THE TRUTH ABOUT LOCKERBIE

.


Documentaries and articles have laid out most of this information about the Lockerbie bombing before, not that you'd know it from reading the mainstream media. Here it is explained by an ex-CIA asset that the current attack on Libya has everything to do with Lockerbie, its aftermath and Gaddafi's demands for compensation from US big oil for previous services to the USA, i.e. the face-saving acceptance of blame for the crime and the leveraged extortion (compensation for victims) that went with it.



LIBYA'S BLOOD FOR OIL: THE VAMPIRE WAR
March 28th, 2011

By Susan Lindauer, former U.S. Asset who covered Libya at the United Nations from 1995 to 2003

Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don't care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what's really going on here?

According to the CIA, the following never happened…

Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gadhaffi's government. As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya's U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.

Last summer that gossip got juicy!

About July, I started hearing that Gadhaffi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya's reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya's innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)

Knowing Gadhaffi as well as I do, I was convinced that he'd done it. He'd bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He's a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That's exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gadhaffi wasn't playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age—the Oil Industry—roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gadhaffi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they'd suffered under U.N. sanctions.

Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi's request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer—in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.

The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.

According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who'd been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that "Operation Corea" allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages' whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the "Godfather of Terror," Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.

Building up to Lockerbie, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee's team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.

On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA's Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA's role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.

The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That's right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.

Unforgivably, nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon. But other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight—making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.

It was a monstrous act! But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA's role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie afficiandos as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony-- $4 million a pop— and Megrahi's life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.

It struck Gadhaffi as grievously offensive, as well—The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gadhaffi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya's demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well—particularly France and Italy—who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.

I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b—tch on both sides. You don't lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You've got to admit that Gadhaffi's attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.

Alas, Gadhaffi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don't strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.

And that's exactly what's happening today.

Don't kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa" and "Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya?"

There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.

For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world—a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.

As Chossudovsky writes, "Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern breakaway province" on February 23 and 24— seven (7) days after the start of Gadhaffi's domestic rebellion. "The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk." (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels." Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.

We're supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days— from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!

That's strategically impossible.

Nothing can persuade me that Gadhaffi's fate wasn't decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gadhaffi's nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.

The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.

Don't kid yourself. Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don't bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary oil and mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They're scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.

The democratization movements are sending a warning that I don't think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They've got their stakes out, and they're starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.

And woe to the wicked when they do!

-###-

This article may be reprinted in full or part with attribution to the author.

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria/Hezbollah from 1993 to 2003. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.


.

LIBYA: HAS A PEOPLE EVER BEEN MORE LOVED?

.


The London Conference on Libya has just started. We are a few speeches in but it was very difficult to continue watching.

So, so moving.

David Cameron,Ban Ki-moon, Hilary Clinton and a representative of the Arab League competed as to who could most intensely confirm their heartfelt and total support, their sincere, tender and overwhelming concern for 'The Libyan People', their determination to 'protect their lives' and their utter abhorrence of the violence committed against them.

These giants of the world stage confirmed their greatness before our very eyes.

How fortunate the Libyan people must feel.

Such was the intensity of love noisily clattering around the walls of the conference hall that it would have created little surprise if Christ Himself favoured the assembly with a short visitation.

The spectacle made me weep.

Truly.

The suffering is surely over for the Libyan people.

There will be no more deaths. It's over.


Time now to move on.

.....Now, where were we?

Umm, Aah....Oh, that's right.....Damascus, wasn't it Mr. Soros?


.

Beautiful Burnout

.


The following was found and forwarded from 'The Guardian' website as a comment on a thread (about 15 comments down) from a contributor called 'Beautiful Burnout'. Excellent and quite moving.


The cuts will have little or no direct effect on me, personally.

I have benefited from the reduced interest rates on my mortgage subsequent to the banking rip-off. I am in a profession where work will never run out. OK, my work-related overheads have gone up by an average of about 25% over the last year and I have to work harder to stand still, as it were, but I am not on the breadline.

Yet yesterday I walked more than 3 miles with half a million others because every benefit I have had from the welfare state - free schooling, virtually free higher education, health-care free at the point of delivery (and instantly available no matter whether I have the right insurance or not), a fire-brigade or ambulance service that will turn up to my house in reasonable time should I require it, a police service that will protect me, etc. etc.- is going to be denied to the next generation for....well, what reason exactly?

