The Arab Revolution: uprisings in Iraq, Yemen and now Oman

10 thoughts on “The Arab Revolution: uprisings in Iraq, Yemen and now Oman”

1. I do not know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else
   experiencing problems with your website. It appears as
   if some of the written text within your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let me know if this
   is happening to them as well? This might be a issue
   with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen before.
   Many thanks

   Reply

2. U.S. silent as Iraqi regime cracks down 
   By Justin Elliott
   Salon
   Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011
   http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62407.shtml

   We saw it with Yemen, and now we’re seeing it again with Iraq: The Obama administration is conspicuously quiet when friendly Middle East regimes use ugly tactics — including violence and imprisoning peaceful demonstrators — to quell growing protest movements in their countries.
   That’s in marked contrast to the administration’s tough stand when similar tactics are employed by unfriendly governments like the one in Iran. In a statement yesterday, the White House “strongly condemn[ed] the Iranian government’s organized intimidation campaign and arrests of political figures, human rights defenders, political activists, student leaders, journalists and bloggers.”
   But in one of the least-noticed stories of the week, the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq has resorted to imprisoning 300 journalists, intellectuals and lawyers in order to stop ongoing protests, according to a well-reported Washington Post dispatch from Baghdad.
   The Post story reports that about 30 people have been killed — at least some of them gunned down by government forces seeking to disperse protests. And the imprisoned dissidents are not being treated humanely, according to one journalist who was detained:
   Just before they were freed, however, Hadi was held in a room where about 300 people sat on the floor. They had black hoods over their heads. Many were groaning, their shirts bloodied. Some wore suits and ties. An elderly man had passed out. Hadi recognized a friend, a TV broadcaster, among them.
   As far as I can tell, there has been no public response from the administration to what’s happening in Iraq. Yesterday I reached out to State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley to see if the administration has any comment. I will update this post if I hear back. It’s also worth noting that the administration has a lot more real sway with Iraq — where there are still tens of thousands of American troops posted — than with many of the other countries in the region.
   Source: Salon

   Reply

3. Imperialist hands off Libya!
   http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62389.shtml
   By Patrick Martin
   WSWS
   Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011

