Get Adobe Flash player
You are here:FEATURED STORIES > Why NATO powers are trying to assassinate Gaddafi

NATO WAR CRIMES

INFOWARS EXCLUSIVE: Military Sources Reveal Ground Force Invasion of Libya - Thursday, June 16, 2011
Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.

Prisonplanet.com
June 16, 2011

Read the article: http://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/

Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.

The source stated that additional Special Forces are headed to Libya in July, with a Calvary Division (heavy armor) and three corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.

This information was confirmed by numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel, some indicating large troop deployment as early as September. Among these supporting sources is a British S.A.S. officer confirming that U.S. Army Rangers are already in Libya. The chatter differs in the details, but the overall convergence is clear– that a full-on war is emerging this fall as Gaddafi continues to evade attempts to remove him from power.



 read more ...

U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October - Thursday, June 16, 2011
Aaron Dykes | Reports from military confirm plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya, deploying troops by October.

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011

U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October

Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.

The source stated that additional Special Forces are headed to Libya in July, with the 1st Calvary Division (heavy armor) and three corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.

This information was confirmed by numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel, some indicating large troop deployment as early as September. Among these supporting sources is a British S.A.S. officer confirming that U.S. Army Rangers are already in Libya. The chatter differs in the details, but the overall convergence is clear– that a full-on war is emerging this fall as Gaddafi continues to evade attempts to remove him from power.

A caller identified as “Specialist H” working for mortuary affairs under USCENTCOM revealed that there have already been American casualties inside Libya. He confirmed that at least 2 soldiers and 3 civilians have died from combat bullet wounds, something the media has yet to report, and needs to investigate and address.

Geo-political expert Dr. Webster Tarpley also told the Alex Jones Show today that wider war is being planned for Libya, while the count of simultaneous U.S. wars has reached five conflicts– including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. The potential for an even greater spread of regional conflict could well provoke a World War III scenario, drawing in tenuous nations like Syria, Lebanon, Iran or even Saudi Arabia, according to Tarpley.

For his part, President Obama has brushed off demands to answer to Congress for continuing military action beyond the 60 day limit set under the war powers act. The engagement he first claimed would be over in mere days, Obama then dubbed a “kinetic action” rather than a war. Further, Obama has justified his commitment of American forces under a United Nations mandate, unconcerned by his own admission with the will of Congress. Now, with significant overlap in reports, we can confirm an apparent decision by Obama to support wider war and a longer-term involvement in Libya.



 read more ...

Obama’s Libya Defense Makes Bush’s Lawyers Look Smart - Thursday, June 16, 2011
The arguments made to “legalize” war, torture, warrantless spying, and other crimes by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and their gang are looking rational, well-reasoned, and impeccably researched in comparison with Obama’s latest “legalization” of the Libya War.

David Swanson
Global Research
Thursday, June 16, 2011

The arguments made to “legalize” war, torture, warrantless spying, and other crimes by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and their gang are looking rational, well-reasoned, and impeccably researched in comparison with Obama’s latest “legalization” of the Libya War.

Here’s the key section from Wednesday’s report to Congress:

“Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”

Whatever the president’s “foreign affairs powers” may be, they do not, under the U.S. Constitution, include the power to launch “military operations” or “hostilities” or “wars.” Nor has the distinction between “military operations” that involve what ordinary humans call warfare (blowing up buildings with missiles) and “hostilities” that qualify for regulation under the War Powers Resolution been previously established. This distinction is as crazy as any that have come out of U.S. government lawyers in the past.

The War Powers Resolution forbids unconstitutional wars unless the United States is attacked. But even ignoring that fact, as is the custom, the Resolution says right at the top:

“It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

Anything from imminent involvement in hostilities to hostilities is covered. There doesn’t seem to be a gap left through which to exclude bombing people’s homes in a non-hostile manner with non-combat troops as part of an overseas contingency operation.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey remarks: “To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.”

Further down, the same resolution makes clear:

“For purposes of this joint resolution, the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”

So, the “constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition” is completely irrelevant, and would be even if it were true that a UN resolution was being adhered to.

The Obama report to Congress spends half its time claiming that the United States is not part of the NATO operation in any major way, and the other half warning that the NATO operation would collapse without the United States:

“If the United States military were to cease its participation in the NATO operation, it would seriously degrade the coalition’s ability to execute and sustain its operation designed to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, as authorized under UNSCR 1973. Cessation of U.S. military activities in support of OUP would also significantly increase the level of risk for the remaining Allied and coalition forces conducting the operation, which in turn would likely lead to the withdrawal of participation in the operation.”

