the Army against his own people” he said (Union Radio). “They are asking the ALBA countries to break with Gaddafi and support the revolutionary struggle of the Libyan people” he reported from Benghazi. According to him, the people in Ajdabiya talk of a “common struggle with the peoples of Latin America” (Twitter. We are quoting from Reed Lindsay, because he cannot be accused of being an agent of imperialism or of distorting the news in order to justify an intervention by imperialism.
Even the other TeleSUR correspondent, Jordan RodrÃguez, who is basically just reporting what Gaddafi and other officials are saying, without any comment, had problems when he attempted to report about clashes in neighbourhoods in Tripoli. His team was detained by police officers for four hours, beaten up, threatened with guns pointed at them and their footage was taken away (Telesur). This was the second time they had been arrested and it happened even though they were travelling in a Venezuelan diplomatic car.
Libyan rebels with a captured anti-aircraft gun. Photo: Al Jazeera EnglishThere is a very important point made in these reports. The Venezuelan revolution and particularly president Chavez are immensely popular in the Arab world, particularly after his very vocal opposition to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The masses in these countries see Hugo Chavez as the leader of an oil country who stands up to imperialism and uses the oil money in order to improve the living conditions of the people. This is in stark contrast to the rulers of their own countries, who are puppets of US imperialism, do not open their mouths against Israel’s aggressions and use the wealth of the country for their own personal enrichment. This is precisely one of the reasons behind the revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses. In an opinion poll conducted in 2009 in several Arab countries, the most popular leader was Hugo Chavez with 36% of support, well ahead of any others (pdf).
The only base of support on which the Venezuelan revolution can count are the masses of workers and youth in the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the world, who feel sympathy and solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution because they would like a similar revolution to take place in their own countries. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution should come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab world, because it is part of the world revolution of which Latin America was for some years the advanced guard. This includes giving support to the Libyan people rising up against Gaddafi, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention.
In his attempts to prevent foreign military intervention in Libya, Hugo Chavez has proposed an international mediation commission to go to Libya. Latest reports in the media indicate that while Gaddafi is said to have accepted this, his son Saif al-Islam has firmly rejected the proposal. "We have to say thank you, but we are able and capable enough to solve our issues by our own people". Venezuelans, he added, "are our friends, we respect them, we like them, but they are far away. They have no idea about Libya. Libya is in the Middle East and North Africa. Venezuela is in Central America." For Saif’s information, Venezuela is not in Central America, but now doubt his mind is concentrated on other matters.
On their part, the Libyan rebels have also rejected the mediation, saying they have not heard about it, but that it is too late for negotiations anyway, and that too many people have been killed by Gaddafi. If one understands the real essence of the situation in Libya, one of a government brutally putting down peaceful demonstrations of his own people, which then becomes a popular armed uprising with sections of the army and the police going over to the people, then one can understand why this proposal is wrong. It is as if in the last days of the Cuban revolution, when the revolutionary army was about to overthrow Batista, someone had said, “wait a second, let’s have international mediation so that there can be an understanding between Batista and the M26J movement.”
The only position a revolutionary can take in a situation like this is one of support for the revolutionary uprising of the Libyan people. If Hugo Chavez does not come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary masses of the Arab world then he would be making a serious mistake, one for which the Venezuelan revolution can pay dearly. Hugo Chavez is looking at the Libyan situation through Venezuelan lenses, making the wrong comparisons. The Libyan rebels cannot be compared to the Venezuelan opposition and the position that regime of Gaddafi finds itself in cannot in any way be compared to that facing Chavez.
We must be clear: what we are seeing in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is not an April 11, 2002 coup justified with media manipulation, but rather a February 27, 1989, a Caracazo-like uprising, in which the governments are using the Army against unarmed demonstrators. While opposing imperialist intervention, we must be clear what side we are on: that of the Libyan people against the Gaddafi regime.
Written by Jorge MartÃn
Friday, 04 March 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in Latin America about the events unfolding in Libya. This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention. We also critically examine the position adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Zawiyah. Photo: bandolero69The governments of Venezuela and Cuba have correctly stood up in international institutions to oppose any imperialist intervention in Libya. They have criticised the hypocrisy of those countries who raise a hue and cry over human rights violations in Libya while at the same time having participated in murderous imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supported the brutal repression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
The Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, explained it this way:
“Who pays for the more than one million dead in Iraq? Who pays for the permanent massacre against the Palestinian people? Why is it that those responsible for these crimes of war, genocide and against humanity – who are known to all and publicly recognise their deed – are not taken to the International Court of Justice? What does the Security Council do faced with these horrible massacres that take place?”
Quite correctly, the Venezuelan representatives denounced the real aims of the intervention of imperialism in the region:
“Those who promote the use of military force against Libya, do not seek to defend human rights, but to establish a protectorate in order to violate them, as is always the case, in a country which is one of the most important sources of oil and energy in the Middle East”.
The people of Iraq are a testimony to this fact. Washington made up an excuse (so-called “weapons of mass destruction”) in order to attack Iraq so that they could reassert their power and regain direct control over crucial oil resources. The aim of the invasion was not to “establish democracy” and certainly there is very little democracy in Iraq now under the Maliki government. Thousands of Iraqis marched last month demanding electricity, water, jobs and bread and they were met with the brutal repression of government forces, leading to deaths, injuries, arrests and kidnappings. And yet no one is suggesting taking the government of Iraq to the International courts!
The United Nations is in fact a farce. It is a body that merely reflects the domination of US imperialism. When the US are able to get resolutions passed in order to justify their actions, they use the UN as a fig leaf. When, for whatever reason, they are not able to get their aims endorsed by the UN, they ignore the UN and carry them out regardless. And, finally, when resolutions are passed against their imperialist aims (for instance against the blockade on Cuba or condemning Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people), they simply ignore them, and they are never enforced. In the recent case of the resolution on Israeli settlements on Palestinian Territory, the US used its veto to block resolution. So much for justice and human rights.
In the last few days there has been a lot of noise and some concrete actions on the part of imperialist nations regarding Libya. The US has now moved two amphibious warships, the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, carrying helicopters and fighter jets, into the Mediterranean. Under the cover of so-called “humanitarian intervention”, imperialist powers (including the US, UK, France and Italy) amongst others, are discussing what action they can take to secure their own interests. European countries are mainly worried about the possible arrival of a mass of refugees on their shores. Another worry is control over oil resources and above all the impact of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Arab world on oil prices and the knock on effect this could have on the capitalist economy as a whole.
