Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana


Never forget what the pedos in the US Government did to Libya

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29338 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:08 AM

The Consequences of the US-NATO Destruction of Libya


Libya is rarely mentioned in the mainstream Western media, which is not surprising because the place is a catastrophic shambles as a result of the US-NATO Operation Unified Protector in 2011 during which the military alliance carried out 9,658 airstrikes and several hundred cruise missile attacks in seven months of war against the Libyan government. They didn’t lose a single aircraft and Human Rights Watch states that “NATO airstrikes killed at least 72 civilians, one-third of them children under age 18.”


On October 30 this year there were yet more civilian deaths from airstrikes, and Al Jazeera reported that “at least 17 people have been killed and more than 30 wounded in an air attack in Libya's eastern city of Derna.” Nobody admitted responsibility for the attacks and there are several countries with the means, motive and opportunity to blitz the place again, with, for example, the United States having carried out a series of “precision” drone strikes on September 22 which killed some savages of Islamic State, which has established bases in the country following the US-NATO war.


It is unlikely, however, that the October attack that killed Libyan civilians was carried out by the US or any other foreign country, and there is little doubt they were killed by aircraft belonging to General Khalifa Haftar, dual Libyan-US citizen, former CIA "asset" living in Virginia State for five years, and now chief of the Libyan National Army which is one of the brigand bands that have flourished in the years since the US-NATO war destroyed the country.


Being subjected to aerial attack is a not a new experience for Libya, because it is the first country ever to have been bombed from an aircraft.


This hideous precedent took place in November 1911 when, only eight years after the Wright Brothers took to the air, Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti of Italy wrote enthusiastically to his father back home that “I am ready. The oasis is about one kilometre away. I can see the Arab tents very well. I take the bomb with my right hand, pull off the security tag and throw the bomb out, avoiding the wing. I can see it falling through the sky for couple of seconds and then it disappears. And after a little while, I can see a small dark cloud in the middle of the encampment. I have hit the target! I then send two other bombs with less success. I still have one left which I decide to launch later on an oasis close to Tripoli. I come back really pleased with the result. I go straight to report to General Caneva. Everybody is satisfied.”


Of course they were satisfied. And you can imagine his descendants — the gallant air warriors of modern times — returning from their bombing and rocketing of some unseen but undoubtedly deserving target and sending an SMS or a Tweet to their nearest and dearest that “I hit the target... I came back really pleased with the result,” just like Lieutenant Gavotti.


And perhaps there were Gavottis in modern cockpits, because the Italian Air Force was heavily involved in the US-NATO blitz on Libya from March to October 2011. On the sidelines, however, Italy’s erratic President, Silvio Berlusconi, an earlier version of Trump, with the same vulgar tastes and salacious habits but more knowledge of the world, expressed doubt about the war. He said he was “against this measure. I had my hands tied by the vote of the parliament of my country... I am against this intervention which will end in a way that no-one knows.”


This was one of Berlusconi’s very few wise statements and was most unfortunately prophetic, although in the year after the blitz two distinguished intellectuals, Ivo Daalder, who was the US Permanent Representative on the NATO Council during the US-NATO war, and Admiral James G (“Zorba”) Stavridis, who was at that time US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO), wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi.”


The word ‘moron’ comes to mind.


Which brings us to the British foreign minister, Boris Johnson, who went to Libya in August to meet General Haftar and achieved nothing, although he did admit that the US-NATO military alliance had been “way over-optimistic” concerning the future of the country following its seven months of bombing and rocketing in support of rebels, including General Haftar who had been flown to Libya from the US in March 2011 by the CIA, just as the US-NATO strikes began.


The 2017 World Report by Human Rights Watch recorded that in Libya, “Forces aligned with all governments and dozens of militias continued to clash, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis with close to half-a-million internally displaced people. The civilian population struggled to gain access to basic services such as healthcare, fuel, and electricity. Militias and armed forces affiliated with the two governments engaged in arbitrary detentions, torture, unlawful killings, indiscriminate attacks, abductions, and forcible disappearances.”


But Boris Johnson told a British parliamentary group on October 3, 2017 that he regards Libya as “an incredible country. Bone white sands, beautiful sea... Incredible place... There’s a group of UK business people, actually, some wonderful guys who want to invest in Sirte on the coast, near where Gaddafi was captured and executed as some of you may have seen.” He concluded his bizarre fantasy by gushing that “They have got a brilliant vision to turn Sirte into the next Dubai. The only thing they have got to do is clear the dead bodies away.” And then he laughed.