   The United States and the European powers are moving towards direct military intervention in Libya. They are seeking to exploit a legitimate popular uprising against the 41-year rule of Muammar Gaddafi, preempt any possibility of a more radical regime emerging, and install a colonial-style puppet in place of the discredited dictatorship.
   The pace of the shift in American policy, in particular, is extraordinary. Washington has moved from relative silence on the movement against Gaddafi to leading the charge for outside intervention.
   As in every US operation in the region, the driving forces are twofold: a grab for the resources of one of the major oil-producing countries and the pursuit of the broader strategic interests of American imperialism in the Middle East and North Africa. Imperialist military forces on the ground in Libya would be in a position to influence the future course of events in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, all now in turmoil, as well as across the Sahara in Sudan, Chad, Niger and Nigeria.
   No one—least of all the Libyan people themselves—should believe the claims of humanitarian concern put forward to justify the entry of American, British, French, German, Italian and other military forces. The same powers stood by when the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, massacred demonstrators seeking jobs, democratic rights and an end to the plundering carried out by a corrupt ruling elite. They offered political, diplomatic and in some cases direct security assistance in an effort to prop up these stooge regimes.
   During the same two weeks that Gaddafi’s security forces have shot down opposition demonstrators, similar crimes have been committed by US allies in Oman and Bahrain and by the US client regime in Iraq without any public rebuke by Washington, let alone the organization of an international campaign for military intervention.
   A full-scale propaganda blitz is under way, modeled on the campaigns that paved the way for US and NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, highlighting atrocities committed by the Gaddafi regime as an argument that a joint intervention by the imperialist powers is needed to “save” the Libyan people. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set the tone Monday, denouncing Gaddafi’s use of “thugs” and “mercenaries” and declaring, “Nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.” British Prime Minister David Cameron chimed in, telling the House of Commons, “We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets” in Libya.
   Taking its cue from Washington, London and other imperialist capitals, the international media has focused enormous attention on the alleged use of air power by Gaddafi’s forces against rebels in eastern Libya and around Tripoli, the capital city. The attacks actually documented have been limited to a handful, since many of Gaddafi’s pilots have defected.
   Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd emerged from a meeting with Clinton to declare that a no-fly zone should be imposed immediately. “Guernica is known throughout the world for the bombing of the civilian population,” he declared, referring to the massacre carried out by Nazi warplanes during the Spanish Civil War. “We have seen evidence of that in Libya. Let us not simply stand idly by while similar atrocities are committed again.” Far from standing idly by, Australia has been a full partner in American wars of aggression in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which have produced far greater atrocities.
   The US-European posture of humanitarian outrage has no credibility. Until two weeks ago, these powers were paying court to Gaddafi to obtain lucrative contracts for the exploitation of the oil and gas resources of Libya. A parade of Western suitors—Condoleezza Rice, Britain’s Tony Blair, Chirac of France, Berlusconi of Italy, Zapatero of Spain—followed the smell of oil to Tripoli. They paid no heed then to Gaddafi’s police state and the screams emanating from his torture chambers.
   The United States made a major political and financial investment in the cultivation of friendly relations with Gaddafi, regarding his sudden rapprochement with Washington and US foreign policy after 2003 as a major strategic gain. Hillary Clinton recently feted one of Gaddafi’s sons in Washington and appointed the founding chairman of the US-Libya Business Association to be the State Department’s coordinator for international energy affairs.
   If these powers are now lining up to return to Libya as the supposed patrons of the opposition forces that have seized control of much of the country, they are being driven by the very same appetites for profit and plunder. And despite their professions of support for Gaddafi’s overthrow, the entry of military forces of the United States and the former European colonial powers is no favor to those genuinely fighting to overthrow the dictatorship.
   Foreign intervention will inflame popular hostility. Many of those engaged in the uprising in Benghazi have already declared their vehement opposition to the entry of US and European troops. It is the only thing that could allow Gaddafi to resume his bogus posture as an anti-imperialist and give his regime a new lease on life.
   Equally cynical are the claims of concern over the fate of the hundreds of thousands who have been fleeing Libya since fighting broke out February 17 in Benghazi. The official spokesmen for the various imperialist powers claim that their own nationals, many of them technicians and other oil company functionaries, are in danger and must be rescued. At the same time, those countries with a Mediterranean coastline—Italy, France and Spain—have warned of a flood of refugees from the escalating civil war. Both problems, of course, have the same “solution”—military intervention, both within Libya and along its coastline.
   The anti-Libya campaign is in the literal sense of the word an exercise in plunder. The first major action has been the effective seizure of $30 billion in Libyan assets held in US financial institutions, and billions more in European accounts, after the passage of a sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council. While dubbed an asset “freeze,” it is in reality the confiscation of resources that belong to the people of Libya.
   So flagrant is the theft that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking at a business conference in Germany, felt compelled to object. “Mistakes made by governments should not be paid by people,” he said. “We think discussions about an intervention in Libya or sanctions are worrisome considering the people of Libya and foreigners in this country.” He said that the outside powers should act on Libya “from a humanitarian perspective and not out of considerations for their oil interests.”
   The momentum toward military intervention is accelerating. The Berlusconi government in Italy—the former colonial power in Libya and the biggest customer for its oil—officially repudiated its non-aggression pact with the Gaddafi regime Sunday. This is the necessary legal preparation both for Italian military action inside Libya and the unleashing of US warplanes at Aviano and other NATO air bases in Italy.
   The Obama administration confirmed Monday that it has begun to redeploy naval assets into the Mediterranean Sea, bringing them within range of Libya. The Pentagon was caught off guard by the rapid spread of unrest into Libya, having dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea on February 15 in a show of force four days after the overthrow of Egyptian President Mubarak. The carrier battle group continued into the Arabian Sea, “showing the flag” in support of beleaguered pro-US dictator Saleh in Yemen and the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms.
   A Pentagon spokesman announced Monday, “We have planners working and various contingency plans and… as part of that we’re repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made.” The Enterprise and a smaller helicopter carrier, the USS Kearsage, have now moved back into the Red Sea, in position either to re-transit the Suez Canal or launch air strikes against Libyan targets. The operations under discussion range from “rescue” efforts like those already mounted by British and German commandos, to a no-fly zone, to the outright landing of the Marines.
   An additional US concern is the role of China, which is mounting its first-ever military operation in the Mediterranean Sea. Beijing has dispatched the naval frigate Xuzhou from anti-piracy patrol off Somalia through the Suez Canal to the Libyan coast to assist in the evacuation of the 30,000 Chinese citizens, mostly construction workers, trapped by the fighting.
   There is an element of desperation and extreme recklessness in the anti-Libyan campaign. It has erupted only a few days after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a speech to a military audience declared, “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
   Gates was voicing the pessimism produced by the intractable opposition of the Afghan population to long-term US military occupation, as well as the concerns of the military brass over the deteriorating condition of an all-volunteer force after ten years of constant overseas deployments.
   Despite such trepidations, however, there is a logic to imperialism and the Obama administration is driven by it. The ultimate goal of US and European intervention would be to fill the “political vacuum” in Libya, as the New York Times termed it Sunday, by turning the country into a protectorate of the imperialist powers.
   A US expert on Libya, writing in Newsweek magazine Sunday, directly compared an intervention in Libya to the long-term US role in the Balkans. The political situation in Libya, he wrote, “suggests the Balkans rather than neighboring Egypt or Tunisia as likely precursors for state building in Libya. And as with the Balkans, the international community could have a large and positive role to play by providing expertise and, temporarily, security forces.”
   In other words, Libya is to be turned into a semi-colony, ruled by the United States and its fellow predators from Western Europe, who will seize control of the oil reserves and transform the country’s territory into a strategic base of operations against the mass uprisings now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.