The most discussed option is a “no-fly zone”, which has been advocated amongst others by both Republican senator John McCain and Democratic senator John Kerry. For his own reasons, British Prime Minister David Cameron, has also made belligerent noises, attempting to puff up a role in world politics for Britain that it can no longer really play.
However, the truth is that even a limited intervention in the form of a no fly-zone would be risky and complicated to implement. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that “there’s a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options.” He warned of the implications of such an action: “Let’s just call a spade a spade: a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya, to destroy the air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone... It also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. So it is a big operation in a big country.”
The US military is already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he stressed: “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” he said. “And what other allies are prepared to work with us in some of these things?”
However, the main worry imperialist planners have regarding intervention in Libya is the backlash this would generate throughout the region. The masses are sick and tired of imperialism and the revolutionary wave which is sweeping the Arab world is directly aimed at US-sponsored regimes. Gates showed that the US ruling class is aware of this when he said: “We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the US military in another country in the Middle East.”
These considerations, of course, do not rule out imperialist intervention in Libya or anywhere else, if their vital interests come under threat. However, they do underline the fact that the US has been caught unawares by the present revolutionary wave and has been unable to intervene decisively to steer the course of events in their favour.
In the face of imperialism’s manoeuvres, and also the inconsistent manner in which they deal with the matter of “human rights” and “crimes against humanity”, Venezuela and Cuba are correct in exposing the hypocrisy of imperialism and agitating against any foreign powers intervening in Libya.
However, the case that is being made by both countries, and most prominently by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, is undermined by the fact that they are perceived as being supportive of Gaddafi, instead of supporting the masses of the Libyan people who have risen up against his regime.
It is true that Venezuelan ambassador to the UN said in his speech that Venezuela “greets the Arab peoples who are in a process of peaceful and justice seeking rebellion, and looking for a better future through peaceful roads”. But at the same time Fidel Castro has argued that the problems faced by Libya are different to those faced by Tunisia and Egypt. He has added that while “there is no doubt that the faces of those protesting in Benghazi expressed real indignation”, there has been a “colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media, which led to great confusion on the part of the world’s public opinion”.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has also said that he “refuses to condemn Gaddafi” who has been “a long-time friend of Venezuela” because apparently there is not enough information on the situation. He has used the example of April 11, 2002, when the world’s media accused Chavez of having ordered the army to fire on unarmed demonstrators in order to justify the coup against him. As we all know, it was later on proven that it had all been a set up, with hired snipers firing on opposition and revolutionary demonstrators alike.
However, in the case of Libya, the situation is completely different. In Venezuela what we had was a reactionary movement against a democratically elected government attempting to implement progressive reforms and standing up against imperialism. In Libya we have a popular uprising against an oppressive regime which had made all sorts of deals with imperialism.
To a certain extent, it can be understood why there is confusion in Venezuela about the real nature of what is really happening in Libya. The Venezuelan people no longer trust the capitalist media, completely discredited by the role they played in the coup in 2002. Furthermore, the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition is attempting to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolution, saying that “the next dictator to fall will be Hugo Chavez”.
It is a matter of public record that the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition receives funding, training and support of all kinds from Washington. On a number of occasions they have organized their forces on the streets to make it look as if Chavez were a tyrant facing popular opposition (in the run up to the April 11, 2002, coup, during the oil lock out in December 2002, during the guarimba in 2004, the student protests in defence of RCTV, etc). They will not hesitate in doing it again. However, what we are seeing in the Arab world is precisely the opposite: a series of revolutionary uprisings against US backed dictatorial regimes.
It is true that the Libyan regime of Gaddafi came to power at the head of a movement with large popular support against the rotten monarchy of Kind Idris in 1969. In the 1970s, influenced by the previous wave of the Arab revolution, and under the impact of the 1974 worldwide recession, the regime moved further to the left, expelling imperialism and making deep inroads against capitalist property. Basing itself on the oil wealth of the country and the small size of its population, it was able to implement many progressive reforms and substantially increase the standard of the living of the overwhelming majority of Libyans.
However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the regime started making openings to imperialism. Already in 1993 laws guaranteeing foreign investment were passed. And it was after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 that Gaddafi decided to settle affairs with imperialism signing a number of deals for decommissioning its weapons of mass destruction, paying reparations to the victims of terrorist bombings, etc. The regime became a loyal partner of imperialism in the so-called “war on terror” and collaborated with the European Union in order to strengthen “fortress Europe” against the entry of sub-Saharan illegal immigrants.
This was accompanied by requesting entry into the WTO, creating Special Trade Zones, privatizing large parts of the economy, allowing back oil multinationals into the oil industry and eliminating subsidies on basic foodstuffs. The aim was to privatise 100% of the economy, according to Libyan officials. It was precisely the implementation of these policies that led to increased unemployment (between 20 and 30%), poverty and inequality, that played a key role in the current uprising.
In his latest article about the situation, Fidel Castro stresses the fact that, “it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent,” adding that Libya “opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment” and that, “many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies.” And as a result “Aznar was full of praise for Gaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain, they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased.” (Cuba Debate)
Illustration: CROIn his recent interviews with the BBC and ABC news Gaddafi himself explained how he felt “betrayed” by the Western powers. After having supported them and followed their policies for a number of years now they are abandoning him. Even the rhetoric he uses demonstrates that. When accusing the rebels of being manipulated by Al Qaeda, he is using the same scare-mongering tactics that Ben Ali and above all Mubarak used earlier on, and in reality is asking the West for support against the common enemy. The real character of Gaddafi’s regime can be deduced from his position regarding the revolutionary uprising in Tunisia, where he came out firmly on the side of Western ally Ben Ali and criticized the Tunisian workers and youth for having overthrown him!
As for the truth of what is really happening in Libya, one does not need to listen to the Western media. Saif al Islam, Gaddafi’s son and right hand man, himself admitted to the use of the army against unarmed demonstrators in his speech on February 20:
“Of course there were many deaths, which angered many people in Benghazi, but why were there people killed? The army was under stress, it is not used to crowd control so they shot, but I called them. The army said that some protesters were drunk, others were on hallucinogens or drugs. The army has to defend its weapons. And the people were angry. So there were deaths, but in the end Libyans were killed.”
Gaddafi himself has admitted that “a few hundred were killed”, but put it down to Al Qaeda distributing drugs to the youth!!
