WEST WANTS LIBYAN OIL, COUNTRY SET FOR RUIN LIKE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VIDEO
32 people have been arrested in Libya in connection with recent bomb attacks in the capital. All those detained are said to belong to a network of loyalists of the country's former leader Muammar Gaddafi and have reportedly been receiving financial backing from abroad.
LIBYA UNREST VIDEO
LIBYA'S ANIMAL VICTIMS OF WAR VIDEO
LIBYANS DON'T TRUST THE WESTERN CRONIES RULING THEM VIDEO
GADDAFI KILLER: I SHOT HIM TWICE IN THE HEAD AND CHEST VIDEO
USA,UK AND FRANCE EACH WANT A PIECE OF THE LIBYAN CAKE VIDEO
WHY THE ZIONIST FEDERAL RESERVE/ROTHSCHILDS WANTED GADDAFI DEAD VIDEO
GADDAFI AND THE EXTREMES OF TORY VIEWS AND THEIR MEDIA PALS
Yesterday zionist David Cameron stood outside 10 Downing Street gloating on the death of Gaddafi. Now this is the same vile tory bastard that weeks before was venomously chastising youngsters who were caught up in the UK riots and who were nicking pairs of trainers from stores and being locked up for years for their part in daring to oppose the present psychopaths running the UK for their own enrichment.
But what a change of stance when Libyan rebels armed to the hilt with all sorts of
weaponry stand up against the perceived despotic rule of Gaddafi killing him in
a murderous attack in Serte. What should disturb us is that Cameron was struggling
to hide how he was gloating at the outcome of the civil war in Libya and the
fact he is a Zionist plant, as is his opposite number Miliband, and that he relishes
the fact he played a part in providing attacks with British military might,
you have to ask HOW does getting rid of Gaddafi help his zionist controllers in Israel?
We can all make assumptions about how Gaddafi ruled Libya from the mass media but the real
question has to be asked is now he is dead is it a good or bad thing for the Israeli position in
the Middle East? Cameron has answered that for us as despite the very violent uprising
in Libya and the rebels armed with vast arsenals, something that could NEVER happen in the
UK as the political and legal masters have viciously removed any opposition to their tyranny
in the UK and who act solely for the English crown and their masonic masters .
He supported the violent uprisings in Middle East when it suited the New World Order
agenda and takes the exact opposite view when victims of their tyranny in the UK dare to
stand up against the thugs, part of the henchmen now running the UK viciously attacking
the peasants while propping up their zionist paymasters and Mossad who are controlling
the UK's political agenda via their puppets in the major parties.
Liam Fox, former defence secretary and his pal Werritty have been acting as Israeli spies
and showed why the UK decided to assist the rebel led overthrow of a country that maybe will have a government now more in tune with what the vile zionist Israeli's require to command the Middle east and something Gaddafi refused to comply with and why despite the massive media campaign may turn out to be a Mossad funded coup against the Gaddafi regime .
Orientalist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 54, Greek citizen of Turkish origin, living in Cairo, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.
Here Megalommatis describes how "the villainous Freemasonic gangsters who rule England, France and America" have betrayed Gadaffi.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
(Edited by henrymakow.com)
When one notices newspapers like Le Figaro, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Le Monde, Washington Post, The Times, and Corriere della Sera enthusiastically support the Tunisian street protesters and insurgents, one wonders whether the same newspapers would support rioters and demonstrators spreading chaos in Paris, London, Berlin, New York and Rome. Certainly not!
If the Freemasonic regime, which rules tyrannically the West and (through the West) almost the entire world and controls every word written in the aforementioned newspapers, supports this development, we have to immediately understand that the street manifestations in Tunis were simply orchestrated to effectively suit their propaganda and agenda.
Still there are many, either in the Arabic speaking world or anywhere else, who believe that this development represents a genuine, non-orchestrated, popular demonstration. The people who believe so are either extremely gullible or dramatically hopeless.
On the other hand, there have been few courageous supporters who rejected the interpretation of the world's influential mass media and the Freemasonic regimes - according to which the Tunis events were a popular revolt. The most vocal case was that of Muammar al Qadhafi (Gaddafi) who despised the Tunisian people in general and the demonstrators in particular.
WHAT HAPPENED IN TUNISIA
In fact, it is not the Tunisian people (or just the demonstrators) who forced the former president to escape; it's the generals who forced him - using as pretext the heavy casualties occurred during the tumultuous manifestations. In a meeting with powerful generals, Zine al Abedine Ben Ali lost effectively every element of power. He left immediately after.