The “limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions” is irrelevant. The War Powers Act specifically sets a limit of 60 days, which has passed. Moreover, not that it matters legally, but the House resolution to which this report was a response asked for some information that the report does not provide, including:

“The anticipated scope and duration of continued United States military involvement in support of NATO activities regarding Libya.”

The report says the duration is limited, but that merely suggests it’s not infinite.

I have my doubts even about that claim.

David Swanson is the author of “War Is A Lie”

http://warisalie.org

http://davidswanson.org

http://warisacrime.org

 read more ...

Chossudovsky: Bahrain killings approved in the White House - Thursday, June 16, 2011
While NATO continues bombarding Libya, they have quite a different approach with other countries–take for instance Bahrain.

RT
June 16, 2011

While NATO continues bombarding Libya, they have quite a different approach with other countries–take for instance Bahrain. The country’s crown prince was in Washington DC last week and made a statement at a briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “We are committed to changes and to find out ways to closer work with the US. We are a very important ally to the US,” said the prince. Clinton expressed support for Bahrain, stressing it was a very important for the US. While they were talking about reforms, however, dialogue out of Bahrain shows that that is very far from the case overseas. Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Center for Research on lobalization joins RT to talk about the matter.



 read more ...

US Warships Moved To Syrian Coast: The Next War to Come - Thursday, June 16, 2011
Paul Joseph Watson | Military intervention nears even as Obama administration prepares to launch full ground war in Libya

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 16, 2011

photoImage: Wikipedia Commons

Even as the Obama administration prepares to launch a full ground war in Libya while expanding its drone attacks inside Yemen and Pakistan, US warships are being moved towards the Mediterrenean coast of Syria, precisely in line with forecasts that the Bilderberg Group intended to launch a massive new war in the Middle East, with Syria being its prime target.

In addition to information received by Infowars from military sources at Ft. Hood who tell us that troops are being readied for a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion of Libya by October, the Obama administration is simultaneously considering opening up yet another front, by moving the USS Bataan amphibian air carrier strike vessel, along with 2,000 marines, 6 war planes, and 15 attack helicopters to a location just off the Syrian coast.

“This huge concentration of naval missile interceptor units looks like preparations by Washington for the contingency of Iran, Syria and Hizballah letting loose with surface missiles against US and Israeli targets in the event of US military intervention to stop the anti-opposition slaughter underway in Syria,” reports DebkaFile.

Another indication that the US is planning an intervention in Syria is the fact that Hizballah has moved its rockets from northern Lebanon to areas in the center of the country, acting on a warning from Iranian intelligence to move the weaponry “out of range of a possible American operation in Syria”.

Veteran reporter Jim Tucker’s warning, provided to him by his routinely accurate inside sources, that the powerful Bilderberg Group was planning a gargantuan new war in the Middle East to outstrip anything taking place in Libya, is now moving forward.

On Monday, journalist Adrian Salbuchi also told Russia Today that Bilderberg’s “hidden agenda” towards Syria would make itself visible after the conclusion of the elitist confab in St. Moritz, Switzerland, a forecast already coming to fruition.

Syrian rights organizations say that around 1,300 civilians have been killed since the start of the uprising in March against President Bashar Assad. Around 300 soldiers and police have also been killed. Thousands of Syrians fled the town of Maarat al-Numaan yesterday as government troops and tanks moved north.

The US military-industrial complex has been very choosy about who it targets for regime change under the umbrella of “humanitarian intervention”. Despite the fact that protesters in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have been the victims of similarly brutal government crackdowns, the US has turned a blind eye.Quite how the Obama administration believes the United States can afford to prosecute yet another war while it is still engaged in two major occupations and a number of other regional conflicts, and as top ratings agencies warn the country is about to lose its triple A credit status due to insurmountable debt problems, is a mystery.

 read more ...

The War on Libya: Canada’s Parliament Endorses Military Escalation - Thursday, June 16, 2011
While the US Congress questions the legitimacy of the war on Libya, the Canadian parliament with one dissenting voice, votes in favor of extending Canada’s participation in an illegal and criminal military undertaking.

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
Thursday, June 16, 2011

While the US Congress questions the legitimacy of the war on Libya, the Canadian parliament with one dissenting voice, votes in favor of extending Canada’s participation in an illegal and criminal military undertaking:

On Tuesday, after Canada recognized the NTC as Libya’s legitimate government, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said the rebels are the true representatives of the Libyan population and will therefore be a critical player in Canada’s efforts to provide assistance.