Three weeks after Mr Johnson’s hilarious observation about Libyan corpses there were even more dead bodies littering the country, when General Haftar’s aircraft blitzed Derna. Johnson had declared that the general had a “role to play in the political process,” but it seems that Haftar has followed the example of his mentors and believes that bombing his political opponents is more effective than trying to negotiate with them. The war crimes committed by his Libyan National Army (LNA) have been atrocious and Amnesty International verified two videos in the first of which “an LNA fighter is seen shooting three captured fighters with what appears to be a Kalashnikov-type assault rifle as they kneeled on the ground facing a wall, with their hands tied behind their backs.” In the second video “a group of LNA fighters taunt, humiliate and drag a captured fighter along the ground before shooting him dead.”


As acknowledged by US-NATO, the destruction of Libya in 2011 was intended to overthrow the then president Muammar Gaddafi, who, they claimed, was about to kill lots of people. He had, in fact, incurred much disapproval by considering nationalisation of his nation’s oil resources, almost all of which were (and continue to be) owned by foreign companies, and an independent British Parliamentary inquiry determined that “Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.” Which sounds familiar.


Before the war in 2011 the World Health Organisation recorded that “the country is providing comprehensive health care including promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services to all citizens free of charge through primary health care units, health centres and district hospitals” and the CIA World Factbook noted that Libya had a literacy rate of 94.2% which was higher than in Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. According to the UN, life expectancy was 75 years, as against 66 in India, 71 in Egypt and 59 in South Africa. The country had a very strange leader but it was thriving.


The consequences of the war on Libya are that its infrastructure collapsed, with the effect, for example, of requiring the citizens of Tripoli to “drill through pavements in a desperate bid to find water.” Refugees from other African countries flood in to try to make their way to Europe, adding to the already calamitous humanitarian crisis. Countless thousands have perished and Islamic State has thrived, while civil war continues to be waged by groups of savages who receive varying degrees of support from western countries.


There is no solution to the catastrophe other than declaration of the country as a UN protectorate, which is impracticable.


The lesson learned, however, is that the US-NATO military alliance must never again be permitted to carry out another “model intervention.”



  • 0

#2 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29338 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:30 AM

Libya: The Forgotten Reason North Korea Desperately Wants Nuclear Weapons




The United States and its allies continue to cajole and threaten North Korea to negotiate an agreement that would relinquish its growing nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. The latest verbal prodding came from President Trump during his joint press conference with South Korean president Moon Jae-in. Trump urged Pyongyang to “come to the negotiating table,” and asserted that it “makes sense for North Korea to do the right thing.” The “right thing” Trump and his predecessors have always maintained, is for North Korea to become nonnuclear.


It is unlikely that the DPRK will ever return to nuclear virginity. Pyongyang has multiple reasons for retaining its nukes. For a country with an economy roughly the size of Paraguay’s, a bizarre political system that has no external appeal, and an increasingly antiquated conventional military force, a nuclear-weapons capability is the sole factor that provides prestige and a seat at the table of international affairs. There is one other crucial reason for the DPRK’s truculence, though. North Korean leaders simply do not trust the United States to honor any agreement that might be reached.


Unfortunately, there are ample reasons for such distrust. North Korean leaders have witnessed how the United States treats nonnuclear adversaries such as Serbia and Iraq. But it was the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in 2011 that underscored to Pyongyang why achieving and retaining a nuclear-weapons capability might be the only reliable way to prevent a regime-change war directed against the DPRK.


Partially in response to Washington’s war that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, ostensibly because of a threat posed by Baghdad’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to capitulate regarding such matters. He signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in December of that year and agreed to abandon his country’s embryonic nuclear program. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and pledged that they no longer sought to isolate Libya. Qaddafi was welcomed back into the international community once he relinquished his nuclear ambitions.


That reconciliation lasted less than a decade. When one of the periodic domestic revolts against Qaddafi’s rule erupted again in 2011, Washington and its NATO partners argued that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent (despite meager evidence of that scenario), and initiated a military intervention. It soon became apparent that the official justification to protect innocent civilians was a cynical pretext, and that another regime-change war was underway. The Western powers launched devastating air strikes and cruise-missile attacks against Libyan government forces. NATO also armed rebel units and assisted the insurgency in other ways.