   Reply

4. Come one, come all…

   Our new regular social gathering for an informal meet & greet.
   All newcomers welcome.

   If ever there was a time & place to talk about Palestine and it’s situation with knowledgeable & informed people, this would be it.

   Wednesday 2nd March
   6.30pm to whenever.

   King Ahiram Restaurant
   88 Vulture Street, West End (corner Vulture and Boundary Street)

   —
   David

   Reply

5. Rally in solidarity with the uprisings in the Arab world

   Friday March 4, 5pm
   King George Square: Adelaide St, City
   
   No support for dictators!
   No support for apartheid Israel!
   US: Hands off the Arab world!

   Reply

6. Terrorists trying to destroy Libya
   24.02.2011 This article is already a few days old but is very much to-the-point-at-hand. Ray.
   http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/24-02-2011/117004-Terrorists_trying_to_destroy_Libya-0/
   … (It) was rumoured that pilots had defected with their Mirage jets, having refused orders to bomb their own people. However, those jet pictures were identified by Russian military as Russian made, not containing any bombs, but only extra fuel for a long distance run. I suppose the pilots were to drop rolls of toilet paper on the people in the streets on their way to Washington.
   Fact of the matter is the western corporate media has also been caught numerous times passing off film footage and pictures from Bahrain and Yemen, claiming they came from Libya. It is wise not to trust any western media outlet and let things play out as they were meant to.
   Already, many of the Libyan demonstrations were shown to be in support of the Libyan government. And why not? Libya’s statistics say much.
   Today, oil revenues and a small population give Libya one of the highest GDPs per capita in Africa and have allowed the Libyan state to provide an extensive level of social programmes, particularly in the fields of housing and education. Health and education are things that Libyans can take for granted. The standard of living in Libya is higher than that of all the neighbouring countries.
   Women have rights, illiteracy has greatly decreased under the leadership of Khadaffi. Humanitarian work and unity efforts for the African peoples have come from the leadership of Libya. A great project is underway for irrigation of desert land.
   Compared to neighbouring countries, Libyans enjoy a low level of poverty. Economic reforms have been carried out in the last few years to integrate the country into the global economy.
   These rioters / terrorists are now reportedly attempting to take control of Libyan oil fields. Does that sound like something that would benefit the people of Libya or benefit Washington DC?
   They have been attempting to take control of military facilities, heavily armed.
   It is best to resist the temptation of some who would put words in the mouths of the Libyan people. You have to ask yourself: Is there any organized opposition that hasn’t been infiltrated or directed from outside?
   It is more than obvious that the Libyan opposition has been organized by Washington DC, as reported previously in this space. One has to wonder when Libya’s outlet to the world has been deliberately cut off (server is too busy), why aren’t thinking people asking questions instead of mindlessly accepting what is passing for “reporting” on events in Libya.
   We have certainly already caught them in lies, in a court of law that would disqualify someone’s entire testimony. See the photograph (at http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/24-02-2011/117004-Terrorists_trying_to_destroy_Libya-0/ of a demonsatrator with placard “Oil for the West) being passed off as legitimate protesters when it is obvious they are in support of their leader.
   Now the Egyptian events take on new meaning. The groundwork was being laid for the planned assault on Libya. They are invading Libya from Egypt. Bought and paid for mercenaries from God knows where posing as “Libyan protesters” with posters “made in the USA” and weapons “made in the USA.” They have crossed the border between Egypt and Libya in a covert act of war to cry murder, dictator and whatever else about “crimes” being committed.
   However, how is one to handle an invader? Has something changed we don’t know about in international law?
   I am reminded now of Yugoslavia. What you have is an anti-terrorist operation being fought by the government of Libya and its people. A country is trying to defend itself, its territorial integrity and sovereignty. And the west doing all in its power to counter it and destroy it.
   It is a socialist state that is under attack because it will not totally and completely surrender its resources to the resource gluttons of the west.
   They are so blatantly obvious about their activities now, not even trying to hide it. A news program showed plotters and terrorists planning riots in Libya from locations not inside the country using a dating site and code words. And the sheeple think nothing of it.
   What is this that the international community is willing tolerate and cooperate with? Open terrorism sponsored by those who claim to be fighting terrorism, nothing less! No matter what one thinks about Khaddafi, this is morally wrong and against international law.
   The United States of America has subverted countless governments, most democratically elected, put in place dictators and mass murderers, drug and people traffickers and sought to assassinate opponents. International community, are you going to stand for this? That the perpetrators of war, murder, state terrorism and most of all lies and slander are accusing someone of crimes they are guilty of?
    
