Wednesday 23rd of October 2019

the contristadors...

sorry

"How is this helping in the protection of civilians? Mr Saif al-Arab was a civilian, a student," he said. "He was playing and talking to his father and mother and his nieces and nephews and other visitors when he was attacked and killed."

An adopted daughter of Col Gaddafi's was killed in 1986 by a US air strike launched in response to alleged Libyan involvement in a Berlin bombing targeting US military personnel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

state sponsored murders...

the word I made up — "contristador" — is hopefully a loaded weapon. It contains the word "con" as in "con-trick", the word contristado as in very contrite and sorry and the word "conquistador" which is all about conquering... Here is that word again "con"...

what do they expect? Flowers?...

The UN has withdrawn all its international staff from the Libyan capital Tripoli following a mob attack on its offices.

UN buildings and some foreign missions were targeted by angry crowds following a Nato air strike that reportedly killed a son of Col Gaddafi.

The UN says all its international staff have now left for Tunisia and the decision will be reviewed next week.

After its Tripoli embassy was sacked, the UK expelled the Libyan ambassador.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13253896

 

the disintegration of nations ...

“Right now, socially, we are disintegrating.”

So says Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and potential candidate for president of Egypt.

Indeed, post-revolutionary Egypt appears to be coming apart.

Since the heady days of Tahrir Square, Salafis have been killing Christians. Churches have been destroyed. Gangs have conducted mass prison breaks. The Muslim Brotherhood brims with confidence.

And demands are rising for the prosecution and execution of former president Hosni Mubarak.

“People do not feel secure,” says ElBaradei, “They are buying guns.” And as Anthony Shadid and David Kirkpatrick of the  New York Times write, it is not only Egypt’s future that is in doubt.

“(I)n the past weeks, the specter of divisions — religion in Egypt, fundamentalism in Tunisia, sect in Syria and Bahrain, clan in Libya — has threatened uprisings that once seemed to promise to resolve questions that have vexed the Arab world since the colonialism era.”

Can the Arab revolts cope with “the cacophony of diversity … the Arab world’s variety of clans, sects, ethnicities and religions?”

Or will we witness the disintegration of nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, as we did Ethiopia and the Sudan — and of African, Latin American, Asian and European nations, as well?

With the end of the Cold War in 1991, it seemed the world was moving toward unity. The post-Cold War era saw the expansion of the European Union, NAFTA and GATT, the creation of a World Trade Organization, the Rome Treaty for the prosecution of war crimes, the Kyoto Protocol, and the G-7 expand to the G-8 and then to the G-20.

Nations seemed to be coming together to solve global problems.

Today, nations seem everywhere to be coming apart.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/05/26/democratic-dawn-or-darkness/

no war but here are the munitions...

House Spurns Obama on Libya, but Does Not Cut Funds


By  


WASHINGTON — The House dealt a symbolic blow to President Obama on Friday by resoundingly rejecting a bill to authorize United States military operations in Libya. But the chamber also defeated a measure that would have limited financing to support those efforts.

The result, coming after weeks of tension between Congress and the White House over authorization of American military aid for the NATO mission in Libya, was a mixed message to the Obama administration, with Republicans and Democrats forming alliances that splintered customary party lines. The resolution to support the mission failed 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats joining Republicans in a rebuff to Mr. Obama.

The resolution was based on a Senate bill written by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona,  to blunt criticism that the president has failed to seek Congressional approval for his actions in Libya.

“We are disappointed by that vote,” said Jay Carney, a White House spokesman. “We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress.”

He said that these goals included “protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure” on Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader.

A second bill, which had the strong support of Speaker John A. Boehner, would have prohibited money for military operations outside of support activities like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It was intended to essentially end direct American combat activity like missile strikes while remaining supportive of NATO’s efforts.

That measure failed 238 to 180, with 89 Republicans deserting their party and only 36 Democrats voting in favor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/politics/25powers.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

remember that war?...

David Cameron can thank Rupert Murdoch, even the wretched Andy Coulson, for one ironic blessing. The Prime Minister's appalling misjudgment and obstinacy in hiring Coulson has so dominated headlines these past days that an equally staggering misjudgment in the international theatre is escaping well-merited ridicule and rebuke.

The issue here is Nato's efforts to promote "regime change" in Libya, whose failure after two and a half months of bombing and arms supply to various rebel factions is now glaring.