So that:
1) Right-wing ideologues can open up all those markets that the US have been whining to the WTO about for decades.
2) Some ideological principle can be applied that says people should contribute less tax and pay privately for their services (screwing the collective community if they cannot afford to pay their insurance)
3) Further rewards can be showered on the very richest in society, while the very poorest will be expected to step up or die out
4) Any public provision will not be on the basis of the most needy, but on the basis of who those in control consider to be the most deserving.

In short, we will be regressing to a Victorian model society of the über-rich and undeserving poor.

The reason why the welfare state was created after WW2 - and may I remind people that this was a time when our national debt was somewhere in the region of 150% of our GDP - was because the war was a remarkable leveller of class. Suddenly all those rich officer types became aware that the working class ranks were good people, brave people, people just like them, prepared to put their lives on the line for them, and that these people deserved being treated with respect. They deserved a share in the country's wealth to the extent that they would no longer have to worry about what would happen to them if they fell ill or lost their jobs - after all, they had fought just as hard to protect the country they loved.

The reason why the current lot of right-wing assholes are managing to dismantle all this to their own benefit is because the have succeeded in dehumanising working class people again - portraying them as spongers, scroungers and profligate spendthrifts. Aided and abetted by mega-rich newspaper moguls and other allies, they deflect attention from the fact that their buddies in the City have royally shafted us all. Privatising their profits, nationalising their losses, they blame the very people who had replenished the Treasury coffers year-in year-out with their hard-earned cash. We are not supposed to consider the fact that those same coffers have been emptied into the pockets of the Fat Cat City spivs and crooks a relevant issue.

Yesterday was just the beginning of the backlash. My middle-aged feet are killing me, but I will march again and again until they are bruised and bleeding - not for me, but for everyone else.

Stick that in your corporatist crack pipes and smoke it.


....and along the same lines.... "Andrew Lansley. TOSSER!" from MC NxtGen.

Hurrah for youth. Well done young man.




.

UK 'ANARCHISTS' ARE PART OF MI5

.


The TUC-led protest march in London yesterday was the biggest I've seen. The attendance was significantly larger than the massive pre-Iraq war London protest (that was duplicated in cities across the UK leading to an estimated 2 million participants).

As the newspapers report, the march was good-humored and almost entirely peaceful.

This morning however, as usual, front pages are filled with images of young men slamming poles through shop windows and fires blazing on the streets. This is the image of 'protest' that is intended to settle into the minds of the complacent, the merely curious and those that might be considering doing something to challenge power in society.

The violence is blamed, again as usual, on 'Anarchists'.

The presence of this group is easily identifiable at any large protest. They dress mostly in black and often carry red-and-black pennants on poles. Most cover their faces below (and normally but not always above) the eyes with black scarves. They move as one and stick together.

Yesterday I was in Trafalgar Square when this group (of maybe 150) skewed away, as one, from the main body of the march and strode as a troupe round the other side of the square past St Martin-In The Fields and up Charing Cross Road towards Cambridge Circus. I heard one old fellow say, "Where are they off to?" The reply, "Oxford Street to smash a few windows".

Of course they were. The game is well and broadly understood.

But why were they not stopped? Nor even followed. The police showed no interest in these people whatsoever.

They could easily have been stopped. If a few of us had put some thought into this predictable event we could have stopped them ourselves. They were small in number and mostly kids. I would guess that there was hardly a person over 25 among them. The young men leading the group were lean and fit. Many of those behind were slight. No fat, middle-aged or grizzled faces at all.

Who are these people? For a political movement they seem strangely reluctant to reveal themselves in public and state their case.

In fact Anarchism as a political philosophy seems to be a 19th century idea that more or less disappeared during the first three decades of the 20th century. In the mid-to-late 1800's this movement was led by people like Emma Goldman. The Goldman-directed agent Leon Czolgosz assassinated US president William McKinley in 1901. McKinley had been supported by the financiers against William Jennings Bryant and had won the 1896 election. However, it appears that he outlived his usefulness and was killed. At that time Anarchists were major political change-agents. Their actions allowed them to be presented to the public as enemies of the state but their 'orgy of destabilisation' (to use Webster Tarpley's words) created a chaos that those who really wield power find extremely useful. Violence, division and chaos makes for a political situation where the only people who are NOT confused, disorientated and misdirecting their energies are those who directed the chaos in the first place.

Is it possible that the ridiculous, silent and anonymous rump that is UK 'Anarchism' today is nothing more than an instrument of MI5 that is only triggered into action when there is an active political opposition to discredit?

Are 'Anarchists' a bunch of silly kids signed up to a website (on which there is not a single name, nor a forum nor an other evidence of serious political discourse)?

Has anyone ever heard of a UK anarchist being prosecuted for violence during a public protest?