“Our government will engage with the institutions and representatives of the NTC,” Baird told Parliament on Tuesday before the evening vote. “I will be seeking a meeting with my counterparts on the NTC.

“We will identify members of the NTC responsible for domestic issues and propose meetings with their Canadian counterparts. We will also happily arrange meetings between NTC members and honourable members of this place.”

The announcement also came hot on the heels of Ottawa’s new commitment of $2 million in humanitarian assistance to civilians in Libya.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was the only dissenting MP to vote against the extension of the mission for three-and-a-half months. (CTV, June 15, 2011)

The broader implications of this “humanitarian war” and Ottawa’s role in the US-NATO military alliance, not to mention the cost of this military operation to Canadian taxpayers has been barely mentioned in Canada’s media.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois, which claim to be “progressive’ and “anti-war”, have given a blank cheque to the US-NATO sponsored war in North Africa.

We call upon the rank and file of all major political parties (except the Green Party) to question this diabolical political “consensus” in favor of war. Contact your MP. Raise this issue at the local level.

How could a party committed to the tenets of democracy such as the NDP endorse the continuation of a bombing campaign which is now in its third month, on the grounds that “civilian lives must be protected”?

Since when are civilian lives protected by B-2 Stealth Bombers and F-16 Fighter Jets?

There is ample evidence that this war has resulted in countless deaths and atrocities. The country’s civilian infrastructure is being destroyed.

And now NATO is preparing to launch a ground war in derogation of Libya’s sovereignty.

In substance, Canada has granted its support to the landing of NATO troops in Libya, virtually without debate.

When war is heralded as a mission of peace within the Canadian parliament, the very foundations of Canadian democracy are threatened.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party is the only committed anti-war voice in our House of Commons.

When the lie becomes the truth and war presented is presented as peace, there is no turning backwards.

The war on Libya is an integral part of the broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which until recently consisted of three distinct areas of conflict : Afghanistan and Pakistan (the AfPak War), Iraq, Palestine.

A fourth war theater has opened up in North Africa, which raises the issue of escalation over a vast geographical area.

These four war theaters are interrelated. They are part of a broader region of conflict, which extends from North Africa and the Middle East, engulfing a large part of the Mediterranean basin, to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan, and Northern Pakistan.

We call upon people across Canada, from coast to coast, to challenge the decision of the House of Commons as well as question the legitimacy of this diabolical military agenda, carried out in our name.

Similarly, we must challenge Canada’s corporate media which has deliberately obfuscated the causes and consequences of the war on Libya.

 read more ...

REPORT: TRIPOLI: More NATO “Humanitarian Intervention:” The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B - Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Since coming to Tripoli to see first hand the consequences of the NATO military operations, it has become clear to me that despite the ongoing silence of the international press on the ground here in Libya, there is clear evidence that civilian targets have been hit and Libyan civilians injured and killed.

Cynthia McKinney
Global Research
June 15, 2011

Since coming to Tripoli to see first hand the consequences of the NATO military operations, it has become clear to me that despite the ongoing silence of the international press on the ground here in Libya, there is clear evidence that civilian targets have been hit and Libyan civilians injured and killed.

This Tuesday morning I was taken from my hotel across the city through its bustling traffic to the Al Fateh University.

On 9 June, Dean Ali Mansur was outside in the parking lot. The sky was blue like Carolina blue. The clouds were white–no chemtrails in sight. Puffy and white. Dean Mansur was visibly upset. It seems that some of the young men at Al Fateh University, Campus B were fighting over girls. He explained to me that Libyans are hot blooded. With a gleam in his eye, he whispered to me that girls are important to young men.

Yes, that was clearly evident today as I approached the campus of Al Fateh University, Campus B, formerly known as Nasser University. Under the trees, throughout the lawn as we approached the campus gates, I could see young men and women talking to each other, talking on cell phones, walking to and fro, assembled, probably talking about the latest campus news–whatever that might be. Today, on the Al Fateh campus, life was teeming. Student life seemed vibrant. This feel and ambiance of this university was not unlike the hundreds of other universities that I have visited in the US and around the world.

Libyan boys and girls are like ours. My son would easily fit into the life of this university.

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed%202

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed%204

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed%205

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed%203

 

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO Humanitarian Intervention: The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B Nasser%20bombed%209

The campus seemed vibrant, too. Cranes everywhere indicated a healthy building program, adding new buildings to enhance the student learning environment. Despite the students’ fracas, Dean Mansur had everything to be happy about as he saw his university becoming bigger, better, and stronger. Her told me that they had even signed an agreement with a British university to begin programs in the English language. Not English studies, Dean Mansur emphasized, but an entire curriculum of study taught in the English language! Of course, he entoned, that’s all disappointingly ended now.