Obviously Nato's commanders are still hoping that a lucky bomb may kill Gaddafi, but to date the staying power has been with the Libyan leader, whereas it is the relevant Nato powers who are fighting among themselves.

When Cameron vied with French president Sarkozy in early May in heading the charge against Gaddafi, no weighty hand of caution seems to have disturbed the blithe mood of confidence in Downing Street. It was as though Blair's blunders and miscalculations in Iraq, endlessly disinterred in subsequent years, had never been.

Cameron presumably had intelligence assessments of the situation in Libya from the Foreign Office, the secret services and the military. Did any of them say that Gaddafi might be a tougher nut to crack than the presidents of Tunisia or Egypt, might even command some popular support in Tripoli and western Libya, historically at odds with Benghazi and the eastern region? If they did, did Cameron pay any attention?



Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/81667,news-comment,news-politics,alexander-cockburn-libya-david-camerons-other-misjudgment-unravels#ixzz1S9yD2rTv

crazy notion...

 

 “This is destruction!” complained Nouri Ftais, a 51-year-old commander, who offered a rare, unheeded voice of reason. “We’re destroying Libya with our bare hands.”

The country that witnessed the Arab world’s most sweeping revolution is foundering. So is its capital, where a semblance of normality has returned after the chaotic days of the fall of Tripoli last August. But no one would consider a city ordinary where militiamen tortured to death an urbane former diplomat two weeks ago, where hundreds of refugees deemed loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi waited hopelessly in a camp and where a government official acknowledged that “freedom is a problem.” Much about the scene on Wednesday was lamentable, perhaps because the discord was so commonplace.

“Some of it is really overwhelming,” said Ashur Shamis, an adviser to Libya’s interim prime minister, Abdel-Rahim el-Keeb. “But somehow we have this crazy notion that we can defeat it.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?_r=1&hp

 

The contristadores are mitigatedly happy... the oil flows out in their direction while the country self-destructs... See toon at top... And the contristadores want the same thing to happen in Syria... Who could have ever thought? Ha ha (sarcastic laughter) ...

Meanwhile in Egypt, the religious mafias want to take over the government... Who could have ever thought? Ha ha (sarcastic laughter) ...

 

 

the dark side of refugees

Europe is awash with refugees. People are fleeing war, placing their own life at risk, on overcrowded boats that should have sunk a long time ago. Poor people who have nothing left to loose but their life. Refugees are the side effects of dangerous conflicts... 

But imagine for a moment that some of these refugees could actually be ISIL combatants infiltrating Europe. Such ISIL personnel would not be adverse to risk their life to go and eventually take the conflict within the bastion of Western "democracy". A Trojan Horse.

And we cannot forget though, that a lot of the conflicts, from where these refugees are coming from, were instigated with righteousness on the side, by the same people they are "invading"... except America. America is not invaded by these hordes. The Yanks have their own lesser problem with the Mexicans. The Mexican are mostly Christian. The refugees invading Europe are mostly Muslim.

America calls the shots. The war on Iraq, the war on Libya, the war in the middle east. The other lesser Napoleons of Europe oblige for favours. The war on Libya displaced about one million people, The war in Syria is displacing nearly 3 million people. There is a residual of refugees in camps in various countries from Jordan to Lebanon and many more, most being displaced by these various "wars" against terrorism — terrorism which is mostly sponsored by the religion of our friends the Saudis. 

I have a dark thought... The refugees are not a side effect. They are the main objective of a darker side: they have been willingly created (by the US) to stuff-up Europe cosy self-improvement.

The refugees are pawns in this greater game of who rules the planet. And the poor people have no clue, except they wish for a better life, without bombs, without destruction, without fear. 

And we fear them, because we feel responsible for their predicament but we do not know how to deal with them and we hate them because "they" are different... We don't know how to stop creating more and more and more of them, except this would demand we cease to be warriors. 

According to experts, due to conflicts and sanctions, Gaza will be uninhabitable within five years. That's another couple of million people who will be displaced.

And we need to stop war. We need to stop pretending we care while we are fighting a determined ute-driving sand-shoe army — with drones, jet fighters and losing the battles because of our dubious alliances...

 

Somewhere somehow the truth exists but it has been buried. Our attitude stinks. Turdy sending more planes to fight by the side of the US forces sounds more like a training exercise for war, rather than understanding of the situation in which more people will get killed and more will be displaced...

See the toon at top...

the sad obama-clinton legacy...