The story reported by TeleSUR’s correspondent in Libya, Reed Lindsay (twitter.com/reedtelesur), confirms the reports coming from other sources: there were popular, peaceful and unarmed demonstrations and the army opened fire (see for instance this report: Telesur). In a report he sent from Brega on March 2 (Telesur), he described how there were soldiers that had joined the rebellion but also “citizens of all kinds, I have spoken to doctors, engineers, workers from the oil company, here they are all in rebellion, part of the uprising and armed” adding that “this rebellion started peacefully, two weeks ago, but now the people are armed to struggle until they achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi.” He also rejected the notion that there is a civil war in Libya: “We are not talking about a civil war here… this started as peaceful demonstrators being attacked by security forces using heavy gunfire.”(Union Radio)
As part of his reporting, Reed Lindsay, has also confirmed all the reports that show how the Libyan people who have risen up against Gaddafi are staunchly against foreign intervention. “They say that if the US troops arrive here, they will fight them in the same way they are fighting against the government of Gaddafi.”
The other important point that Lindsay has made in his reports is regarding the attitude of the people, both in Benghazi and Brega, towards Latin American governments, and particularly those of the ALBA countries. In Brega many people are asking “why the Venezuelan president and other Latin American presidents who are in favour of social justice and revolutionary change are supporting a dictator who is using the Army against his own people” he said (Union Radio). “They are asking the ALBA countries to break with Gaddafi and support the revolutionary struggle of the Libyan people” he reported from Benghazi. According to him, the people in Ajdabiya talk of a “common struggle with the peoples of Latin America” (Twitter. We are quoting from Reed Lindsay, because he cannot be accused of being an agent of imperialism or of distorting the news in order to justify an intervention by imperialism.
Even the other TeleSUR correspondent, Jordan RodrÃguez, who is basically just reporting what Gaddafi and other officials are saying, without any comment, had problems when he attempted to report about clashes in neighbourhoods in Tripoli. His team was detained by police officers for four hours, beaten up, threatened with guns pointed at them and their footage was taken away (Telesur). This was the second time they had been arrested and it happened even though they were travelling in a Venezuelan diplomatic car.
Libyan rebels with a captured anti-aircraft gun. Photo: Al Jazeera EnglishThere is a very important point made in these reports. The Venezuelan revolution and particularly president Chavez are immensely popular in the Arab world, particularly after his very vocal opposition to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The masses in these countries see Hugo Chavez as the leader of an oil country who stands up to imperialism and uses the oil money in order to improve the living conditions of the people. This is in stark contrast to the rulers of their own countries, who are puppets of US imperialism, do not open their mouths against Israel’s aggressions and use the wealth of the country for their own personal enrichment. This is precisely one of the reasons behind the revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses. In an opinion poll conducted in 2009 in several Arab countries, the most popular leader was Hugo Chavez with 36% of support, well ahead of any others (pdf).
The only base of support on which the Venezuelan revolution can count are the masses of workers and youth in the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the world, who feel sympathy and solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution because they would like a similar revolution to take place in their own countries. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution should come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab world, because it is part of the world revolution of which Latin America was for some years the advanced guard. This includes giving support to the Libyan people rising up against Gaddafi, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention.
In his attempts to prevent foreign military intervention in Libya, Hugo Chavez has proposed an international mediation commission to go to Libya. Latest reports in the media indicate that while Gaddafi is said to have accepted this, his son Saif al-Islam has firmly rejected the proposal. "We have to say thank you, but we are able and capable enough to solve our issues by our own people". Venezuelans, he added, "are our friends, we respect them, we like them, but they are far away. They have no idea about Libya. Libya is in the Middle East and North Africa. Venezuela is in Central America." For Saif’s information, Venezuela is not in Central America, but now doubt his mind is concentrated on other matters.
On their part, the Libyan rebels have also rejected the mediation, saying they have not heard about it, but that it is too late for negotiations anyway, and that too many people have been killed by Gaddafi. If one understands the real essence of the situation in Libya, one of a government brutally putting down peaceful demonstrations of his own people, which then becomes a popular armed uprising with sections of the army and the police going over to the people, then one can understand why this proposal is wrong. It is as if in the last days of the Cuban revolution, when the revolutionary army was about to overthrow Batista, someone had said, “wait a second, let’s have international mediation so that there can be an understanding between Batista and the M26J movement.”
The only position a revolutionary can take in a situation like this is one of support for the revolutionary uprising of the Libyan people. If Hugo Chavez does not come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary masses of the Arab world then he would be making a serious mistake, one for which the Venezuelan revolution can pay dearly. Hugo Chavez is looking at the Libyan situation through Venezuelan lenses, making the wrong comparisons. The Libyan rebels cannot be compared to the Venezuelan opposition and the position that regime of Gaddafi finds itself in cannot in any way be compared to that facing Chavez.
We must be clear: what we are seeing in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is not an April 11, 2002 coup justified with media manipulation, but rather a February 27, 1989, a Caracazo-like uprising, in which the governments are using the Army against unarmed demonstrators. While opposing imperialist intervention, we must be clear what side we are on: that of the Libyan people against the Gaddafi regime.
From The SteveLendmanBlog-America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Sunday, March 06, 2011
America's War on Libya
America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Since WW II alone, America waged direct and proxy wars against Korea, Southeast Asia, Central and South American countries, African ones, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and now Egypt and Libya. One down, one to go, besides dozens of attempted and successful coups, as well as numerous other interventions to control world markets, resources and people. Imperial America doesn't sleep. It plots, deciding where next to strike.
Despite popular passion for democratic change, uprisings in Egypt and Libya were externally orchestrated, funded and armed by Washington to replace one despot with another. Democracy won't be tolerated. It's never been at home.
America's media go along, especially when Washington goes to war or plans one. In the lead: The New York Times, the nation's equivalent of an official information and propaganda ministry, posing as independent journalism.
It's February 28 editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies" made baseless accusations, then called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes. Indeed it should - against America and Western co-conspirators, not Libya, for instigating regional aggression, a reality The Times ignored, besides previously against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other US targets.
On March 4, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless," saying:
Gaddafi attacked "unarmed protesters....His militia's actions seemed likely to stir renewed debate over international intervention to limit his use of military power against his own citizens, possibly by imposing a no-flight zone." If established, it's an act of war ahead of aggressive air attacks against a defenseless country, America's latest imperial target.
Kirkpatrick's article read more like bad fiction than real journalism, borrowing a page from now disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller, who functioned as a Pentagon press agent, promoting America's planned Iraq conquest and occupation. Now it's Libya, struggling to defend itself against naked aggression, covert so far but not for long, claiming "humanitarian intervention."