Al Fateh University, Campus B consists of about 10,000 undergraduates, 800 masters degree candidates, and 18 Ph.D. students; 220 staff, 150 ad hoc professors, 120 employees. It has eight auditoriums, 19 classrooms, 4 extra large classrooms. It also has a rural campus at Al Azizia where 700 students are taught and are a part of the university system. Dean Mansur compares himself to a mayor because he has so many responsibilities presiding over a large community of students engaging in a rich and vibrant academic life.

Dean Mansur told me that life at the university and, for him personally, changed forever on the afternoon of Thursday 9 June, 2011.

He recalled that the university opened as usual around 8:00 am and was to close later that evening at about 8:00 pm.

Thursday, 9 June, he thought, was going to be just like any other day, except for the fracas over the girls that had cleared the campus of many of the students who didn’t want to have any part in the fighting. So, outside in the campus parking lot, Dr. Mansur told me he was preoccupied thinking how he would deal with the disciplinary issue before him.

Then, out of nowhere and all of a sudden, he heard something loud up in the sky.

He said it began out of no where, a loud roar. Then a frightful high pitched the hissing sound. He said he looked up into the sky and couldn’t hardly believe his eyes: something shiny up in the sky appeared dancing in front of him. He said it moved about like an atari game or something. It danced and zig-zagged all over the sky. He said he was transfixed on the object for what seemed like minutes but in truth must have only been seconds.

Up and down and sideways it raced in the sky and then, without warning, it just came crashing down into the ground nearby. It was a NATO missile.

Tragically it had found its target: Al Fateh University, Campus B.

Dean Mansur said he saw one missile, lots of fire, lots of different colors all around it, and then a huge plume of smoke. He saw one missile, but heard what seemed like many explosions. He said he now can’t honestly say how many.

Dr. Mansur said the force and shock of the blast held him frozen in his place. He said his heart stopped for a moment. He wasn’t afraid, just frozen. He didn’t run away; he didn’t cower; he said he just stood stupefied.

The force of the blast cracked thickened concrete wells, shattered hundreds of windows and brought numerous ceilings down in lecture halls.

Whether it was a wayward Tomahawk Cruise Missile or a misdirected laser guided bomb, no one knows.

His immediate thoughts were for the thousands of his students in the university and for his own three children who study there.

After about 30 minutes, the Libyan press came to see what had happened. the University President and other officials of the school all came. But to Dr. Mansur’s surprise not the international press.

And what did they see?

The media saw the widespread structural damage to many of the buildings, all of the windows blown out in every one of the eight auditoriums. Doors blown off their hinges. Library in a shambles. Books and debris everywhere. The campus mosque was damaged. Glass heaped up in piles. Some efforts at cleaning up had begun.

Dr Mansur says that they have kept the university, wherever practicable, in much the same condition as it was on the day of the attack. Except that the main classroom area that students work in has been cleaned and will be renamed the Seif Al-Arab auditorium complex in memory of Muammar Qaddafi’s son murdered on April 30, 2011 in his home by NATO bombs.

On Thursday, NATO missiles. Friday and Saturday are considered the weekend here. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the students are back to school undaunted by the bombing. In many of the classrooms I saw today, students were taking final exams amid the debris. As I walked around the campus, one male voice shouted out and spoke to me in Arabic: “Where’s Obama?”

Good question I thought.

I’ve always wondered if the politicians who regularly send our young men and women away to war and who regularly bomb the poor peoples of the world have ever, themselves, been on the receiving end of a Cruise Missile attack or placed themselves and their family at the mercy of a laser guided depleted uranium bomb. Maybe, just maybe I thought, that if they had experienced first hand the horror of a NATO attack on a civilian target they might just stop and question for a minute the need to dispatch our armed forces to attack the people of Libya.

I didn’t want to disturb the students taking exams so I found some students standing outside not taking exams to talk to. I asked them if they had anything to say to President Obama. One professor, a woman, spoke up readily and said, “We are working under fire: physical and psychological.” One student spoke up and said that President Obama should “Free Palestine and leave Libya alone.” He continued, “We are one family.”