However, the details of the developments reveal a mere theatrical act; some form of clandestine organization, composed mainly out of left wing Tunisian students and workers who had spent some years in France, gathered a small initial support and soon after undertook the early manifestations.
At the same time, some people with key positions in the police and the administration demanded that the early manifestations be met with a strong response from the police and the army. These people had also spent years in France whereby they received colonial education and Freemasonic initiation.
With these two different groups under control and stage-managed superbly, the second act (deterioration in the streets and national worries in the controlled mass media) and the third act (intervention of the well-decided Tunisian generals who had been initiated in the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge in France) of the play had to be performed. This was enough for Zine al Abedine Ben Ali and his wife to take 1.5 ton of gold and leave the country.
This chain of developments could have taken place any time in the past, but it seems that the whole story bears witness to a great deal of political barter trade between the US (a former strong supporter of Zine al Abedine Ben Ali) and France (a cruel enemy of Zine al Abedine Ben Ali who - quite tellingly - was not accepted in France!); in exchange of true French support and commitment in Afghanistan, the US regime sold the Tunisian idiot who had imagined that he reserved the US support forever.
Nobody told Zine al Abedine Ben Ali that you can never trust a single word that goes out of the filthy and desecrated mouth of a Freemasonic Satanist. This was his mistake. Quite unfortunately, many others make the same mistake; it's high time that they wakeup before they fly to Saudi Arabia.....
But then, how could one explain Muammar Gaddafi's outburst? If we assume that, after many long years of clashes with many Western countries, the Libyan dictator found a way of befriending the West and cooperating with several European governments (thanks to his son Seifulislam's debauchery in Paris), why did he then attack the developments so bitterly?
As an ally of the European capitals, he should also 'sell out' his former Tunisian counterpart and look forward to Libya's democratization; but he did not do so. Why?
The reason is simple; members of Freemasonic regimes need friends and co-operators, allies and interlocutors everywhere, and so they do when it comes to Libya. But Freemasons need interlocutors and allies in order to confuse and deceive them! Not to tell them the truth....
The truth is already not said from one Freemason to the other; how could it be possibly said to an outsider and an outcast?
The bitter reality is rather simple; by befriending with Western Freemasonic regimes, Gaddafi exposed himself to their sophisticated falsehood, deceptive schemes, and unadulterated lies that serve the villainous Freemasonic gangsters who rule England, France and America to easily manipulate the developments they want to trigger and to stage-manage the theatre of destruction throughout the world. In private, they say to Gaddafi that they are against the Tunis events and that they highly appreciated Zine al Abedine Ben Ali.....
Some issues are personal; and the worst personal damage that can happen to a Freemason is to be robbed by a non Freemason; these evil persons take it very badly, because money is their sole 'god' and because they are idiotic enough to believe in their intellect's superiority. In such cases, revenge is imperatively taken, and the cost of a human life can suddenly become next to nothing.
Why among all the relatives of Zine al Abedine Ben Ali, his nephew, Imed Trabelsi, was butchered in a merciless way? Why bother to kill - with such passion, with such determination, and with such hatred - someone who was not in the front line of the Tunisian political life, being a mere businessman?
It looks awkward only if you never heard of Zionists and Freemasons; actually, Imed Trabelsi had stolen the lavish yacht of a French Jew and Freemason, Bruno Roger, the chairman of the French firm Lazard; this guy is an acknowledged arms dealer of the worst sort. And subsequently, for the Satanists who rule France, the account had to be regulated - even as a part of a ''popular revolt''.
HOW STUPID CAN THE COVERAGE ON LIBYA GET? VERY VIDEO
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF THE LIBYAN SITUATION
The Truth About the Situation in Libya: Cutting through Government Propaganda and Media Lies
Libya is a small country of just over 6 million people but it possesses the largest oil reserves in all of Africa. The oil produced there is especially coveted because of its particularly high quality.
The Air Force of the United States along with Britain and France has carried out 7,459 bombing attacks since March 19. Britain, France and the United States sent special operation ground forces and commando units to direct the military operations of the so-called rebel fighters – it is a NATO- led army in the field.
The troops may be disaffected Libyans but the operation is under the control and direction of NATO commanders and western commando units who serve as “advisors.” Their new weapons and billions in funds come from the U.S. and other NATO powers that froze and seized Libya’s assets in Western banks. Their only military successes outside of Benghazi, in the far east of the country, have been exclusively based on the coordinated air and ground operations of the imperialist NATO military forces.
In military terms, Libya’s resistance to NATO is of David and Goliath proportions. U.S. military spending alone is more than ten times greater than Libya’s entire annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which was $74.2 billion in 2010, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.