US warships are now positioned in the Mediterranean close by. About 1,200 Marines went to Greece for "Operation Libya." "Rebels" are being sent military and other supplies. Armed intervention is coming, colonial subjugation planned. Libya's "humanitarian crisis" was made in the USA. The pattern by now is familiar, used against many past targets.
On March 4, hinting about what's already begun, Obama said:
"So what I want to make sure of is that the United States has full capacity to act potentially rapidly if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on our hands, or a situation in which civilians were - defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger."
He already called on Gaddafi to step down. Among his options, he included a no-fly zone, saying:
"I don't want us hamstrung. I want us to be making our decision based on what's going to be best for the Libyan people in consultation with the international community."
In Geneva, Hillary Clinton called intervention "an option we are actively considering," referring to a no-fly zone and other measures. Stiff economic sanctions were also imposed, effective 8:00PM EST February 25."
The die is cast. Colonizing Libya is planned to exploit its vast energy reserves, other resources, and people, doing what's best for Washington, not Libyans, what's always top priority.
Major Media Suppressed Independent Voices
On August 13, 2011, Fidel Castro will be 85. An elder statesman, he remains active, thoughtful and incisive, now writing commentaries on world issues. On March 3, the Havana Times headlined, "Fidel Castro Forecasts War on Libya," publishing his full article in English.
Until America intervened, Libya "occupie(d) the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa," including the continent's highest life expectancy. Authorities gave special attention to healthcare and education. Poverty is low. "The cultural level of the population is without a doubt the highest. The population wasn't lacking food and essential social services." Employment was plentiful, including for "hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries (to) carry out ambitious plans for production and social development."
America plans naked aggression to halt them. "The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media," distorts reality on the ground, including by Al Jazeera. Its daily commentaries feature misinformation and distortions based on unverified reports, including about alleged bombings that Russian satellite imagery proved untrue. Nonetheless, Gaddafi is falsely called an aggressor, not victim, his regional despot status notwithstanding.
Telesur Journalists Targeted
Reporting from Libya, Pan American broadcaster Telesur's Jordan Rodriguez said members of his team were threatened, assaulted, and arrested for trying to report events accurately, including about pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli's Green Square.
Prior to Mubarak's ouster, Egypt's military junta detained and interrogated its Cairo team, preventing them from reporting the same way. Other independent journalists were also accosted. Dozens of incidents were reported.
Telesur's Rodrigo Hernandez said he and his colleagues were bullied face down on the pavement, left there for hours, then "forced into an armored police vehicle, with armed personnel inside, and blindfolded," en route to a military barracks for questioning.
They were also threatened with imprisonment, deportation, or "something much worse" if they kept reporting and were detained again. Similar tactics are ongoing in Libya to prevent accurate reports coming out. Imperial Washington wants none of its plans exposed.
Accurate Independent Journalism
Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and longtime observer of African country events. On March 1, his article titled, "Petroleum & Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway" provided detailed Libyan information. Access it through the following link:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
Key points he stressed included:
-- In 2004, America's sanctions were dropped "in exchange for Gaddafi's (limited) collaboration, (paving) the way for a new era of US-Libyan bilateral trade." America's main interest is Libya's vast oil, gas and other mineral reserves. The Oil and Gas Journal estimates 46.4 billion barrels of oil and around 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, producing 95% of Libya's 2010 export earnings. Its petrodollars "were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into (companies) like the Carlyle Group, one of America's most seedy arms dealers."
-- the CIA "long wanted" Gaddafi removed and replaced." In 1986, Reagan-ordered air strikes tried to kill him. His infant daughter was murdered instead. "The CIA (downed) Pan Am 103," not Gaddafi who had nothing to do with it.
-- Libya's "opposition" includes "unspecified, unnamed, unidenfied 'rebels' of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protesters...." They seemingly "appeared out of thin air." Who they are isn't explained. NFSL, in fact, was established in 1981 by Sudan's Colonel Jaafer Nimieri, a US puppet dictator from 1971 - 1985.
-- For decades, CIA front groups have been operating in Libya, "backing armed insurgents and interventions" portrayed as "pro-democracy" movements.
-- Western media is reporting misinformation about events on the ground, including alleged bombings, massacres, and possible nerve gas used. None of it is credible. Libya, in fact, is being attacked. It's responding in self-defense.
-- Vicious propaganda is being used to enlist support for imperial intervention. "US troops have already moved ashore....joining the 'opposition....The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya." British and American Special Forces are operating out of Benghazi and Tobruck. Other covert US forces have been on the ground for weeks. Nothing humanitarian is planned.
-- More than oil and gas is wanted. So are valued mineral deposits. "Libya has a huge land mass with massive untapped mineral potential (including uranium)," besides known energy resources.
-- Accusing Gaddafi of genocide is malicious and untrue, like other major media fabrications. Their "disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds." No verifiable evidence exists, but there's plenty proving US genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in other targeted countries, causing many millions of deaths for decades. Western media air brushed them out, including The New York Times, America's lead propaganda instrument.
In "Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective," Gerald Perreira wrote:
"The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. (It's) fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject (his) vision of Libya as part of a United Africa."
"For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and 'Westoxicated' analysts who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on....Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside the Western imagination."
As a result, all Western government and media reports lack credibility. They're malicious imperial agitprop, including from top officials, BBC and Al Jazeera, each with its own agenda, all serving Western interests, harmful to Libyans.
A Final Comment
Ongoing events in Libya are familiar. Like many of his past counterparts, Gaddafi's been targeted for removal. For weeks or much longer, covert CIA and Special Forces operatives recruited, funded and armed so-called "opposition forces." They, not Gaddafi, instigated violence, heading for civil war. He responded in self-defense. Doing less would be irresponsible.
Western media portray instigators as victims, saying Gaddafi's waging war on his people. America and Western nations are called white knights, offering "humanitarian intervention" when, if fact, imperial colonization is planned. The longer violence continues, the more false media reports will exaggerate it, enlisting support for another nation to be destroyed to save it.
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Pakistanis, and many other oppressed people understand, victimized by imperial aggression, occupation, exploitation, immiseration, and regular drone attacks murdering innocent men, women and children called militants.
The latest in Afghanistan were nine young children, aged seven to 12, gathering wood in the mountains near their village. They were murdered in cold blood, what's escalating in Libya, being softened up in preparation for colonization and greater harshness.
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/.
America's War on Libya
America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Since WW II alone, America waged direct and proxy wars against Korea, Southeast Asia, Central and South American countries, African ones, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and now Egypt and Libya. One down, one to go, besides dozens of attempted and successful coups, as well as numerous other interventions to control world markets, resources and people. Imperial America doesn't sleep. It plots, deciding where next to strike.