Do we know the name of a single UK Anarchist?

What kind of political organisation does not have a visible leader, nor leadership group.

What kind of political group does absolutely nothing to promote its political philosophy in the public domain (please don't say that smashing windows [remember to wait until the cameras arrive] is any kind of meaningful statement)?

Are the 'Anarchists' such a group? Almost-adults led by a very small group of police agent-provocateurs?

Highly likely in my opinion.

Actually, here is film of some of the worst scenes from yesterdays protest. If you watch carefully (it will take a few viewings) from about 5:45 you will see one of the 'Anarchists' move towards police lines while some fighting is still taking place. He must say something or show a card (it was suggested to me that he looks like he is removing a wire at one point) because he is ushered gently to the other side of the line by the same police (he has presumably just been attacking) while the chaos continues. I suppose this explains why juvenile Anarchists are never arrested and charged.....because it would inevitably lead to the naming of more senior individuals within the group who are police or MI5.....and the whole charabang of deceptive (but useful) bullsh*t would fall over a cliff and disappear under the waves.

I've convinced myself.

UK ANARCHISTS ARE PART OF MI5

And there is evidence that this type of police action goes on everywhere (watch the boots).

It also seems that internationally 'anarchists' serve a similar purpose.

Here they are back in November 2010 at the 'student' protest.

No long-haired scruffy jumper-and-trainers-clad student he.

Note the strong and sturdy copper's boots. Notice the banks of cameramen awaiting their money shot that will (and did) adorn our front pages the following morning. Notice PC plod behind the cameramen, looking on with mere curiosity.

Neither the BBC, nor ITV, nor the corporate press will EVER ask simple and obvious questions, nor raise obvious concerns nor make obvious allegations about these people.

It is about time the rest of us did. If you are beginning to understand the game, inform your friends and associates. Speak it out loud and clear.

PS

For those who are new to realising the obvious but 'unthinkable', MI5 are the internal UK Intelligence service. They are senior to the police while working independently but often in co-ordination with them. They can turn up at a crime scene, flash an identity card and tell police to clear off. Even our most senior elected politicians are only told of their activities on a need-to-know basis. They are subject to an authority that is entirely separate from our visible political system. They are governed by individuals representing the interests of a ruling oligarchy, an elite who have access to almost unlimited funds owing to their ownership and control of the various vehicles of international finance.

One imagines that MI5 agents think they carry out their dirty work in service of UK PLC but international financiers are only interested in the UK as a safe haven from which to project, with their allies, imperialist control over the earth's resources i.e. globalism. They are engaged in a 'project', sometimes called 'the great game'. Though 'a game' to them, it has nothing in common with a game for the rest of us.

This is a game in which the rest of us all lose.

It is no accident that inside the UK (as elsewhere) the rich are getting massively richer , the poor get increasingly desperate while we submit (complaining-in-an-ever-so-civilised-manner) to the coming debt-enslavement of our children. This IS what yesterday's march was about, wasn't it?

Neither our real government(the oligarchy), nor MI5 care a damn for us. Their sole project is to condition us for submission and eventual total enslavement.

The pretend-government of venal careerists that we elect will strain at any number of gnats having swallowed every camel as dictated by their political bosses.

MP's DO NOT ASK THE IMPORTANT, NECESSARY AND OBVIOUS QUESTIONS. NOT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM, NOT ABOUT 9/11, NOR 7/7, NOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT REALLY MATTERS.

To be fair, most involved in imposing this nightmare agenda are quite unaware of the bigger picture.

MI5 employees!

WAKE UP!

You have got children too.

Schoolteachers, police, Council employees, military personnel!

WAKE UP!

Notice that the edicts you (and your bosses) obey come from you-know-not-where. Start challenging them. Do nothing (or as little as possible) that invokes the slightest qualm or reservation in your God-given conscience.


.

THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG

.



This is brilliant and worth reading carefully (see fuller exposition of your legal registration as a PERSON [a form of corporation] in John Harris' talk after article).


THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG

Roger Hayes (article for The UK Column)


This article is a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year.

The story so far:

The council have demanded council tax from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years - on the grounds that there is no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think they have the right to demand that I pay council tax... which they do not. I am happy to pay my council tax – but only when the Council has agreed to provide me with a lawful contract... this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.

The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger Hayes) - but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES... but that isn’t me. If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction – please refer to previous articles or the UK Column web site www.ukcolumn.org.

On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of witnesses, the court conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act as ‘third party representative’ for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court agreed that they they were two entirely separate entities. This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.