 


L'info n’est pas un luxe, c’est un droit

 

NÇAIS

- See more at: http://www.investigaction.net/en/libyan-labels-a-journey-through-the-guardians-coverage-of-the-libyan-disaster/#sthash.em5wxg08.dpuf

 

 

 

In this analysis we examine Libya’s recent history looking through the eyes of the Guardian, the flagship of liberal western outlets, and its reporting. As with most other western media, the Guardian was an enthusiastic supporter of the NATO intervention that overthrew Gaddafi and threw the country into the disaster that we are about to describe. Faithful to western interests then, the Guardian remains faithful afterwards as well. But imperial designs are laden with contradictions and sometimes drastically change course, but the Guardian dutifully follows. More interestingly, in light of the complex Libyan situation, the Guardian resorts to labels, adjectives, to distinguish the “good” (i.e. western-supported) actors from the “bad” ones. And as western powers stumble from one strategy to the next, these labels change accordingly.

 

We start this journey around the 2012 election in Libya, a few months after the end of the brutal, western-led regime change. We will not focus on the western media’s cheerleading for the NATO intervention, on the basis of preventing a repeat of atrocities that did not happen and stopping an imminent massacre that was also not going to happen, or on the conveniently overlooked extremist elements in the opposition ranks. We will also not compare the free and democratic future predicted by western commentators to the disastrous failed-state that Libya has become. Finally, we also do not cover the tragic refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, even though it is a direct consequence of the turmoil in Libya. And while we scrutinize the Guardian’s coverage, most of what follows also holds for other mainstream western outlets.

 

Gunpoint democracy

The 2012 parliamentary election is hailed as “a major step toward democracy after decades of erratic one-man rule”, even with “politicians finally wak(ing) up to the power of women”, despite the unrest and lawlessness that had already taken hold of the country. The resulting General National Congress (GNC) is considered a hopeful mixture of islamists and “moderates”. But with the country “awash with militias”, the news cycle soon becomes dominated by the assassination of the American ambassador in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. While this could have been taken as a clear sign that the extremist groups that had been armed did not turn democratic overnight, and especially did not see the west as a liberator, the Guardian instead tries to reassure us that democracy has come to stay. 

But if armed factions are running riot in the streets, life is not any easier for the factions in suits in Libya’s new parliament, as protests and disagreements leave “[…] Libya still without firm government, nearly three months after the parliamentary elections and with violence breaking out in several flashpoint towns.”. The first designated prime-minister lasts a mere month on the job after his cabinet is rejected, and finally a government led by former Gaddafi diplomat-turned-opponent Ali Zeidan takes office, with equal doses of technocracy and sharia. To make our job slightly easier in what follows, we will refer to this government as G#1. The sailing from this point on is far from smooth, and the backlash from the NATO intervention starts to spread across the region. In January 2013, another western intervention begins, this time in Mali, to suppress an salafist rebellion that was flush with weapons in the wake of the Libyan chaos. We are told that the west had “overlooked risk of Libya weapons reaching Mali”. 

- See more at: http://www.investigaction.net/en/libyan-labels-a-journey-through-the-guardians-coverage-of-the-libyan-disaster/#sthash.em5wxg08.dpuf

But things are equally turbulent in Tripoli, with extremist tendencies and rogue militias coming to the fore. Somehow David Cameron’s promises that Libya “will have no greater friend than the United Kingdom” did not manage to quell centuries-old tribal rivalries, mushrooming armed militias and salafist groups. This is also the time when the UK government was being sued by the notorious Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Having fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Belhaj was renditioned by the secret services due to alleged links to al-Qaeda, and handed over to Gaddafi. After seven years in prison, he played a major role in the NATO-led intervention and became chief of security in Tripoli. The remarkable bit is that the Guardian refers to a career “jihadist” as a “politician” (1).

The turmoil and tensions escalate, specially in the extremist capital of Libya, Benghazi, formerly known in the western press as the birthplace of the “revolution”. And at this point we see the real problem of a conflict between a weakened government, the Muslim Brotherhood with a growing influence in parliament, and other militias – a threat to the oil business. Amidst all the talk of “freedom” and “democracy” it was almost forgotten that Libya holds the biggest oil reserves in Africa. The high point of this struggle was probably the kidnapping of prime-minster Zeidan, an event Zeidan described as a coup attempt. Western journalists begin worrying that Libya is being “thrown into turmoil”, and especially worrying is the fact that luxurious hotels are no longer safe havens. The Guardian even feels the need to to present us a “who’s who” of the rival groups in Tripoli, since the previous “pro-western freedom fighters” label is no longer sufficient. The spectre of a generalized civil warhangs menacingly in the months that follow, as there is no way around the “inability of Libya’s government to rein in the powerful militias”. This period is marked by constant fighting, ministers shot dead and government resignations.