Despite popular passion for democratic change, uprisings in Egypt and Libya were externally orchestrated, funded and armed by Washington to replace one despot with another. Democracy won't be tolerated. It's never been at home.
America's media go along, especially when Washington goes to war or plans one. In the lead: The New York Times, the nation's equivalent of an official information and propaganda ministry, posing as independent journalism.
It's February 28 editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies" made baseless accusations, then called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes. Indeed it should - against America and Western co-conspirators, not Libya, for instigating regional aggression, a reality The Times ignored, besides previously against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other US targets.
On March 4, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless," saying:
Gaddafi attacked "unarmed protesters....His militia's actions seemed likely to stir renewed debate over international intervention to limit his use of military power against his own citizens, possibly by imposing a no-flight zone." If established, it's an act of war ahead of aggressive air attacks against a defenseless country, America's latest imperial target.
Kirkpatrick's article read more like bad fiction than real journalism, borrowing a page from now disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller, who functioned as a Pentagon press agent, promoting America's planned Iraq conquest and occupation. Now it's Libya, struggling to defend itself against naked aggression, covert so far but not for long, claiming "humanitarian intervention."
US warships are now positioned in the Mediterranean close by. About 1,200 Marines went to Greece for "Operation Libya." "Rebels" are being sent military and other supplies. Armed intervention is coming, colonial subjugation planned. Libya's "humanitarian crisis" was made in the USA. The pattern by now is familiar, used against many past targets.
On March 4, hinting about what's already begun, Obama said:
"So what I want to make sure of is that the United States has full capacity to act potentially rapidly if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on our hands, or a situation in which civilians were - defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger."
He already called on Gaddafi to step down. Among his options, he included a no-fly zone, saying:
"I don't want us hamstrung. I want us to be making our decision based on what's going to be best for the Libyan people in consultation with the international community."
In Geneva, Hillary Clinton called intervention "an option we are actively considering," referring to a no-fly zone and other measures. Stiff economic sanctions were also imposed, effective 8:00PM EST February 25."
The die is cast. Colonizing Libya is planned to exploit its vast energy reserves, other resources, and people, doing what's best for Washington, not Libyans, what's always top priority.
Major Media Suppressed Independent Voices
On August 13, 2011, Fidel Castro will be 85. An elder statesman, he remains active, thoughtful and incisive, now writing commentaries on world issues. On March 3, the Havana Times headlined, "Fidel Castro Forecasts War on Libya," publishing his full article in English.
Until America intervened, Libya "occupie(d) the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa," including the continent's highest life expectancy. Authorities gave special attention to healthcare and education. Poverty is low. "The cultural level of the population is without a doubt the highest. The population wasn't lacking food and essential social services." Employment was plentiful, including for "hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries (to) carry out ambitious plans for production and social development."
America plans naked aggression to halt them. "The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media," distorts reality on the ground, including by Al Jazeera. Its daily commentaries feature misinformation and distortions based on unverified reports, including about alleged bombings that Russian satellite imagery proved untrue. Nonetheless, Gaddafi is falsely called an aggressor, not victim, his regional despot status notwithstanding.
Telesur Journalists Targeted
Reporting from Libya, Pan American broadcaster Telesur's Jordan Rodriguez said members of his team were threatened, assaulted, and arrested for trying to report events accurately, including about pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli's Green Square.
Prior to Mubarak's ouster, Egypt's military junta detained and interrogated its Cairo team, preventing them from reporting the same way. Other independent journalists were also accosted. Dozens of incidents were reported.
Telesur's Rodrigo Hernandez said he and his colleagues were bullied face down on the pavement, left there for hours, then "forced into an armored police vehicle, with armed personnel inside, and blindfolded," en route to a military barracks for questioning.
They were also threatened with imprisonment, deportation, or "something much worse" if they kept reporting and were detained again. Similar tactics are ongoing in Libya to prevent accurate reports coming out. Imperial Washington wants none of its plans exposed.
Accurate Independent Journalism
Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and longtime observer of African country events. On March 1, his article titled, "Petroleum & Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway" provided detailed Libyan information. Access it through the following link:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
Key points he stressed included:
-- In 2004, America's sanctions were dropped "in exchange for Gaddafi's (limited) collaboration, (paving) the way for a new era of US-Libyan bilateral trade." America's main interest is Libya's vast oil, gas and other mineral reserves. The Oil and Gas Journal estimates 46.4 billion barrels of oil and around 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, producing 95% of Libya's 2010 export earnings. Its petrodollars "were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into (companies) like the Carlyle Group, one of America's most seedy arms dealers."
-- the CIA "long wanted" Gaddafi removed and replaced." In 1986, Reagan-ordered air strikes tried to kill him. His infant daughter was murdered instead. "The CIA (downed) Pan Am 103," not Gaddafi who had nothing to do with it.
-- Libya's "opposition" includes "unspecified, unnamed, unidenfied 'rebels' of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protesters...." They seemingly "appeared out of thin air." Who they are isn't explained. NFSL, in fact, was established in 1981 by Sudan's Colonel Jaafer Nimieri, a US puppet dictator from 1971 - 1985.
-- For decades, CIA front groups have been operating in Libya, "backing armed insurgents and interventions" portrayed as "pro-democracy" movements.
-- Western media is reporting misinformation about events on the ground, including alleged bombings, massacres, and possible nerve gas used. None of it is credible. Libya, in fact, is being attacked. It's responding in self-defense.
-- Vicious propaganda is being used to enlist support for imperial intervention. "US troops have already moved ashore....joining the 'opposition....The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya." British and American Special Forces are operating out of Benghazi and Tobruck. Other covert US forces have been on the ground for weeks. Nothing humanitarian is planned.
-- More than oil and gas is wanted. So are valued mineral deposits. "Libya has a huge land mass with massive untapped mineral potential (including uranium)," besides known energy resources.
-- Accusing Gaddafi of genocide is malicious and untrue, like other major media fabrications. Their "disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds." No verifiable evidence exists, but there's plenty proving US genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in other targeted countries, causing many millions of deaths for decades. Western media air brushed them out, including The New York Times, America's lead propaganda instrument.
In "Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective," Gerald Perreira wrote:
"The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. (It's) fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject (his) vision of Libya as part of a United Africa."
"For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and 'Westoxicated' analysts who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on....Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside the Western imagination."
As a result, all Western government and media reports lack credibility. They're malicious imperial agitprop, including from top officials, BBC and Al Jazeera, each with its own agenda, all serving Western interests, harmful to Libyans.
A Final Comment
Ongoing events in Libya are familiar. Like many of his past counterparts, Gaddafi's been targeted for removal. For weeks or much longer, covert CIA and Special Forces operatives recruited, funded and armed so-called "opposition forces." They, not Gaddafi, instigated violence, heading for civil war. He responded in self-defense. Doing less would be irresponsible.
Western media portray instigators as victims, saying Gaddafi's waging war on his people. America and Western nations are called white knights, offering "humanitarian intervention" when, if fact, imperial colonization is planned. The longer violence continues, the more false media reports will exaggerate it, enlisting support for another nation to be destroyed to save it.
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Pakistanis, and many other oppressed people understand, victimized by imperial aggression, occupation, exploitation, immiseration, and regular drone attacks murdering innocent men, women and children called militants.
The latest in Afghanistan were nine young children, aged seven to 12, gathering wood in the mountains near their village. They were murdered in cold blood, what's escalating in Libya, being softened up in preparation for colonization and greater harshness.
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/.
From The StevLendmanBlog-Pack Journalism Promotes War on Libya
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Pack Journalism Promotes War on Libya
Pack Journalism Promotes War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
America's major media never met an imperial war it didn't love and promote, never mind how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive.
Despite Washington already bogged down in two losing ones, Obama's heading for another on Libya, the media pack in the lead clamoring for it, perhaps by "shock and awe," supplemented by special forces death squads on the ground recruiting, inciting, and arming opposition elements.
Notably favoring intervention, a New York Times February 24 editorial headlined, "Stopping Qaffafi," saying:
Unless he's stopped, he'll "slaughter hundreds or even thousands of his own people in his desperation to hang on to power."
Where's the Times outrage over millions Washington slaughtered, hundreds more killed daily, its ties to global despots, its funding and support for Israeli brutality against Palestinians, and its imperial insanity to achieve unchallengeable global dominance, no matter how many corpses it takes to do it.
Nonetheless, The Times hailed Libyan courage, asking for more Western support, implying the belligerent kind. "Colonel Qaddafi and his henchmen have to be told in credible and very specific terms the price they will pay for any more killing. They need to start paying now. (The) longer the world temporizes, the more people die."
On February 28, The Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," saying:
His "crimes continue to mount. Rebel commanders said (his) warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country." However, Russian satellite imagery showed no bombing evidence or destruction on the ground. So much for The Times or other major media credibility, reporting the same unverified accounts.
On March 8, The Times headlined, "Washington's Options on Libya," saying:
"....some way must be found to support Libya's uprising and stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering his people....It would be a disaster if (he) managed to cling to power by butchering his own people."
Indisputably, Gaddafi is a despot, but he didn't initiate conflict. Western powers did, sending in covert intelligence and special forces to incite, arm and support it.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that UK commandos were in Benghazi. So did Foreign Secretary William Hague, telling Parliament it was "a serious misunderstanding," drawing laughs from opposition benches.
Channel 4 News aired a video with him saying intelligence and elite special forces were on "a diplomatic mission" to make contact with rebel elements. However, he left unexplained why they arrived secretly by helicopter at 2AM with no advance warning. In fact, the Cameron/Hague "misunderstanding" came to enlist and incite violence along with US special forces there for the same purpose. Commandos are trained killers, not diplomats.
As a result, Gaddafi responded in self-defense. Washington and NATO bear full responsibility for growing daily casualties. Blood's on their hands. It's their cross to bear, costing many Libyan lives.
It hardly matters for greater stakes, including:
-- replacing one despot with another;
-- preventing democratization;
-- colonizing Libya;
-- controlling its oil, gas and other resources;
-- privatizing its state industries, handing them over to Western interests;
-- perhaps balkanizing the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq - in other words, effectively destroying it for profit and control, as well as using it as a platform to intimidate other regional states to comply fully with Western diktats - or else; and
-- exploiting its people ruthlessly as serf labor.
It's a familiar Western scheme, justified as "humanitarian intervention," what America, above all, doesn't give a damn about and never did, seeking only imperial dominance, no matter how much death and destruction it takes to get it. "Operation Libya" had antecedents, notably in Yugoslavia and Iraq, two previous countries Western powers destroyed and now exploit.
International Law on Self-Defense and External Intervention - Humanitarian or Otherwise
International law authorizes Gaddafi to respond in self-defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter's Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression" states:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
In other words, self-defense is permissible. Moreover, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council.
Three General Assembly resolutions also prohibit non-consensual belligerent intervention, including:
-- the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;
-- the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
-- the 1974 Definition of Aggression.
Under no circumstances, with no exceptions, may one nation, NATO, or other combination of nations intervene against another without specific Security Council authorization. Doing so is illegal aggression, a lawless act of war. Washington and NATO have already initiated conflict. Gaddafi, or any other democrat or despot, legally may respond in self-defense as he's doing, love him or hate him. By law, he's justified.
Yet The Times urges NATO to expand "its air surveillance over Libya (and) share relevant information with the rebels." No matter that violating its air space is illegal and aggressive. The Times also wants pressure put on "Qaddafi and his cronies to cede power," by what authority it didn't say because there is none. No matter because in Times-think, "(i)t would be a disaster if (he) managed to cling to power by butchering his own people."
Hyperbole, misinformation, imperial support, and disdain for international and US laws as well as democratic values are Times specialties - on display backing Washington's attempt to destroy, colonize and exploit another country, no matter the corpse count to do it.
In his March 9 commentary, longtime insider Bob Chapman said the following:
"....as we pointed out after the Tunisian episode, this was the beginning of CIA, MI6 and Mossad planned activities in the Middle East. As usual there were several objectives. The first was a distraction to cover up (Western) financial troubles....The second was to remove Mubarak from his dictatorial position, because (he refused) to participate and agree to an invasion of Iran and to cause chaos in the region, so that (Iranian allies) would not give it assistance in the event of war."
"There was also the matter of controlling Libya's oil and toppling its dictator Gaddafi....From behind the scenes, (new leadership will emerge) tied to the CIA, MI6 and the Mossad. (These plans) have been in the works for years." Unrest will continue. "A solution will be found for Libya, and the west hopes its puppet (Saudi) regime stays in place." If disruption occurs there, America will intervene. Turmoil will continue for some time. "It won't take long for Mr. Gaddafi to be deposed and sent on his way," perhaps by US troops.
More Major Media War Endorsements
With total editorial control, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal aggressively backs imperial wars, notably now against Libya. On February 23, it editorial headlined, "Liberating Libya," saying:
"The US and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Gadhafi regime," replacing him, of course, with a Western favored despot, ceding control to imperial interests.
On March 6, the Journal headlined, "Obama's Libyan Abdication," asking:
"Will the US let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? The greatest danger now to US interests - and to Obama's political standing - would be for (him) to regain control....isolated and dangerous (he'll) likely (abet) terrorists," hyperbole exceeding The New York Times and most other corporate sources.
Not far behind, a February 21 Washington Post editorial screamed, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for his atrocities," calling them "genocide." It was the same deception used before, including against Slobodan Milosevic to justify NATO's punishing 1999 illegal aggression to complete its long-planned Yugoslavia balkanization, defended then as "humanitarian intervention," no matter the vast destruction and loss of lives it caused.
The Post's resident zealot, Charles Krauthammer, called Gaddafi "a capricious killer" in his March 4 "Baghdad to Benghazi" article, saying he's "delusional, unstable and crazy."
On March 8, the Post's Marc Thiessen headlined, "Apply the Reagan Doctrine in Libya," by arming opposition elements, and inciting violence to topple Gaddafi the way Reagan operated in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and Central America, notably against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and FMLN in El Salvador, killing countless tens of thousands in the process, a record airbrushed from official history, calling imperial slaughter "liberation."
Arming Libya's Opposition
On March 7, London Independent writer Robert Fisk headlined, "America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels," saying:
Washington asked "Saudi Arabia (to) supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi." In the 1980s, Saudis helped arm Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and Contra forces in Central America. Asking Saudi help lets Washington deny involvement, perhaps impossible with Fisk breaking the news. He also said "US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya" for days, violating its air space illegally.
Moreover, he noted an "Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt, and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US (UK, and NATO) priorities in the region." They augur no good for Libyans for sure.
A Final Comment
At times, Al Jazeera sounds like BBC, falling short of what viewers deserve. On February 18, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab News Service discussed its coverage, saying:
"I am seething. The coverage of Aljazeera Arabic has become too blatantly politically biased for my taste. They protect their allies and friends and go intensely after the rivals and enemies of Qatar (where it's based) like the regime of Hosni Mubarak."
When GCC countries "decided to back the Bahrain monarchy, Aljazeera quickly reflected that. It is not a story anymore. Aljazeera is extensively covering Libya and Yemen now: not close allies of Qatar. If Mubarak was a member of the GCC, he would have been protected by Aljazeera."
Nonetheless, its service is vastly superior to US corporate news, offering entirely propaganda, sanitized reports and infotainment, a worthless mix to be avoided and condemned.
Reaching 40 million viewers, The New York Times called Al Jazeera "the bete noire" of Arab governments (shaping) popular rage against oppressive American-backed Arab governments (and against Israel) ever since its (1996) founding."
In their recent study on "How Al Jazeera Shapes Political Identities," Erik Nisbet and Teresa Myers found that exposure to Arabic media weakens national identities and strengthens Muslim and Arab ones.
Asked how it affects Middle East protests, Nisbet said:
"In the short term, the Pan-Muslim and Pan-Arab narratives typically embedded in Al Jazeera content, in combination with growing Pan-Muslim and Pan-Arab identification among Arab audiences, most likely facilitate the contagion begun by the Tunisian revolt."
The long-term implications for US foreign policy are also significant, posing "a serious challenge for Egyptian relations with the United States and Israel." Perhaps also for America's regional agenda. The "greater political liberalization combined with the growth of transnational political identification may challenge the United States to enact foreign policy within a regional context dominated by transnational political identities whose interests may be more opposed, or at least less amenable, to US foreign policy goals compared to state-centric identities."
Anything weakening Washington's dominance anywhere is important. Hopefully, Al Jazeera will promote and encourage it by more forcefully opposing imperial intervention, especially by belligerence and occupation.
That would make its service invaluable.
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/.
Pack Journalism Promotes War on Libya
Pack Journalism Promotes War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
America's major media never met an imperial war it didn't love and promote, never mind how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive.
Despite Washington already bogged down in two losing ones, Obama's heading for another on Libya, the media pack in the lead clamoring for it, perhaps by "shock and awe," supplemented by special forces death squads on the ground recruiting, inciting, and arming opposition elements.
Notably favoring intervention, a New York Times February 24 editorial headlined, "Stopping Qaffafi," saying:
Unless he's stopped, he'll "slaughter hundreds or even thousands of his own people in his desperation to hang on to power."
Where's the Times outrage over millions Washington slaughtered, hundreds more killed daily, its ties to global despots, its funding and support for Israeli brutality against Palestinians, and its imperial insanity to achieve unchallengeable global dominance, no matter how many corpses it takes to do it.
Nonetheless, The Times hailed Libyan courage, asking for more Western support, implying the belligerent kind. "Colonel Qaddafi and his henchmen have to be told in credible and very specific terms the price they will pay for any more killing. They need to start paying now. (The) longer the world temporizes, the more people die."
On February 28, The Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," saying:
His "crimes continue to mount. Rebel commanders said (his) warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country." However, Russian satellite imagery showed no bombing evidence or destruction on the ground. So much for The Times or other major media credibility, reporting the same unverified accounts.
On March 8, The Times headlined, "Washington's Options on Libya," saying:
"....some way must be found to support Libya's uprising and stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering his people....It would be a disaster if (he) managed to cling to power by butchering his own people."
Indisputably, Gaddafi is a despot, but he didn't initiate conflict. Western powers did, sending in covert intelligence and special forces to incite, arm and support it.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that UK commandos were in Benghazi. So did Foreign Secretary William Hague, telling Parliament it was "a serious misunderstanding," drawing laughs from opposition benches.
Channel 4 News aired a video with him saying intelligence and elite special forces were on "a diplomatic mission" to make contact with rebel elements. However, he left unexplained why they arrived secretly by helicopter at 2AM with no advance warning. In fact, the Cameron/Hague "misunderstanding" came to enlist and incite violence along with US special forces there for the same purpose. Commandos are trained killers, not diplomats.
As a result, Gaddafi responded in self-defense. Washington and NATO bear full responsibility for growing daily casualties. Blood's on their hands. It's their cross to bear, costing many Libyan lives.
It hardly matters for greater stakes, including:
-- replacing one despot with another;
-- preventing democratization;
-- colonizing Libya;
-- controlling its oil, gas and other resources;
-- privatizing its state industries, handing them over to Western interests;
-- perhaps balkanizing the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq - in other words, effectively destroying it for profit and control, as well as using it as a platform to intimidate other regional states to comply fully with Western diktats - or else; and
-- exploiting its people ruthlessly as serf labor.