More on that later, but briefly, every Libyan is a member of a tribe and every tribe governs itself and selects its leaders; those leaders from all of the tribes then select their leaders, and so on until there is only one leader of all of the tribes of Libya. I met that one tribal leader yesterday in another part of Tripoli and I am told he is the real leader of this country. He presides over the Tribal Council which constitutes Libya’s real policymakers. So when the young man said “We are one family,” that is actually the truth.

Dr. Mansur, trained in the United States and spoke fondly of his time in the US and the many friends he made there. He is proud of his students and the richness of his university’s community life. He was just like any University Dean in the United States.

In my view God intervened on Thursday 9 June, 2011.

On the day that the missile struck, not one student was killed. It could so easily have been different. It could have been a catastrophe taking the lives of hundreds of teenagers.

I am told that in the surrounding area immediately outside the university others were not so fortunate.

Reports are that there were deaths in the nearby houses.

It’s a funny thing about war. Those who cause war become oblivious and removed from its consequences; they seem happy to inflict harm on others and become numb to its ill effects while war’s victims find a way to normalize the abnormal and live with the constant threat of death and destruction.

After visiting Tripoli, I remain as opposed to war as ever before.

The students at Al Fateh University continue their studies despite the siege that their country is under.

And oh, that second group of students that I randomly spoke to? I asked them how much they pay for tuition. They looked at me with puzzled faces even after the translation. I asked them how much they pay for their books. Again, the same puzzled face. Tuition at Al Fateh University is 16 dinars per year–about $9. And due to the NATO embargo on gasoline imports, the school now has started 10 free bus lines to its surrounding areas in order to make sure that the students can get to school, free of charge.

I told them that I was about to enter a Ph.D. program in the US myself and that I needed tuition and book money costing tens of thousands of dollars. I continued that my cousin is in debt $100,000 because she went to the schools of her choice and received a Master’s degree.

They said to me, “We thank Muammar Qaddafi. Because of Muammar Qaddafi we have free education. Allah, Muammar, Libya obes!”

Well as for NATO, they still cling to the chimera that their strikes are against military targets only and that theirs is a “humanitarian intervention.”

I’m still waiting to find evidence somewhere in the world that bombing poor civilian populations of the Third World from the air is good for their voting rights, democracy, medical care, education, welfare, national debt, and enhancing personal income and wealth distribution. It seems clear to me that complex life issues require more complex intervention than a Cruise Missile could ever deliver.

 read more ...

‘Libya war driven by O.I.L.: Oil, Israel & Logistics’ – McKinney to RT - Wednesday, June 15, 2011
RT | As NATO attacks continue in Libya, ex US Congresswoman and former presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney went to the country on a non-governmental fact-finding mission.

RT
June 15, 2011

As NATO attacks continue in Libya, ex US Congresswoman and former presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney went to the country on a non-governmental fact-finding mission to see what exactly is going on in the war-torn country. ­Cynthia McKinney believes the bombardments of Libyan cities and other measures taken by NATO, causing civilian casualties, represent the idea of “collective punishment”.



 read more ...

Why the NATO powers are trying to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi

Protecting civilians or western oil companies?

Brian Becker
Global Research
June 14, 2011

Wikileaks-released State Department cables from November 2007 and afterwards show the real reason for the mounting U.S. hostility to the Libyan government prior to the current civil war.

NATO has been dropping devastating bunker-busting bombs on Muammar Gaddafi’s home in an attempt to assassinate him. One son and several grandchildren have died but Gaddafi has survived. The State Department cables give background to the hostility directed against Gaddafi by the United States and other NATO powers.

One State Department cable from November 2007 (Wikileaks reference ID 07TRIPOLI967) sounds the alarm of “growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism” by the Gaddafi government. This was almost identical language employed by the U.S. and British governments against Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh when he nationalized Iran’s oil field in 1951. Mossadegh was overthrown by a 1953 CIA coup that restored the Shah to the throne. It allowed U.S. and British oil companies to re-take ownership over Iran’s oil until the 1979 revolution.


The crime of “resource nationalism”

Condemning “Libyan resource nationalism” is diplomatic language. The U.S. government was furious that Gaddafi was moving to rein in and limit the power and profits of the western-owned oil giants that he permitted to come back into the country after George W. Bush in 2004 lifted economic sanctions against Libya.

The same cable refers to an angry speech that Gaddafi made in 2006 which was interpreted as a virtual act of war by the oil companies and the U.S. and western governments.

Gaddafi’s speech included these unacceptable words: “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them—now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.”