In recent weeks, the NATO military operations used surveillance-collecting drones, satellites, mounting aerial attacks and covert commando units to decapitate Libya’s military and political leadership and its command and control capabilities. Global economic sanctions meant that the country was suddenly deprived of income and secure access to goods and services needed to sustain a civilian economy over a long period.
“The cumulative effect [of NATO’s coordinated air and ground operation] not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished Colonel Gaddafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations,“ reports the New York Times in a celebratory article on August 22.
A False Pretext
The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Italy targeted the Libyan government for overthrow or “regime change” not because these governments were worried about protecting civilians or to bring about a more democratic form of governance in Libya.
If that were the real motivation of the NATO powers, they could start the bombing of Saudi Arabia right away. There are no elections in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy does not even allow women to drive cars. By law, women must be fully covered in public or they will go to prison. Protests are rare in Saudi Arabia because any dissent is met with imprisonment, torture and execution.
The Saudi monarchy is protected by U.S. imperialism because it is part of an undeclared but real U.S. sphere of influence and it is the largest producer of oil in the world. The U.S. attitude toward the Saudi monarchy was put succinctly by Ronald Reagan in 1981, when he said that the U.S. government “will not permit” revolution in Saudi Arabia such as the 1979 Iranian revolution that removed the U.S. client regime of the Shah. Reagan’s message was clear: the Pentagon and CIA’s military forces would be used decisively to destroy any democratic movement against the rule of the Saudi royal family.
Reagan’s explicit statement in 1981 has in fact been the policy of every successive U.S. administration, including the current one.
Libya and Imperialism
Libya, unlike Saudi Arabia, did have a revolution against its monarchy. As a result of the 1969 revolution led by Muammar Gaddafi, Libya was no longer in the sphere of influence of any imperialist country.
Libya had once been an impoverished colony of Italy living under the boot heel of the fascist Mussolini. After the Allied victory in World War II, control of the country was formally transferred to the United Nations and Libya became independent in 1951 with authority vested in the monarch King Idris.
But in actuality, Libya was controlled by the United States and Britain until the 1969 revolution.
One of the first acts of the 1969 revolution was to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism and foreign control. Not only were oil fields nationalized but Gaddafi eliminated foreign military bases inside the country.
In March of 1970, the Gaddafi government shut down two important British military bases in Tobruk and El Adem. He then became the Pentagon’s enemy when he evicted the U.S. Wheelus Air Force Base near Tripoli that had been operated by the United States since 1945. Before the British military took control in 1943, the facility was a base operated by the Italians under Mussolini.
Wheelus had been an important Strategic Air Command (SAC) base during the Cold War, housing B-52 bombers and other front-line Pentagon aircrafts that targeted the Soviet Union.
Once under Libyan control, the Gaddafi government allowed Soviet military planes to access the airfield.
In 1986, the Pentagon heavily bombed the base at the same time it bombed downtown Tripoli in an effort to assassinate Gaddafi. That effort failed but his 2-year-old daughter died along with scores of other civilians.
The Character of the Gaddafi Regime
The political, social and class orientation of the Libyan regime has gone through several stages in the last four decades. The government and ruling establishment reflected contradictory class, social, religious and regional antagonisms. The fact that the leadership of the NATO-led National Transition Council is comprised of top officials of the Gaddafi government, who broke with the regime and allied themselves with NATO, is emblematic of the decades-long instability within the Libyan establishment.
These inherent contradictions were exacerbated by pressures applied to Libya from the outside. The U.S. imposed far-reaching economic sanctions on Libya in the 1980s. The largest western corporations were barred from doing business with Libya and the country was denied access to credit from western banks.
In its foreign policy, Libya gave significant financial and military support to national liberation struggles, including in Palestine, Southern Africa, Ireland and elsewhere.
Because of Libya's economic policies, living standards for the population had jumped dramatically after 1969. Having a small population and substantial income from its oil production, augmented with the Gaddafi regime’s far-reaching policy of social benefits, created a huge advance in the social and economic status for the population. Libya was still a class society with rich and poor, and gaps between urban and rural living standards, but illiteracy was basically wiped out, while education and health care were free and extensively accessible. By 2010, the per capita income in Libya was near the highest in Africa at $14,000 and life expectancy rose to over 77 years, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.
Gaddafi’s political orientation explicitly rejected communism and capitalism. He created an ideology called the “Third International Theory,” which was an eclectic mix of Islamic, Arab nationalist and socialist ideas and programs. In 1977, Libya was renamed the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. A great deal of industry, including oil, was nationalized and the government provided an expansive social insurance program or what is called a welfare state policy akin to some features prevalent in the Soviet Union and some West European capitalist countries.