It's a familiar Western scheme, justified as "humanitarian intervention," what America, above all, doesn't give a damn about and never did, seeking only imperial dominance, no matter how much death and destruction it takes to get it. "Operation Libya" had antecedents, notably in Yugoslavia and Iraq, two previous countries Western powers destroyed and now exploit.
International Law on Self-Defense and External Intervention - Humanitarian or Otherwise
International law authorizes Gaddafi to respond in self-defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter's Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression" states:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
In other words, self-defense is permissible. Moreover, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council.
Three General Assembly resolutions also prohibit non-consensual belligerent intervention, including:
-- the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;
-- the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
-- the 1974 Definition of Aggression.
Under no circumstances, with no exceptions, may one nation, NATO, or other combination of nations intervene against another without specific Security Council authorization. Doing so is illegal aggression, a lawless act of war. Washington and NATO have already initiated conflict. Gaddafi, or any other democrat or despot, legally may respond in self-defense as he's doing, love him or hate him. By law, he's justified.
Yet The Times urges NATO to expand "its air surveillance over Libya (and) share relevant information with the rebels." No matter that violating its air space is illegal and aggressive. The Times also wants pressure put on "Qaddafi and his cronies to cede power," by what authority it didn't say because there is none. No matter because in Times-think, "(i)t would be a disaster if (he) managed to cling to power by butchering his own people."
Hyperbole, misinformation, imperial support, and disdain for international and US laws as well as democratic values are Times specialties - on display backing Washington's attempt to destroy, colonize and exploit another country, no matter the corpse count to do it.
In his March 9 commentary, longtime insider Bob Chapman said the following:
"....as we pointed out after the Tunisian episode, this was the beginning of CIA, MI6 and Mossad planned activities in the Middle East. As usual there were several objectives. The first was a distraction to cover up (Western) financial troubles....The second was to remove Mubarak from his dictatorial position, because (he refused) to participate and agree to an invasion of Iran and to cause chaos in the region, so that (Iranian allies) would not give it assistance in the event of war."
"There was also the matter of controlling Libya's oil and toppling its dictator Gaddafi....From behind the scenes, (new leadership will emerge) tied to the CIA, MI6 and the Mossad. (These plans) have been in the works for years." Unrest will continue. "A solution will be found for Libya, and the west hopes its puppet (Saudi) regime stays in place." If disruption occurs there, America will intervene. Turmoil will continue for some time. "It won't take long for Mr. Gaddafi to be deposed and sent on his way," perhaps by US troops.
More Major Media War Endorsements
With total editorial control, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal aggressively backs imperial wars, notably now against Libya. On February 23, it editorial headlined, "Liberating Libya," saying:
"The US and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Gadhafi regime," replacing him, of course, with a Western favored despot, ceding control to imperial interests.
On March 6, the Journal headlined, "Obama's Libyan Abdication," asking:
"Will the US let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? The greatest danger now to US interests - and to Obama's political standing - would be for (him) to regain control....isolated and dangerous (he'll) likely (abet) terrorists," hyperbole exceeding The New York Times and most other corporate sources.
Not far behind, a February 21 Washington Post editorial screamed, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for his atrocities," calling them "genocide." It was the same deception used before, including against Slobodan Milosevic to justify NATO's punishing 1999 illegal aggression to complete its long-planned Yugoslavia balkanization, defended then as "humanitarian intervention," no matter the vast destruction and loss of lives it caused.
The Post's resident zealot, Charles Krauthammer, called Gaddafi "a capricious killer" in his March 4 "Baghdad to Benghazi" article, saying he's "delusional, unstable and crazy."
On March 8, the Post's Marc Thiessen headlined, "Apply the Reagan Doctrine in Libya," by arming opposition elements, and inciting violence to topple Gaddafi the way Reagan operated in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and Central America, notably against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and FMLN in El Salvador, killing countless tens of thousands in the process, a record airbrushed from official history, calling imperial slaughter "liberation."
Arming Libya's Opposition
On March 7, London Independent writer Robert Fisk headlined, "America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels," saying:
Washington asked "Saudi Arabia (to) supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi." In the 1980s, Saudis helped arm Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and Contra forces in Central America. Asking Saudi help lets Washington deny involvement, perhaps impossible with Fisk breaking the news. He also said "US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya" for days, violating its air space illegally.
Moreover, he noted an "Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt, and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US (UK, and NATO) priorities in the region." They augur no good for Libyans for sure.
A Final Comment
At times, Al Jazeera sounds like BBC, falling short of what viewers deserve. On February 18, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab News Service discussed its coverage, saying:
"I am seething. The coverage of Aljazeera Arabic has become too blatantly politically biased for my taste. They protect their allies and friends and go intensely after the rivals and enemies of Qatar (where it's based) like the regime of Hosni Mubarak."
When GCC countries "decided to back the Bahrain monarchy, Aljazeera quickly reflected that. It is not a story anymore. Aljazeera is extensively covering Libya and Yemen now: not close allies of Qatar. If Mubarak was a member of the GCC, he would have been protected by Aljazeera."
Nonetheless, its service is vastly superior to US corporate news, offering entirely propaganda, sanitized reports and infotainment, a worthless mix to be avoided and condemned.
Reaching 40 million viewers, The New York Times called Al Jazeera "the bete noire" of Arab governments (shaping) popular rage against oppressive American-backed Arab governments (and against Israel) ever since its (1996) founding."
In their recent study on "How Al Jazeera Shapes Political Identities," Erik Nisbet and Teresa Myers found that exposure to Arabic media weakens national identities and strengthens Muslim and Arab ones.
Asked how it affects Middle East protests, Nisbet said:
"In the short term, the Pan-Muslim and Pan-Arab narratives typically embedded in Al Jazeera content, in combination with growing Pan-Muslim and Pan-Arab identification among Arab audiences, most likely facilitate the contagion begun by the Tunisian revolt."
The long-term implications for US foreign policy are also significant, posing "a serious challenge for Egyptian relations with the United States and Israel." Perhaps also for America's regional agenda. The "greater political liberalization combined with the growth of transnational political identification may challenge the United States to enact foreign policy within a regional context dominated by transnational political identities whose interests may be more opposed, or at least less amenable, to US foreign policy goals compared to state-centric identities."
Anything weakening Washington's dominance anywhere is important. Hopefully, Al Jazeera will promote and encourage it by more forcefully opposing imperial intervention, especially by belligerence and occupation.
That would make its service invaluable.
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/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)