The court did not however concede without putting up a very vigorous fight... this is how events unfolded in the court room.

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?

Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?

Me: No sir, I am the third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may address me as Roger.

Judge: I will not address you as Roger, I will call you MR HAYES

Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the Judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to meas MR HAYES).

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.

Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court.

(NOTE. This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared)

Judge: I can see that that the council has representation in the court.

Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Judge: Let’s hear from the council.

Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.

Judge: Fine.

And the case continued.... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The Judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council.

Smart judge.

So what does this all mean? Well In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is now truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes... because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established - I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax. AND NEITHER ARE YOU.


One of many films on this subject:
John James Harris - Freeman of England




.

35% of British public, 98% of British parliament support attack on Libya

.


The latest Opinion Poll, published in the Financial Times, that examines the British public's attitude to western attacks on Libya, demonstrates the ever-growing and unbridgeable chasm that exists between ordinary people and those that represent us.

Quote: ".....According to an ITV/ComRes poll, 35 per cent of people agreed it was right for the UK to take military action against Muammer Gaddafi’s forces in Libya."

This same night British M.P.'s voted 557 to 13 in favour of the attacks. That is 557 out of 570 or 98% support for Cameron's new war.

Ordinary people, by and large, clearly understand two things that our elected representatives seem to have missed.

One, Gaddafi represents no threat to western countries whatsoever, and...

Two, that bombing the sh*t out of people is a very peculiar kind of 'humanitarianism'.

So here is a loud message from the British public to Cameron, Clegg and the entire political/media class.

65% of the people believe you are wrong. Almost all of them surely also believe you are lying (if we can exclude the unlikely possibility that they imagine the lawyers and Oxbridge types that predominate on the green leather benches to be stupid) about the motivation behind this war.

Here, at least, is one encouraging fact to emerge from what Webster Tarpley calls "the engineered orgy of destabilisation" now taking place across the Muslim world.

.....and if the lives of many of Gaddafi's opponents have been saved (as is quite possible, or even likely) by recent military actions, these 'rebels' would never have taken up armed insurrection in the first place without CIA encouragement and financial backing.

NOR IS IT LIKELY, IN THE LONG RUN, THAT THE NUMBER OF LIVES POSSIBLY SAVED WILL IN ANY WAY BALANCE THE MASSIVE LOSSES THAT WILL ACCRUE IN WHAT IS VERY LIKELY TO DEVELOP INTO A HORRIBLE AND INTERMINABLE CIVIL WAR.

The US Congress has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support such insurrections. For the moment, destabilisation and the destruction of nation states that might (from a position of security) defect into the Chinese orbit, seems to be the name of the game.

PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE 'REBELS', NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT AT THE END OF WHATEVER IS COMING LIBYA WILL REMAIN A VASSAL STATE. IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE DOMINATED BY WESTERN (INCLUDING ISRAELI) INTERESTS. LIBYAN REBELS WILL ENJOY A BETTER LIBYA IF, EVEN AT THIS LATE STAGE, THEY CAN (HOWEVER IMPOSSIBLE IT MIGHT SEEM)OVERCOME THEIR HATRED, COME TO SOME KIND OF POWER-SHARING ARRANGEMENT WITH GADDAFI AND FACE THE PREDATORY IMPERIALIST WESTERN GLOBALISTS TOGETHER.


Louis Farrakhan analyses the Libyan situation with great accuracy and emphasis below.





.

Don't Trust The Libyan Horror Stories

.


On LBC (London Broadcasting) radio this morning there was a live poll of Londoners, the results of which were intermittently broadcast. At the end of the first hour the balance was 72% against military action, 28% in favour.

By the end of the show this balance had changed to 52% against, 48% for.

In the meantime there were also a stream of callers claiming to be Libyans who plied their way through a long list of absolutely horrific crimes of the Gaddafi regime including (for a taste of the horror recited):

A young boy was overheard making a phone call. The authorities went to his house, took him away, beheaded him and brought his head back to his mother saying she should give it to his brother to play with.

This kind of thing reminds one of the Kuwaiti Princess who went on world TV in 1991 alleging that Iraqi soldiers in a Kuwaiti hospital were taking premature babies from their incubators and killing them. This story was later proved (and admitted) to be a complete lie.

I called LBC to contribute to their phone-in to say this but they would not let me on air.

if such horrors were routinely occurring (as the callers allege) you can be quite sure we would all have heard about such incidents long before this crucial moment arrived.

Garnering support for military attacks matters. The British public (in London at least), it appears, are against this action and a media blitz of such propaganda is almost certainly on its way into your living rooms.