Finally, PM Zeidan is ousted, even though he was a “popular figure with western diplomats”, and at this juncture it is worth noting that the parliament that was initially greeted as having important doses of “moderation” is now plainly labelled as “islamist”. The impending campaign to retake the oil ports “risks splitting the country apart”, and this is the moment when an important figure enters the fray – General Khalifa Haftar. A former Gaddafi general, he fell out of favour after an ill-fated war against Chad, later joining an US-backed opposition group and taking part in a failed coup attempt against Gaddafi. He spent years in exile in the United States, until his dramatic return in early 2014 (he returned shortly in 2011 but the powers that be could not settle on a role for him). Haftar leads his forces on a two-pronged attack, on one hand attacking the parliament in Tripoli, calling for its dissolution, and on the other starting a campaign against hardline groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya. At this stage western analysts are a bit shell-shocked that their glorious humanitarian intervention has not exactly gone according to plan (!), but in general they welcome Haftar’s strongman antics since he is fighting “islamists”. 

 

One more election and one more government

While the Guardian ruefully declares that the “democratic dream is all but ruined”, and multiple figures claim they are the rightful prime-minister, Haftar continues his campaign in the east, and the country stumbles onto new legislative elections. This is declared to be “Libya’s last chance to reconnect with democracy”, but turnout was a lowly 18%. The coverage this time around is almost reduced to a footnote, since not even the former intervention cheerleaders want to associate themselves with the current mess. Quite predictably, the new poll leads to further figthing in the capital, forcing western countries to withdraw their diplomatic personnel. Even after all this mayhem, sane voices in the Guardian are few and far between. Anthony Loewenstein strikes quite an exasperated tone:

“I feel like I’ve been writing the same column for over a decade: humanitarian interventions by the west end up destroying the countries they try to save”

- See more at: http://www.investigaction.net/en/libyan-labels-a-journey-through-the-gua...

 

See toon at top.

frogleaks...

 

Political scandals[edit]

Mediapart has played a central role in the revelation and investigation of at least three major French political scandals:

Read more:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediapart

 

See toon at top... One face is missing — that of La Madam Clinton who forced Obama's hand in the sorry destruction of Libya... see also: 

the crime of the west against libya...

no more than a reckless blunder...

The U.S.-led intervention in Libya ended six years ago with the killing of Moammar Gaddafi and the triumph of Western-backed rebel militias. Supporters of the war at the time hailed Libya as a “model” intervention, and its defenders claimed it had vindicated the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” in whose name it had been carried out. Six years later, virtually no one regards the Libyan war as anything other than a reckless blunder. Libya remains splintered by rival militias and competing power centers, and the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that the intervention did so much to discredit has been all but forgotten at a time when it is very much needed.

“Responsibility to protect” (R2P), endorsed by the U.N. in 2005, was an attempt to create an international mechanism for preventing massive losses of civilian life. The requirements for taking military action to protect a civilian population were based on just war theory: just cause, right intention, proportionality, reasonable prospect of success, and last resort. That set a very high bar for armed intervention that the Libyan case did not clear. Far from being a last resort, military intervention was the preferred Western response to the civil war in Libya almost from the beginning. That meant the Libyan war was waged in the name of a doctrine whose core principles it ignored from the start.

The Libyan intervention only received its international authorization at the U.N. through the misrepresentation of its purpose to other major powers on the Security Council. Russia and China both abstained on the resolution authorizing the intervention because they had been assured that the sole purpose of military action was to protect civilians from being attacked. However, despite public claims by the Obama administration that regime change was not the goal, the mission immediately morphed into a campaign to remove Gaddafi from power. The U.S.-led coalition repeatedly dismissed proposals for ceasefires and negotiations that could have ended the war short of toppling the Libyan government, because their objectives had expanded far beyond preventing atrocities to include a complete victory by rebel forces.

Read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libya-and-the-swift-demi...

 

 

Read from top...

gaddafi's revenge...

The flow of migrants coming to Europe from Africa is likely to grow in the coming years, writes Sputnik Germany contributor Bernhard Schwarz. For decades Libya served as a firewall halting the tide of refugees heading to the EU. Now when Libya lies in ruins European leaders see that late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was right, Schwarz stressed.

Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's "prophecy" is turning into reality with destitute Africans violently storming the Spanish-Moroccan border on July 26, writes Sputnik Germany contributor Bernhard Schwarz, stressing that the event sends a strong signal to Berlin.

"Driven by desperation and hunger, they are ready to risk their own lives and the lives of border guards to get to Europe. They will not take no for an answer. Their brutality against the police is shocking and should set the alarm bells ringing for Brussels. So far, the EU has not reacted to the incident, but unless a concrete action plan is presented soon, there is a risk that damaging violence and anarchy will be at the heart of Europe," the German journalist warned.

On July 26, 800 migrants from Africa stormed a seven-meter high fence separating Morocco from Spain in an attempt to cross the border between Morocco and the Spanish enclave of Ceuta with 602 migrants making it onto Spanish soil. The migrants threw stones, sticks, Molotov cocktails, feces and hashish at law enforcement officers. The assault resulted in 132 migrants and 15 police officers being hurt.

 

The International Organization for Migration earlier reported that since the beginning of the year 3,125 African nationals had crossed the Spanish border through the enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta and entered the EU.

 


Gaddafi's Warning to NATO

"Now listen, you people of NATO," Gaddafi said on the eve of NATO's invasion of Libya in 2011. "You're bombing a wall which stood in the way of African migration to Europe and in the way of al-Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You're breaking it."

 

Libya has ended up as a failed state ruled by two governments which have yet to establish law and order in the country. Predictably, Libyan rebels did not return to their patron the weapons, generously provided to them by France and the US. Additionally, Gaddafi's arms stocks were looted turning Libya into one of the largest black markets for weapons.

"A similar situation could be observed after the American intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also in Syria before Russia stepped in there [in 2015]," Schwarz pointed out, stressing that most asylum applications are coming to Germany from the aforementioned countries.

He remarked, however, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's approach to the refugee problem evokes strong memories of the helplessness of the Roman Empire shortly before its fall, adding that the chancellor's policies differ a lot from those of her predecessors, Willy Brandt, who served as chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1969 to 1974 and Helmut Schmidt who occupied this position from 1974 to 1982.

 

Both Brandt and Schmidt warned against unregulated migration saying that it would not be without grave consequences for German society. Currently, about 10.6 million foreigners live in Germany, while refugees continue to arrive in the country.

To tackle the migration crisis German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer presented a plan envisaging the creation of special centers and conducting necessary procedures to slow down the refugee tide. In early July, Seehofer and Merkel agreed to accelerate the return of migrants to the countries where they initially applied for asylum.

 

Meanwhile, Bavarian police began patrolling the German-Austrian border on July 18 to prevent illegal entries.

Commenting on Seehofer's plan to turn migrants away to where their demand was registered, Schwarz referred to the recent incident on the Spanish-Morocco border.

"After the storming of the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, the question arises — how these centers should work and how they should be protected. The population of Africa is growing rapidly; by 2050 it will grow twice to 2.5 billion. The flow of refugees is likely to grow due to hunger, poor economic conditions, corruption and lack of prospects for the population. It is very probable that the refugees won't be stopped by a rejection of their application and will try to enter Europe," the German journalist opined.

He pointed out that over 75 percent of refugees heading to Europe by sea come from Libyan ports, first of all these are the inhabitants of Niger, Eritrea, Somalia and Chad.

According to Schwarz, Syria may emerge as an example of how the migration problem could be solved: Following Russia's involvement, the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad is gradually restoring order in the country which facilitates the return of Syrian asylum seekers from Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That means that Syria won't repeat the fate of Libya and will reduce the flow of Syrian nationals seeking asylum in Europe.

The views and opinions expressed by the contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201808011066827297-europe-africa-gaddafi/?

 

As mentioned many times on this site, the US plan was to weaken and divide Europe, in this case by refugee-invasion, while letting little Napoleon-Sarkozy collect the glory of "victory"... Easy as piss... The CIA would have known that Sarkozy had also been elected in France with the help of Gaddafi's cash... Sarkozy was an idiot cultivated by the American Deep State — for the American Deep State to control and divide Europe.

the hillary and billy show...

Europe must curb immigration to combat an increasing threat from right-wing populists, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told The Guardian in an interview with the British daily. Sputnik discussed the comments with Adriel Kasonta, a foreign affairs analyst based in London.

Sputnik: Clinton is known as a vocal proponent of the Libya intervention in 2011, which is seen as a prelude to the migrant crisis in Europe. With this in mind, what is your take on her comments?

READ MORE: Clinton's Role in Libya Helped Caused EU Migrant Crisis She Now Decries — Prof

Adriel Kasonta: If we go back to the interview conducted by The Guardian newspaper with Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair and Matteo Renzi from Italy, we can see clearly that people can now say that politicians have no backbone. Because if we read this interview it is all about crisis management, and figuring out how the political tribe of the central left can win votes over the right-wing politicians or whatever. So it is slightly strange that politicians who are Democrats, those like Hillary Clinton who were inviting immigrants and were strong supporters of immigration to America and to Europe, are now changing their stance and saying that it didn't work out so we should try something else.

I would like also to point out the article that I've written for the Forbes where I was suggesting to Mrs. Angela Merkel to change her stance towards open door policy. I was accused of being a fascist, Nazi, and also a right-wing person, but the whole idea of migration is not about winning in the polls in your country in Europe and in North America. This clearly proves that Hillary Clinton and people like her are detached from the reality. The problem with migration and people voting for Trump in the first place or voting for Brexit, yes, indeed they were displeased and they're scared of mass migration, but what was the cause of the migration to Europe and to America? The foreign interventions of the Western countries, which were supported by both Tony Blair, a strong supporter of war in Iraq, as well as Hillary Clinton.

 

I don't understand why she's putting the blame on ordinary people, accusing populism on her losing the presidential race in the United States and trying how to figure out how to get back the power. It's beyond one's comprehension if you see the wording, the linguistics of the interview conducted by the PR agency, The Guardian news by conducting this interview is doing a social study on how to collect the data, on how to manipulate and how to win the votes.

So it is all about winning the votes, they don't care about the people who are suffering there, people who are struggling to get out from the war zones in the Middle East in order to save their lives, to save their children. Probably some of them get the opportunity to get into Europe, into the Western world in order to do something dodgy, but what the main problem and what the main idea of this is, is that those people are suffering, and it is interconnected with the foreign policies of the Western governments and the moods within the European Union and the United States. This is a very poor condition and this is very tragic, and it is very sad that these high-profile politicians, all they care about is being in the office.

Sputnik: Mrs. Clinton‘s comments have been viewed as an attempt to appease right-wing leaders. What is your take on this?

Adriel Kasonta: She's trying to cure the problem with the same stance as the right-wing politicians, so in my view, automatically, the so-called right-wing politicians or those who are supporting the anti-immigration moods in Europe and in America are winning, because she's using the same rhetoric as they were using from the very beginning. So she's not honest with those statements of curbing the immigration in Europe, she's just trying to figure out how to return to power.

My question is, who is Hillary Clinton, a retired politician, an American person, to come to Europe and be giving advice. I don't understand what's her interest in giving advice to the European countries or to the European continent. She's not a European person, so let her pay attention to what the foreign policy advisers, or foreign policy experts in America are writing.

READ MORE: Twitter Cracks Up After Fox News Admits Hillary Clinton is Not 'Like Herpes'

And I'd like to point out Professor Andrew J. Bacevich's opinion article for Politico magazine, written in 2015, titled 'The George W. Bush refugees' where he's stating that, and I'm quoting here, "as immigrants pour into Europe, Americans must bear the blame". So if she's giving advice to European people that we need to curb the immigration, if she is a serious strategist and if she's an honest person, let her asses the foreign policy of her own country before Donald Trump, because now everyone is attacking Donald Trump, and believe me, I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump, but at the same time we have to be fair and understand that this refugee problem goes way back before Donald Trump emerged as a leader in the United States and it goes back way before the Brexit talks started here in this country.

So as Jeremy Corbyn is saying, as Bernie Sanders is saying, as many people on the left and the right, including Peter Hitchens, who's a popular writer on politics and current affairs in this country and he's a high Tory conservative, the foreign policy, the misguided foreign policy in the Middle East is the crucial problem, this is the problem. The migration is an outcome, it's not a problem, it's an outcome of the foreign policy of interventionism of the Western states, including America under Bill Clinton.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811251070117742-hillary-clinton-real...

 

GUs: The US plan was to weaken and divide Europe, in this case by refugee-invasion, while letting little Napoleon-Sarkozy collect the glory of "victory"... Easy as piss... The CIA would have known that Sarkozy had also been elected in France with the help of Gaddafi's cash... Sarkozy was an idiot cultivated by the American Deep State — for the American Deep State to control and divide Europe.

 

Read from top.

rewriting "history"...

A key worry among American critics of NATO is that expanding the alliance into Eastern Europe may entangle the United States in conflicts that have little or no relevance to our genuine security needs. 

But the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya is a reminder that even Washington’s long-time allies like France and Britain can create the same danger. In their memoirs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates reveal (at times perhaps unintentionally) how those nations prodded the reluctant Obama administration into taking such a fateful step in Libya. Clinton herself was favorable to “humanitarian” military missions, while Gates was openly hostile, yet their accounts track closely, confirming how much of an impact allied lobbying had on American decision-making.

As rebellions against authoritarian regimes erupted throughout the Greater Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011 (the so-called Arab Spring), the United States and its European allies pondered how to respond. Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was the target of one uprising.

At first, even Clinton seemed wary of U.S. involvement in any military action to unseat Gaddafi. “When I met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he urged the United States to support international military intervention to stop Qaddafi’s advance toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya,” she recalled. “I was sympathetic but not convinced.” Clinton noted, “The United States had spent the previous decade bogged down in long and difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nato-pushed-the-u-s-int...

 

Read from top.

 

This is GRAND BULLSHIT (bold and large letters) from Ted Galen Carpenter — a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on international affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (2019).  

This book and this DECEITFUL article are designed to absolve the US role — especially Obama's and Clinton's — in destroying Libya. They all were in it from the start, frothing at the mouth despite caveats placed by the United Nations — caveats that soon were ignored. The whole thing was staged to prevent Gaddafi selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. The rest including preventing Gaddafi's successfully fighting armed tribes (they were terrorists) was a lot of baloney as any kid in a schoolyard would know. You bash the guy with the glasses as he tries to sell chewing gum on the sly, away from the main gang's racket. 

Ted Galen Carpenter should hold his head bowed in shame for spreading "fake history", even if the protagonists such as Obama and Clinton told him verbatim their "version" of the events. GRAND BULLSHIT!

READ FROM TOP.

rewriting "history"...

see above...

Ted Galen Carpenter's latest book "Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements" (2019) is full of shit. The USA are not guillible... Ted Galen Carpenter is the stupid donkey to believe what Obama, Hillary and their "advisors" told him. BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, ALL GRAND BULLSHIT. It's possible Ted knows it's bullshit but he could be devious enough to make us believe the shit he sells to engross himself with his "patrons"...

the libyan saga continues...

After Marshal Khalifa Haftar ordered his forces to attack Turkish positions in Libya, Ankara announced it would not hesitate to retaliate. Six Turks have since been arrested by pro-Hatfar forces and a Turkish drone has been shot down.


"There will be a very high price to pay for any hostile attitude or attack. We will respond in the most effective and strong way," Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar was quoted by AFP as saying on 30 June, referring to a recent statement by Marshal Haftar.


Two days earlier, Haftar ordered his forces to target Turkish ships in Libyan waters and to attack Turkey's strategic sites, companies and projects in the country.


After suffering a setback on June 27 in his campaign for the capture of Tripoli, the strong man of eastern Libya had denounced the "direct" intervention of Turkey in the battle. The delivery of weapons by Ankara to the Libyan national unity government (GNA) of Fayez al-Sarraj, rival of Marshal Haftar, has indeed been confirmed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who recently spoke of "a cooperation agreement between Ankara and Tripoli", as reported by RFI.

 

Read more:

https://francais.rt.com/international/63490-libye-turquie-annonce-qu-ell...

 

 

Translation by Jules Letambour

 

 

Read from top.

saving lives by killing them...

Daniel Bessner has written a very interesting review of Samantha Power’s memoir, The Education of an Idealist. Here he focuses on her narrow thinking about “humanitarian” intervention:

If you accept Power’s premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the “right” decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all. 

Can military intervention ever be humanitarian? It may be possible in theory, but as Bessner notes it doesn’t work that way in practice. “Humanitarian” interventionists want the wars they support to be judged by their intentions to save lives and not by the results of ensuing chaos, instability, and violence. Taking sides in foreign conflicts inevitably means deciding that our government should end the lives of some people that have done nothing to us because we have concluded that it is the right thing to do. That takes for granted that our government has the right to act as judge and executioner in other people’s wars simply because we have the power to affect the outcome. When we think about “humanitarian” intervention this way, we can see that it is driven by the worst kind of arrogant presumption. The first question we should ask is this: what gives us the authority to interfere in another country’s internal conflict? We should also ask ourselves what gives us the right to cast aside international law whenever we deem it necessary. Isn’t “humanitarian” intervention in practice little more than international armed vigilantism? 

The Libyan war is one example of just such a “good” intervention that pretty clearly caused more harm than it prevented. It also violated most of the requirements of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify it. Like more than a few other die-hard Libyan war supporters, Power remains convinced that it was the right decision, because she doesn’t ask the questions that would force her to confront the harm that the intervention did to Libya and the surrounding region. Bessner comments:

Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn’t involve U.S. allies, of course). 

That last qualification is an important one, and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with “humanitarian” interventionism in the U.S. and the West. If a government is considered to be on “our” side, it can commit war crimes with impunity, devastate whole countries, and starve tens of millions of people, and the most vocal “humanitarian” interventionists will usually have nothing to say about it. I have remarked on several occasions that “humanitarian” interventionists just ignored the catastrophe in Yemen despite the fact that it was the world’s worst man-made humanitarian disaster, and it has only been in the last year or two that any of them have spoken up about it now that it is Trump’s policy.

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/military-intervention-is...

 

Note: the Libya intervention by the USA and their friends was NEVER ABOUT HUMANITARIAN IDEALS. It was about preventing Gaddafi from creating a Pan-African banking system that would by-pass the draconian dependency of Africa on the US dollar that kept African countries in a corrupt enslaving and bankrupt system.

Read from top.

as brexit is like shooting oneself in the foot by accident...


In the classic 1949 British black comedy Kind Hearts and Coronets (recently re-released in a special 70th anniversary digitally-restored version), Louis Mazzini, the suave and impeccably well-mannered serial killer played so superbly by Dennis Price, is approached by a man from Scotland Yard and told he is under arrest on suspicion of murder. 

Now Price has bumped off several members of the D'Ascoyne family on his way to becoming the 10th Duke of Chalfont, and wonders which one of his crimes has been discovered. In fact, the detective is referring to the death of a man named Lionel Holland - who had actually committed suicide. 

In other words, Price is arrested, and stands trial, for the one crime which he did not commit!

It was that stunning arrest scene in Kind Hearts and Coronets which came to my mind while reading the coverage and the commentary surrounding the serialisation of former Prime Minister David Cameron's new autobiography "For the Record".

"Are you depressed? Has Boris lost it? Would you like a second referendum? Can you forgive Michael Gove? Do you sleep at night? Are you sorry?" These were the questions printed over a picture of Cameron on the front page of the Saturday newspaper supplement which carried an interview with the former PM at the weekend.

None relate to the worst things Cameron did- the "crimes" he really did commit. Namely the bombing and consequent destruction of Libya, the backing of extremist fundamentalist militants in Syria in obsessive pursuance of a violent "regime change" agenda and the austerity he unleashed on the British public to pay for the excesses of the ultra-greedy super-rich bankers and financial spivs which caused the crash of 2008.

Let's start with Libya first. Cameron's government played a leading role in bombing the country with the highest Human Development Index in the whole of Africa back to the Stone Age. There were lurid claims that the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was hell-bent on committing a Srebrenica-style genocide and simply had to be stopped. The truth came out five and a half years later.

"The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence", the  House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee reported.

By then it was too late. Libya had been destroyed-and transformed into a fragmented, lawless jihadists’ playground on the shores of the Mediterranean.

Tellingly, the British government spent 13 times more on bombing Libya than they did on rebuilding the country after the military assault.

It wasn't just Libyans who paid a very high price for the actions of Cameron and co. Cameron's fellow Britons did too. In the summer of 2015, 30 UK citizens were among the 38 holidaymakers slaughtered while relaxing on the beach and round their hotel in Tunisia, by a terrorist gunman who reportedly trained in an Daesh* training camp in "liberated" Libya- a camp which most certainly was not there when Gaddafi ruled the country.

 

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201909191076839436-dont-mention-wars-or-austerity-theres-more-to-camerons-legacy-than-eu-referendum/

 

Read from top.