   Lisa Karpova
   Pravda.Ru

   Reply

7. What Does the Libyan Opposition Want?
   http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62386.shtml
   By Yoshie Furuhashi
   Monthly Review
   Monday, Feb 28, 2011

   As everyone knows, Muammar Gaddafi is an authoritarian dictator.  Authoritarian dictators are a dime a dozen in world history, though, so that is not what would distinguish him from the rest of his kind in history books.  What might make him stand out is this: in the twilight of his autocratic career, Gaddafi had become such an arrant fool that he didn’t even know enough to vet his own envoys for their commitment to the sovereignty of Libya.  As the fate of Libya was being discussed by the powers represented in the NATO and the UN Security Council yesterday, among those most fervently calling for no-fly zones were Libya’s own UN ambassadors turned defectors, Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham and Ibrahim Dabbashi, making the same demand as the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), an umbrella group of major Libyan exile organizations including the Libyan Constitutional Union (led by the so-called “Crown Prince” of Libya) and the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL, a tool of the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War).

   Thus it fell to a few good Latin American socialists to do what they could to argue the case of Libya and defend its right to self-determination — that is, the right of the Libyan people, those who are for, against, or indifferent to the soon-to-be former Libyan regime, to sort out their own affairs, free from NATO or any other foreign troops — in the court of world public opinion.  And they tried, knowing that their efforts would be met with not only attacks from the Right but also total incomprehension on the part of not a few leftists.  The Latin American socialists, however, had some powerful tactical allies in and out of the UNSC: China, Russia, Brazil, India, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey, which all weighed in on the side of caution, counseling against acting in haste without enough information to make informed decisions.  Though the resulting UNSC resolution, unanimously voted for, referred the case of Libya to the ICC and imposed asset freeze, travel ban, arms embargo, and other sanctions, under Chapter 7 to boot, the Libyan exiles and defectors, US liberal and neo-con adventurists, and other usual suspects didn’t get everything they wanted: still no no-fly zones . . . yet.  So, the thankless job done by the 20th- and 21st-century socialists may not have been a complete waste of time, though the voices of bean counters reminding the deciders of the costs of the Iraq war probably counted far more in this age of austerity.

   The zealous calls of the Libyan opposition for no-fly zones, in any case, suggest that the fall of the Gaddafi regime may not come as quickly as I thought it would.  After all, why call for any such thing if you are confident about being able to march into Tripoli and hang your enemy on your own in a matter of days?  So, the world may have a little more time to go look for missing information and think.