Although all previous revolts had fizzled, extensive Western military involvement produced a very different result this time. The insurgents not only overthrew Qaddafi, they captured, tortured and executed him in an especially grisly fashion. Washington’s response was astonishingly flippant. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quipped: “We came, we saw, he died.”


The behavior of Washington and its allies in Libya certainly did not give any incentive to North Korea or other would-be nuclear powers to abandon such ambitions in exchange for U.S. paper promises for normal relations. Indeed, North Korea promptly cited the Libya episode as a reason why it needed a deterrent capability—a point that Pyongyang has reiterated several times in the years since Muammar el-Qaddafi ouster. There is little doubt that the West’s betrayal of Qaddafi has made an agreement with the DPRK to denuclearize even less attainable than it might have been otherwise. Even some U.S. officials concede that the Libya episode convinced North Korean leaders that nuclear weapons were necessary for regime survival.


The foundation for successful diplomacy is a country’s reputation for credibility and reliability. U.S. leaders fret that autocratic regimes—such as those in Iran and North Korea—might well violate agreements they sign. There are legitimate reasons for wariness, although in Iran’s case, the government appears to be complying with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that Tehran signed with the United States and other major powers in 2015—despite allegations from U.S. hawks about violations.


When it comes to problems with credibility, though, U.S. leaders also need to look in the mirror. Washington’s conduct in Libya was a case of brazen duplicity. It is hardly a surprise if North Korea (or other countries) now regard the United States as an untrustworthy negotiating partner. Because of Pyongyang’s other reasons for wanting a nuclear capability, a denuclearization accord was always a long shot. But U.S. actions in Libya reduced prospects to the vanishing point. American leaders have only themselves to blame for that situation.



Edited by Mario Milano, 14 November 2017 - 11:31 AM.

  • 0

#3 grog


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4755 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 01:37 PM

Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don't Want You to Know
28 August 2016.
This article was first published by Global Research in November 2014. Today Libya as a Nation State has been destroyed by US-NATO.
What do you think of when you hear the name Colonel Gaddafi? Tyrant? Dictator? Terrorist? Well, a national citizen of Libya may disagree but we want you to decide.
For 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa.
So despite what you've heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV, Gaddafi did some powerful things that are not characteristic of a "vicious dictator" as portrayed by the western media.
Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…
1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right
In Gaddafi's Green Book it states: "The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others". Gaddafi's Green Book is the formal leader's political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.
2. Education and medical treatment were all free
Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa.  Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.
3. Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project
The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan's across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it "the eighth wonder of the world".
4. It was free to start a farming business
If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.
5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies
When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.
6. Electricity was free
Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!
7.  Cheap petrol
During Gaddafi's reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.
8. Gaddafi raised the level of education
Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.
9. Libya had It's own state bank
Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.
10. The gold dinar
Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term "United States of Africa". Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar  - a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.
The Dinar was widely opposed by the 'elite' of today's society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say 'no' to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.
So, was Muammar Gaddafi a Terrorist?
Few can answer this question fairly, but if anyone can, it's a Libyan citizen who has lived under his reign? Whatever the case, it seems rather apparent that he did some positive things for his country despite the infamous notoriety surrounding his name. And that's something you should try to remember when judging in future.
This quirky video documentary spells out an interesting, if rather different, story from the one we think we know.

  • 1

#4 Ivan88


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13599 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:09 PM

9781612517049.jpgBet that is was no accident, but our nice Talmudist friends telling puppets what to do.

BTW, Big Thanks to Mario for posting important analysis in post #1....  Especially like how  Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti's blood thursty deeds was handled....

He was no different than US & English military gurus of legalized mayhem & murder.

Edited by Ivan88, 14 November 2017 - 05:15 PM.

  • 0

#5 Traveler


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2165 posts

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:41 AM

Killing Qaddafi was one of the USA biggest blunders in Africa. I did find the man to be very arrogant but he was a hero in Africa and his killing is still going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

  • 0

#6 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29338 posts

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:53 AM

Killing Qaddafi was one of the USA biggest blunders in Africa. I did find the man to be very arrogant but he was a hero in Africa and his killing is still going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

It was no blunder, it was deliberate

  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2018 Pravda.Ru