Oil reserves in Libya are largest in Africa

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels as of 2007. The U.S. government and oil industry surveys conclude that Libya has 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. But Libya is considered to have many unexplored reserves. Libya has been a big prize for the western oil giants both because of the quantity of oil and of the particularly high quality of Libyan oil.

In 2008, according to another leaked State Department cable, Gaddafi summoned Conoco-Phillips Chief Executive Jim Mulva to a meeting in Sirte, Libya. There he threatened to expel U.S. oil companies and “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production.”

The oil companies and the State Department, as the cables indicate, were increasingly agitated by Gaddafi’s interference with their operations. The Washington Post, which is a big cheerleader for the U.S./NATO bombing campaign, published a story on June 11, 2011, about the leaked Libya cables: “Labor laws were amended to ‘Libyanise’ the economy, and oil firms were pressed to hire Libyan managers, finance people and human resource directors.”

Gaddafi 2009 speech suggested nationalizing Libyan oil

Another Wikileaks-released State Department cable from Jan. 30, 2009, (Wikileaks reference ID 09TRIPOLI71) discusses a January 2009 speech by Gaddafi, stating, “Muammar al-Qadhafi suggested that Libya and other oil exporting states could nationalize their oil production in view of sharply plummeting petroleum prices.”

The U.S. government fully backed the Saudi monarchy and the Mubarak dictatorship, but turned on Libya—not because the regime violated human rights or democracy, but because Gaddafi sought to limit their power. The oil companies, however annoyed they were by having to work with the Libyan government, would have certainly continued their current business operations. The opening of a civil war inside of Libya in February 2011, however, gave a perfect pretext to overthrow the regime and place in power a government that the NATO powers hope will serve as a client regime.

In any country, Libya included, the masses of people can have many valid and legitimate grievances against their government. Even those who support Gaddafi against the NATO bombers probably have grievances. But the U.S., British, French and Italian governments are at war to protect their own interests. Protecting civilians and promoting democracy is of zero concern to Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil or any of the other oil giants.

The Wikileaks-released State Department cables make it clear that the basis for U.S. hostility to the Gaddafi regime was about who should control Libya’s vast oil reserves. Should it be Libya or should it be the biggest capitalist oil enterprises from western countries?

“Those who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya’s extensive oil and gas reserves,” the November 2007 cable states.

Anti-Gaddafi rebels in Washington, D.C.

In mid-May 2011, just six weeks after the NATO bombing of Libya began, leaders of the anti-Gaddafi rebel movement came to Washington, D.C., for “talks.” They spoke at the U.S.-Libya Business Council. The big oil companies were present. The rebels have employed a public relations/lobbying organization based in Washington, D.C., called the Harbour Group.

The principals of the Harbour Group include Hillary Clinton’s staff director from the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. Another served as a spokesperson for the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan and other conservative Republicans. The third served as a public relations figure in the last three Democratic presidential conventions, according to Reuters.

“Now you can figure out who’s going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi,” Nansan Saleri, the founder of the Houston-based Quantico Reservoir Impact company told the Washington Post. Saleri, former head of reservoir management at Saudi Aramco, explained why the company wouldn’t do business in Libya until now. “Everything in Libya—everything—had to be approved by Gaddafi or one of his sons,” he told the Post. Saleri continued, “Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The western companies are positioning themselves.” Within five years, he predicted, “Libyan production is going to be higher than right now and investments are going to come in.”

Libya today is resisting the new colonialism. The colonizers assign noble names such as “protecting civilians” to their military mission. But their role in Africa and the Middle East during the past decades and centuries deprive such propaganda of any credibility. They rely though on the uniformity of the corporate-owned media coverage about their “humanitarian motives” to disguise their crass and cynical plans in Libya and elsewhere.

  

NATO TERRORISM AND WAR CRIMES

Coming up next - Iran: “Regime Change” or All Out War? - Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The political system of Iran is complex and there are multiple opposing poles of power. In 2009, the world already saw internal fighting amongst the ruling establishment.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
June 14, 2011

The geo-political chessboard is being lined up for a showdown with Iran and its allies in the Resistance Bloc. This is just one theatre within the broader struggle to control Eurasia. In the process there is an effort by Washington and its allies to manipulate Islam and subordinate it to capitalist interests by ushering in a new generation of Islamists amongst the Arabs.

A New Pressure Point in Tehran for Washington, Israel, and the E.U. to Capitalize?

The political system of Iran is complex and there are multiple opposing poles of power. In 2009, the world already saw internal fighting amongst the ruling establishment. The divisions played themselves out during the protests that resulted after the presidential elections when allegations of fraud were put forward.