   There are many unanswered questions in the fog of what is now a low-intensity civil war in Libya.  The least examined question in the corporate media, however, is the character of the Libyan opposition: what it is and what it wants.  Before the rest of the world learns anything about it, though, the opposition has already formed an “interim government” in Benghazi, headed by Mustafa Mohamed Abud Ajleil, the former Libyan justice minister who resigned from the government in protest just a few days ago.

   Who else are involved in the formation of this interim government?  First of all, other high-ranking defectors, both “civilian and military,” from the Gaddafi regime.  The aforementioned Libyan ambassadors and other diplomats who have come out against the regime will represent it abroad.  Opposition tribal leaders are naturally part of it, too.  Is the NCLO, too?  That remains to be seen, but the odds are strong that its members will get their piece of the post-Gaddafi Libyan pie one way or another.

   What might be the politico-economic philosophy of the interim government?  The Gaddafi regime’s neoliberal turn is well known, and the defectors will probably bring that bent with them.  As for the opposition in exile, the following excerpt from a report on a 1994 conference of Libyan exiles including the NFSL, hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, may give us a clue of their orientation:
   “Most participants argued for privatization and a strong private sector economy. . . .  [Economist Misbah] Oreibi warned that many of the big public sector enterprises will simply have to be shut down and the losses absorbed because they will never be profitable.”  It is hard not to conclude that the marriage of old exiles and recent defectors is likely to result in a doubly neoliberal offspring.”
   Is that what the Libyans who took to the streets — probably thinking that they were joining the Great 21st-century Arab Revolt for not only political freedom but also social justice — really want?  If not, what independent organization do they have to press their own demands?  If there is a Libyan counterpart of the Tunisian Communist Workers’ Party, the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt, or the Wa’ad Party of Bahrain, for instance, I have yet to hear from it.

   Meanwhile, Libya’s ambassador to the US, Ali Aujali, has already made a public statement in favor of the interim government, so it is a matter of time before the US government is asked to recognize it, and requests for recognition will soon begin to arrive elsewhere as well . . . though there is no way of knowing if this interim government is popular or unpopular among the Libyans, even among those who have been involved in the Feb17 uprising.

   By the way, the “Crown Prince” of Libya is now represented by the same PR agency as the King of Bahrain: Bell Pottinger, a Tory firm in Britain, founded by a friend of Lady Thatcher’s.  Among its previous clients was the Libyan Economic Development Board led by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.  Just as this charmed company has profited from both sides of the current Libyan political divide, so will the empire, most probably, however this conflict shakes out, since it has wisely invested in both camps.

   Yoshie Furuhashi is Editor of MRZine.

   Reply

8. Louay Al-Zaher wrote in an email to me this morning: “American troops and its mercenaries, government troops and militias, and Iranian special division are involved in oppressing demonstrators and controlling Iraqi cities. But the wheel of the mass is started moving and no power can stop it.”

   Ray

   Reply

9. A statement has been issued by the revolutionary forces of the people (Young Rebels Iraq = Shabaan Thuwaar Al-Iraq): In respect of the blood of the martyrs who were killed in demonstrations in the last Friday, anger of the Iraqi people will converge next Friday 4th March, in a mass demonstration to overthrow the government and defeat the occupation. http://iraqibeacon.wordpress.com/

   Reply

10. World cheers as the CIA plunges Libya into chaos
    Critical Analysis : http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62380.shtml
    By David Rothscum with Axis of Logic Editorial Statement
    David Rothscum Reports. Axis of Logic
    Sunday, Feb 27, 2011

    Axis of Logic Editorial Statement
    The sudden demonization of Qadaffi in the corporate media and much of the alternative media is reminiscent of the demonization of Saddam Hussein, comparing him to Adolph Hitler, etc., preparatory to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whatever faults Hussein might have had, he led a far more progressive and civilized society than what Iraq has today.
    Fidel Castro and President Hugo Chavez are being maligned by the corporate/government media and much of the well-intentioned but naive alternative media as being indifferent to the people who have died in the Libyan crisis. But in fact, this is what Fidel stated about the Libyan crisis:
    “The riots in Libya were inspired by the United States. Every hour an invasion by U.S. troops could be expected. US will send them to ‘protect the Libyan people’. But in reality, they need only the Libyan oil.”
    And on February 25, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro also warned of a U.S. invasion of Libya followed by President Chavez’ statement:
    “Go Chancellor Nicholas: Give another lesson to the pitiyanqui far right! Viva Libya and its independence! Qaddafi is facing a civil war!!”
    At Axis of Logic, we have been perceived as “Qaddafi lovers” because we publish some material like the article below. This is a superficial assessment of our position on Libya. We do our best to examine all information available to us regarding the crisis in Libya and withhold judgement in the midst of a fluid and dynamic time in Libyan history. The alternative media has been flooded with opinions by western “analysts” and writers about what is happening in Libya. Most have joined the corporate media’s demonization and condemnation of Muammar Qaddafi for brutal repression of the Libyan people, likening him to Egypt’s former dictator, Hosni Mubarak. David Rothscum offers an entirely different perspective and his in-depth investigation and report below deserves a careful and fair reading.
    – Les Blough and
    Paul Richard Harris
    Axis of Logic Editors
    World cheers as the CIA plunges Libya into chaos

    How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.

    Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

    People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

    How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

    Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn’t, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.

    The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya’s current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

    Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we speak. “Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in” and “Pro Gaddafi protests in front of Libyan embassy London” are gone [i.e. stating “This video has been removed by user.”]. [Moreover] Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when it’s from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it’s viewers than chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.

    Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people’s congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?

    The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself “Islamic Emirate of Barka”, the former name of the North-Western part of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his fears of an Islamic Emirate of B.enghazi declaring itself independent.

    So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could not rule out links to Israel.

    Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this organization that called for the “Day of Rage” that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 of this year.
    It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been opposed to Gadaffi’s rule. It should be noted that the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this failed uprising.

    Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent against the United States. This concept is called the United States of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the assassination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.

    The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has historically been divided into various tribal groups.

    This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.

    Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments. The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts, conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi’s system of government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.

    Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months, as the world cheers.
    PART II
    If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… Al Qaeda.

    How did Al Qaeda start? Al Qaeda grew out of the Afghan Arabs in Afghanistan that the CIA trained at Camp Peary. A Amongst these men were many Libyans. These Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan eventually created the Libyan Islamic Fighting group. As explained on Wikipedia and in my earlier report on Libya, they were funded by MI6 to assassinate Gadaffi in 1996.

    Unlike the US that keeps you in prison forever without even receiving a trial, the Libyan government made the mistake of showing mercy. They released 90 members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group in 2008.It gets weirder. On the day of the “Day of Rage”, Libya had released 110 rehabilitated members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group.These were men, part of an organization linked to Al Qaeda who plotted to overthrow the Libyan government.

    As I explained earlier, the “Day of Rage” was called for by an organization that is funded by the CIA. Seems like a bit of incredible coincidence that the day of rage was planned to be on the same day that violent nutcases would be released who wanted to turn Libya into a second Afghanistan.

    So, Gadaffi holds a speech and says that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising in his country. And we consider him to be a schizophrenic autistic nutcase of course. He says that he will fight until the end, and we consider him the next Hitler. He holds a speech to a massive group of people clothed in green, and we tell ourselves they were simply being bribed.

    Make no mistake, the United States are using Al Qaeda to overthrow governments, yet again. As reported by CNN:

    “Al Qaeda’s North African wing has said “it will do whatever we can to help” the uprising in Libya, according to a statement the militant group posted on jihadist websites.
    The statement by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was posted Thursday, said SITE, a terrorist-tracking organization based outside Washington.
    […]

    In 2006, al Qaeda documents found by U.S. forces in Iraq showed that per capita, Libya surpassed other Arab nations in the number of citizens joining al Qaeda. The regime’s fear was that the terror group would bring its fight back to Libya.”
    We saw the same thing in Kosovo, where Al Qaeda was being used to terrorize the Serbs. As reported by the National Post:
    Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO.

    The claim that al-Qaeda played a role in the Balkan wars of the 1990s came from an alleged FBI document former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic presented in his defence before the Hague tribunal last week. Mr. Milosevic faces 66 counts of war crimes and genocide.