Don't trust a word these war-mongers say. Someone is trying to make your heart shed virtual blood in order that you will applaud the reality of real Libyans will shedding real blood.


.

Cosmic Evil and 'The Great Game'

.


It is difficult to make much sense of our latest war against Gaddafi.

The one thing we can know with absolute confidence is that 'our' motivation for embarking on this latest adventure is NOT humanitarian.

Listening to Cameron, Sarkozy and the deafening international chorus that has supported this action, one can well imagine Gaddafi and his supporters visualising Nato firepower and trembling in their bunkers. But if we are not too concerned for the well-being of a military dictator, let us spare a thought for the rest of the Islamic world. Let us pray they will not all die from laughing at the spectacle of Clinton/Sarkozy/Cameronian hearts theatrically bleeding for the suffering of the oppressed.

This is a humanitarian mission?

The peoples of Palestine and all points east must shake their heads in bewilderment that western politicians can continue to sell this kind of nonsense to their supposedly well-educated citizens.

One obvious question arises. What makes the eastern Libyans worthy of such special consideration? We don't seem too concerned about the human rights of the protesters in Bahrain, never mind the poor persecuted people of Gaza, nor the millions of relatives of the Iraqi dead.

It also seems that this action was only possible by getting 'The Arab League' on board and that this was achieved by promising to protect the Gulf State oligarchs from their own impoverished and tyrannised internal opposition.

How's that for humanitarianism and impartially applied principle?

It was reported that a US drone killed 80 people in Pakistan a couple of days ago. There is and will be no end to this kind of humanitarianism until we deal with the poison at the heart of our own governmental system.

Furthermore, we must surely know that any armed rebellion in our own countries would be met with all necessary force and it is not as though there are not millions of us who would happily wave our current international-bankster-controlled mock-democracies goodbye tomorrow morning.

Therefore the justifications for this action represent purest hypocrisy and fabricated pretext.

There is the oil, of course.

.......but were we not already buying this oil from Lybia? Were Blair and Mandelson getting all cuddly with Gaddafi because they were genuinely attracted to his personality? It would appear that Gaddafi is already one of our assets so what's really going on?

We do know that simply having access to resources is not enough for the powers that govern us. 'We' have always had a problem with Gaddafi. The US tried to kill him during the Reagan presidency by bombing some of his residences. According to MI5 whistle-blower, David Shayler, the UK tried to do the same during the 1990's in a bungled bomb plot that only succeeded in killing a few innocent Libyan citizens. 'We' are obviously tired of playing games with this awkward fellow and want our own boy in charge of Libyan oil.

But who are we supporting in Libya?

The most committedly-Islamic anti-Americans in Libya, by the sound of it.

And are we really supporting them considering the fact that Gaddafi has been given plenty of time to take full control of Libya's oilfields (there has been quite a delay in imposing the no-fly zone, hasn't there)?

Perhaps we were quite determined that the oil would not fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist anti-Americans?......so what lies in store for these rebels about whose well-being we care so much?

My guess is that things will not work out very well for our new friends in Benghazi.

When Gaddafi said that 'Al Qaeda' was behind the Libyan rebellion in the east, he sounded like a raving lunatic to most western ears. However, for the many that know that 'Al Qaeda' was originally a CIA database of arab revolutionaries, buyable criminals and other assorted (often mentally ill) misfits, Gaddafi's assertion sounds more like a recognisable or even a likely possibility (bearing in mind that 'Al Qaeda' is code for a method rather than an arab organisation that controls itself centrally. British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, understood this. Might have been a mistake to say so though).

We know the west is funding anti-government movements across the world, from Belarus to Iran, from North Africa to Pakistan, from Ukraine to Taiwan.

It's the simple 'divide and rule' game that is as old as the hills.

As it is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to see a clear and coherent rationale behind the west's assault on Gaddafi, perhaps it is just a matter of creating the division, throwing in a large measure of murderous chaos (great for corporate profits of course) and letting the chips fall where they may......in the confident expectation that whatever fall-out occurs it can be managed to 'our' advantage.


Webster Tarpley offers many insights into the way 'our side' (If only they were) are playing the global 'great game' (see 'behind the 2011 orgy of destabilisations' here). He says that the destabilisations and interventions are all about preventing coherent nation states creating new alliances with global competitors like China and Russia.........."The current goal of London and Washington is to stop a jailbreak by their former clients,"

At least that makes some kind of sense.

Cosmically evil though, isn't it?

This 'great game' will surely one day, and quite soon, threaten the lives of every last one of us.

At some point we will have to stand up and oppose these people that claim to represent us.


.