The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (which started in 2005) was at odds with significant segments of Iran’s political establishment. Its relationship has always been tense with the other poles of power in Tehran. In 2011, Iran’s presidency has increasingly become at odds with the Parliament, the Judiciary, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Within the framework of these political tensions, another Iranian internal political struggle is in the making. This time, the centre of attention is Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. The views of Mashaei, who is known as a political conservative, have been at odds with other conservatives, specifically the clerical elements. In 2009, Mashaei gave a speech where he said that Iran was friends with all the people of the world, including the Israeli people, and that Tehran was opposed to the regime in Tel Aviv, rather than the people of Israel. This was rebuked by Ayatollah Khamenei.

In July 2009, President Ahmadinejad tried to appoint Mashaei to the office of the primary (first) vice-president of Iran, but was opposed by the Iranian Parliament. Ahmadinejad was forced to appoint Mohammed-Reza Rahimi to the office of first vice-president. Instead Mashaei was appointed presidential chief-of-staff by President Ahmadinejad.

In April 2011, a scandal erupted when it became public that Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi had ordered for Mashaei to be the subject of electronic surveillance. Ahmadinejad in outrage wanted to fire the Intelligence Minister, but his decision was vetoed by Ayatollah Khamenei. Meanwhile Heydar Moslehi remained in his position.

It appears now that there is a concerted effort to weaken the Ahmadinejad Administration and to prevent it from helping Mashaei and others run for office. General Ali Jaffari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has stated publicly that there are “corrupt elements” in the presidential office who have deviated from the principles of the Iranian Revolution. Ali Saeedi, the liaison of Ayatollah Khamenei within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has also added his voice, saying that Ahmadinejad and his political camp will lose all support unless they remain committed to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Some form of political showdown is looming in Tehran. There appears to be a widening political rift amongst Iranian conservative ideologues. The Iranian President and his political allies intend to field their own candidates in the March 2012 parliamentary elections, who would challenge the current grouping of so-called conservatives in the Iranian Parliament.

In addition to all this, the death of Haleh Sahabi, the daughter of the late ex-Member of Parliament (MP) Ezatollah Sahabi, at the funeral of her father has ignited opposition anger which threatens to fuel and spark new protests.

Iranian security forces were present at the funeral to prevent it from being turned into a political event against the ruling establishment. In their presence, Haleh Sahabi was confronted by an unknown man who grabbed the picture of her father that she was holding during the funeral. When she tried to grab the man, he elbowed her so violently in the face that she died from a heart attack.

This could all play into the hands of the enemies of Iran. There is a secret war against Iran being fought by Washington and its allies, which has included the kidnapping of Iranians, assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials, and terrorist attacks on Iranian border regions. The developing internal divisions in Tehran could be capitalized on by its enemies. Israel is already showing a deep interest in these new political tensions in Tehran.

It should be noted that Tel Aviv and Washington had prepared to launch a campaign to de-legitimize the Iranian presidential elections in 2009 and to use it to exploit any internal political divisions in Iran. This is documented by the Israeli media. Additionally, this is the reason that the U.S. Congress gave millions of dollars, at the request of U.S. Secretary Rice and President George W. Bush Jr., to establish a special interests office in the U.A.E. for dealing with regime change in Tehran.

Secret Israel Drills in Occupied Iraq: Iran in the Cross-Hairs Again?

Challenging Tehran, just like Russia, has always been a strategic objective of Washington and NATO. Tel Aviv has ended its period of brief silence about Tehran and has started to talk about attacking Iran again. What has added an extra dimension to this are the reports that the U.S. has allowed Israel to secretly use U.S. air bases in Al-Anbar, Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr has warned Tehran about the Israeli-U.S. operations in Iraq, which could amount to plans for some form of confrontation with Iran, Syria, and the entire Resistance Bloc from Gaza, Beirut, and Bint Jbeil to Damascus, Basra, Mosul, and Tehran.

A military structure, which is tied into NATO, has also been put into place to attack Iran, Syria, and their allies. Under various agreements NATO has established a foothold in the Persian Gulf and military links with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). France also has a base in the United Arab Emirates. The GCC is also preparing to expand. Both the kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan have made requests to join, while Yemen is also being considered for membership. Along with GCC membership comes a joint defence structure.

At the same time, the members of the GCC are blaming Iran for their domestic problems.

The strategic alliance between Israel and the Al-Sauds, originally formed to combat Gamal Abdel Nasser, has also positioned itself for the implementation of a broader conflict directed against Iran and its allies.

Missile shields are in now in place in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms. Massive shipments of heavy weaponry have also been sent to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC by Washington and the major E.U. powers over the last few years.

Iran: Regime Change or All Out War? Iran Syria Turkey%20Axis

Ankara: The Inside Man?

There is one other important player that must be talked about. This player is Turkey. Washington and the E.U. have pushed Turkey to be more active in the Arab World. This has blossomed through Ankara’s neo-Ottomanism policy. This is why Turkey has been posturing itself as a champion of Palestine and launched an Arabic-language channel like Iran and Russia.

Ankara, however, has been playing an ominous role. Turkey is a partner in the NATO war on Libya. The position of the Turkish government has become clear with its betrayal of Tripoli. Ankara has also been working with Qatar to corner the Syrian regime. The Turkish government has been pressuring Damascus to change its policies to please Washington and appears to possibly even have a role in the protests inside Syria with the Al-Sauds, the Hariri minority camp in Lebanon, and Qatar. Turkey is even hosting opposition meetings and providing them support.

Turkey is viewed in Washington and Brussels as the key to bringing the Iranians and the Arabs into line. The Turkish government has been parading itself as a member of the Resistance Bloc with the endorsement of Iran and Syria. U.S strategists project that it will be Turkey which domesticates Iran and Syria for Washington. Turkey also serves as a means of integrating the Arab and Iranian economies with the economy of the European Union. In this regard Ankara has been pushing for a free-trade zone in Southwest Asia and getting the Iranians and Syrians to open up their economies to it.

In reality, the Turkish government has not only been deepening its economic ties with Tehran and Damascus, but has also been working to eclipse Iranian influence. Ankara has tried to wedge itself between Iran and Syria and to challenge Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Turkey also tried to establish a triple entente between itself, Syria, and Qatar to push Syria away from Tehran. This is why Turkey has been very active vocally against Israel, but in reality has maintained its alliance and military deals with Tel Aviv. Inside Turkey itself, however, there is also an internal struggle for power that could one day ignite into a civil war with multiple players.

Preparing the Geo-Strategic Chessboard for Confrontation against the Resistance Bloc

All the ingredients for a American-led military confrontation are in place:

 

-Iranophobia is being spread by the U.S., the E.U., Israel, and the Khaliji monarchies.

-Sectarianism is being promoted in the entire region.

-Hamas has been entangled into the mechanisms of a unity government by the unelected Mahmoud Abbas, which would mean that Hamas would have to be acquiescent to Israeli and U.S. demands on the Palestinian Authority.

-Syria has its hands full with domestic instability, while Iran and Hezbollah are falsely being accused of shooting Syrian protesters.

-Lebanon lacks a functioning government and Hezbollah is increasingly being encircled. Instead of being treated as a domestic Lebanese issue, the arms of the Lebanese Resistance are also being turned into an international issue.

-Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab monarchies have been heavily armed over the years.

-Pakistan has been destabilized.

-Internal divisions have been created in the Resistance Bloc.

-Russia and its CSTO allies are being intimidated by U.S. and NATO bases and the missile shield in Eastern Europe.

-The Obama Administration has declared that it intends to violate the national boundaries of other nations it thinks have terrorists. In this regard the Revolutionary Guard in Iran has been declared a terrorist organization.

-In 2010, the Obama Administration creatively redefined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to serve its geo-strategic interests. It declared that it had the rights to violate the NPT by attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

-The missile shield systems in Israel, the Persian Gulf, and Turkey are ready or will be in place soon.

Currently, a war is being fought by Washington, Tel Aviv, the Al-Sauds, and their allies against the Resistance Bloc. This war is not a conventional war, but one that includes low-spectrum warfare and intelligence operations. The fighting with Fatal Al-Islam in Lebanon and the terrorist attacks by Jundallah in Eastern Iran are facets of this war, as is the aim of regime change in Syria.

Any possible wars against Iran or Syria will not be fought in isolation. If attacked in an open war, Syria and Iran will be fought at the same time.

In the case of a major war involving Syria, Iran, and their regional allies, the chances of revolution and riots in the Arab World were certain. In a manner of speaking the Arab upheavals of 2011 have worked to pre-empt Arab societies from igniting in the case of such a regional war, which presents the Pentagon, Israel, and NATO a new strategic opportunity for confrontation.

 read more ...

‘NATO bombs civilians!’ — Cynthia McKinney from Tripoli with truth - Tuesday, June 14, 2011
RT | Former US congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney went to Libya because she wanted to know the truth.



 read more ...