    Although Hague prosecutors have challenged the veracity of the document, which Mr. Milosevic identified as a Congressional statement from the FBI dated last December, Balkan experts say the presence of al-Qaeda militants in Kosovo and Bosnia is well documented.

    Today, al-Qaeda members are helping the National Liberation Army, a rebel group in Macedonia, fight the Skopje government in a bid for independence, military analysts say. Last week, Michael Steiner, the United Nations administrator in Kosovo, warned of “importing the Afghan danger to Europe” because several cells trained and financed by al-Qaeda remain in the region.
    The parallels are striking to what is happening in Libya, with veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union popping up again, this time leading the charge against Gadaffi:
    “Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan,” said James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia and an expert on the Balkans. “Milosevic is right. There is no question of their participation in conflicts in the Balkans. It is very well documented.”

    The arrival in the Balkans of the so-called Afghan Arabs, who are from various Middle Eastern states and linked to al-Qaeda, began in 1992 soon after the war in Bosnia. According to Lenard Cohen, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, mujahedeen fighters who travelled to Afghanistan to resist the Soviet occupation in the 1980s later “migrated to Bosnia hoping to assist their Islamic brethren in a struggle against Serbian [and for a time] Croatian forces.”
    Whatever way you want to put it, Libya is a thorn in the eye of our globalist elite. It has been claimed that there are 5 countries on the planet left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. I don’t necessarily think you can boil the conflict down simply to having a Rothschild controlled central bank or not. However, considering the fact that by now, Sudan has split in two, Libya is under mob rule and South Korea is upping it’s propaganda offensive against the North Korean government where demonstration are breaking out for the first time in the history of the nation, the list is at least a little unnerving.

    It’s important to note that Libya was in fact recently beginning to introduce Islamic banking to the nation. In Islam, usury is illegal. Banking families like the Rothschilds and the Warburgs of course derive all their wealth (except for the wealth they’ve simply stolen) from usury. Islam has the concept of Musharakah. It abolishes the idea of a fixed interest on a loan. Instead money is paid back only if the enterprise makes a profit. Seems like an excellent idea, regardless of your religious beliefs.

    The US puppet president won’t rule out military intervention in Libya. Big oil is watching a dream come true as oil production in Libya (where no foreign companies have a hand in oil production) plunges, and anxiety drives the price up even further. Ships are of course already in the area, and have been for a while. It’s all incredibly convenient. Reuters has reported that Venezuela’s foreign minister said it looked like some western powers wanted to break up and occupy the Mediterranean nation for its oil. Fidel Castro has said the same thing.

    After invading you can then choose to leave the country in ruins with no oil production at all, or you can occupy the country and hand the oil to your buddies. Oil companies are predatory entities. In fact the United States overthrew the government of Iran for simply nationalizing the oil.

    Egypt meanwhile isn’t the slightest bit more free than it was under Mubarak. It has simply turned into a military dictatorship. The US simply replaced an old unruly puppet with a new one.

    Of course it’s not difficult to unleash riots in the Middle East. As long as people have entertainment and food, they’re quiet and not much of a nuisance. Take away either, and you get an angry public. The global genocide through starvation unleashed over the working classes of the world is the result of food speculation in the US.

    The Brzezinski clique currently in control of the United States has found a far more effective way of dealing with its enemies. Instead of directly fighting them, they create anger in these nations, and then use the people themselves to sow chaos. The first attempt in Iran failed. Now the US has chosen to create examples in vulnerable countries first, to help mobilize the people in less vulnerable nations.

    It’s the most genius solution to defeat your enemies with. Contrary to the neoconservative approach, the whole world now supports your operation. If the carnage gets excessive enough, people around the world will beg their own governments to intervene in these 3rd world nations. If you thought that after Iraq further military intervention in the Middle East had become impossible due to a lack of popular support, it seems you were wrong. The Brzezinski approach has opened up this possibility again.

    Are the uranium bombs going to be used in Tripoli next? Is Tripoli going to be another Fallujah? Only time can tell. The world will probably praise Obama as Tripoli is contaminated for generations to come. In fact, getting rid of Gadaffi by turning Tripoli into another Fallujah could even ensure that Obama is reelected.
    (Light editing, photos and related comment added by Axis of Logic)
    Source:David Rothscum Reports
    © Copyright 2011 by AxisofLogic.com

    This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

    Reply