But Libya was not a workers’ state or a “socialist government” to use the popular if not scientific use of the term “socialist.” The revolution was not a workers and peasant rebellion against the capitalist class per se. Libya remained a class society although class differentiation may have been somewhat obscured beneath the existence of revolutionary committees and the radical, populist rhetoric that emanated from the regime.
As in many developing, formerly colonized countries, state ownership of property was not “socialist” but rather a necessary fortification of an under-developed capitalist class. State property in Iraq, Libya and other such post-colonial regimes was designed to facilitate the social and economic growth of a new capitalist ruling class that was initially too weak, too deprived of capital and too cut off from international credit to compete on its own terms with the dominant sectors of world monopoly capitalism. The nascent capitalist classes in such developing economies promoted state-owned property, under their control, in order to intersect with Western banks and transnational corporations and create more favorable terms for global trade and investment.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” governments of central and Eastern Europe in 1989-91 deprived Libya of an economic and military counter-weight to the United States, and the Libyan government’s domestic economic and foreign policy shifted towards accommodation with the West.
In the 1990s some sectors of the Libyan economic establishment and the Gaddafi-led government favored privatization, cutting back on social programs and subsidies and integration into western European markets.
The earlier populism of the regime incrementally gave way to the adoption of neo-liberal policies. This was, however, a long process.
In 2004, the George W. Bush administration ended sanctions on Libya. Western oil companies and banks and other corporations initiated huge direct investments in Libya and trade with Libyan enterprises.
There was also a growth of unemployment in Libya and in cutbacks in social spending, leading to further inequality between rich and poor and class polarization.
But Gaddafi himself was still considered a thorn in the side of the imperialist powers. They want absolute puppets, not simply partners, in their plans for exploitation. The Wikileaks release of State Department cables between 2007 and 2010 show that the United states and western oil companies were condemning Gaddafi for what they called “resource nationalism.” Gaddafi even threatened to re-nationalize western oil companies’ property unless Libya was granted a larger share of the revenue for their projects.
As an article in today’s New York Times Business section said honestly: “"Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for the international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with."
Even the most recent CIA Fact Book publication on Libya, written before the armed revolt championed by NATO, complained of the measured tempo of pro-market reforms in Libya: “Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial steps— including applying for WTO membership, reducing some subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization—are laying the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based economy.” (CIA World Fact Book)
The beginning of the armed revolt on February 23 by disaffected members of the Libyan military and political establishment provided the opportunity for the U.S. imperialists, in league with their French and British counterparts, to militarily overthrow the Libyan government and replace it with a client or stooge regime.
Of course, in the revolt were workers and young people who had many legitimate grievances against the Libyan government. But what is critical in an armed struggle for state power is not the composition of the rank-and-file soldiers, but the class character and political orientation of the leadership.
Character of the National Transition Council
The National Transitional Council (NTC) constituted itself as the leadership of the uprising in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city. The central leader is Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who was Libya’s Minister of Justice until his defection at the start of the uprising. He was one of a significant number of Western-oriented and neoliberal officials from Libya’s government, diplomatic corps and military ranks who joined the opposition in the days immediately after the start of the revolt.
As soon as it was established, the NTC began issuing calls for imperialist intervention. These appeals became increasing panicky as it became clear that, contrary to early predictions that the Gaddafi-led government would collapse in a matter of days, it was the “rebels” who faced imminent defeat in the civil war. In fact, it was only due to the U.S./NATO bombing campaign, initiated with great hurry on March 19 that the rebellion did not collapse.
The last five months of war have erased any doubt about the pro-imperialist character of the NTC. One striking episode took place on April 22, when Senator John McCain made a “surprise” trip to Benghazi. A huge banner was unveiled to greet him with an American flag printed on it and the words: “United States of America – You have a new ally in North Africa.”
Similar to the military relationship between the NATO and Libyan “rebel” armed forces, the NTC is entirely dependent on and subordinated to the U.S., French, British and Italian imperialist governments.
If the Pentagon, CIA, and Wall Street succeed in installing a client regime in Tripoli it will accelerate and embolden the imperialist threats and intervention against other independent governments such as Syria and Venezuela. In each case we will see a similar process unfold, including the demonization of the leadership of the targeted countries so as to silence or mute a militant anti-war response to the aggression of the war-makers.
We in the ANSWER Coalition invite all those who share this perspective to join with us, to mobilize, and to unmask the colonial agenda that hides under the slogan of “humanitarian intervention.”
Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition