Oh really child soldiers, that's never happened before has it? Oh the horror! Child soldiers, quelle surprised
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:46 am
by DevilYouKnow » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:03 pm
by Seamus OBlimey » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:59 pm
DevilYouKnow wrote:This has to violate health & safety codes.
Is he smoking?
by vanlose kid » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:42 pm
SAS-backed Libyan diplomatic mission ends in humiliation
British special forces and intelligence agents leave Libya on HMS Cumberland after being released by anti-Gaddafi rebels
Martin Chulov, Mark Tran, Amy Fallon and Polly Curtis
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 March 2011 18.27 GMT
The SAS and British intelligence agents have now left Benghazi, where children spent part of Sunday playing on an armoured vehicle outside the offices of the rebel forces in the port city. Photograph: Kim Ludbrook/EPA
A British diplomatic effort to reach out to Libyan rebels has ended in humiliation as a team of British special forces and intelligence agents left Benghazi after being briefly detained.
The six SAS troops and two MI6 officers were seized by Libyan rebels in the eastern part of the country after arriving by helicopter four days ago. They left on HMS Cumberland, the frigate that had docked in Benghazi to evacuate British and other EU nationals as Libya lurched deeper into conflict. The diplomatic team's departure marked a perfunctory end to a bizarre and botched venture.
"I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi," said William Hague, the foreign secretary. "The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition. They experienced difficulties, which have now been satisfactorily resolved. They have now left Libya."
Audio of a telephone conversation between the UK's ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and a senior rebel leader was later leaked.
Northern suggested in the call that the SAS team had been detained due to a misunderstanding.
The rebel leader responded: "They made a big mistake, coming with a helicopter in an open area."
Northern said: "I didn't know how they were coming."
Despite the failure of the mission, Hague indicated that Britain would continue to try to make contact with the opposition.
"We intend, in consultation with the opposition, to send a further team to strengthen our dialogue in due course," he said. "This diplomatic effort is part of the UK's wider work on Libya, including our ongoing humanitarian support. We continue to press for Gaddafi to step down and we will work with the international community to support the legitimate ambitions of the Libyan people."
According to Guardian sources, the British intelligence and special forces unit were caught near the al-Khadra Farm Company, 18 miles (30km) south-west of Benghazi. A senior member of Benghazi's revolutionary council said: "They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. This is no way to conduct yourself during an uprising.
"Gaddafi is bringing in thousands of mercenaries to kill us, most are using foreign passports and how do we know who these people are?
"They say they're British nationals and some of the passports they have are British. But the Israelis used British passports to kill that man in Dubai last year."
Rebel leaders said claimed the captives had been treated well and would be released as soon as the British government vouched for their identity with the rebel command.
The news follows Sunday Times claims that an SAS unit was being held by rebel forces it had approached in an attempt to open up diplomatic channels to opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.
Whitehall sources said on Friday it needed to learn more about the leadership of the anti-Gaddafi forces and find out what logistical support they needed, but would not give arms to the rebels, as an international arms embargo was in place.
British officials during the day declined to comment on reports that special forces were being held but defended the objective of the mission.
The defence secretary, Liam Fox said: "It is a very difficult situation to be able to understand in detail. There are a number of different opposition groups to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya who do seem relatively disparate. We want to clearly understand what the dynamic is here because we want to be able to work with them to ensure the demise of the Gaddafi regime, to see a transition to greater stability in Libya and ultimately to more representative government.
"So getting a picture of that is relatively difficult, as is widely reported. Communications are being interrupted, there are difficulties with mobile phones, with the internet potentially being interfered with.
"So we are trying to build a picture – it's essential that the government does that and it's essential that all western governments do that so we are able to get a clearer idea of what we are able to do in terms of helping the people of Libya."
David Cameron, speaking at the Tory party spring conference in Cardiff, repeated his call for "Gaddafi to go". "On Libya, our strategy is clear," he said. "We will continue to intensify pressure on the regime. We will continue to state clearly that international justice has a long reach and a long memory, and that those who commit crimes against humanity will not go unpunished. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by this crisis, and continue to demand access for aid agencies to reach those in need.
And we will continue to plan, with our allies, for every eventuality. "
The Sunday Times reported Libyan and British sources confirming the SAS unit had been detained by rebel forces it had approached to secure a meeting with a junior diplomat to offer help in their fight against Gaddafi. The mission backfired when rebel leaders in Benghazi objected to foreign interference from governments which had not yet formally recognised them as Libya's legitimate rulers, it said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... n-in-libya
by 23 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:09 pm
by seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:51 pm
America’s War on Libya
by Stephen Lendman / March 6th, 2011
Since WW II alone, America waged direct and proxy wars against Korea, Southeast Asia, Central and South American countries, African ones, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and now Egypt and Libya. One down, one to go, besides dozens of attempted and successful coups, as well as numerous other interventions to control world markets, resources and people. Imperial America doesn’t sleep. It plots, deciding where next to strike.
Despite popular passion for democratic change, uprisings in Egypt and Libya were externally orchestrated, funded and armed by Washington to replace one despot with another. Democracy won’t be tolerated. It’s never been at home.
America’s media go along, especially when Washington goes to war or plans one. In the lead: The New York Times, the nation’s equivalent of an official information and propaganda ministry, posing as independent journalism.
It’s February 28 editorial headlined, “Qaddafi’s Crimes and Fantasies” made baseless accusations, then called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes. Indeed it should – against America and Western co-conspirators, not Libya, for instigating regional aggression, a reality The Times ignored, besides previously against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other US targets.
On March 4, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, “Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless,” saying:
Gaddafi attacked “unarmed protesters….His militia’s actions seemed likely to stir renewed debate over international intervention to limit his use of military power against his own citizens, possibly by imposing a no-flight zone.” If established, it’s an act of war ahead of aggressive air attacks against a defenseless country, America’s latest imperial target.
Kirkpatrick’s article read more like bad fiction than real journalism, borrowing a page from now disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller, who functioned as a Pentagon press agent, promoting America’s planned Iraq conquest and occupation. Now it’s Libya, struggling to defend itself against naked aggression, covert so far but not for long, claiming “humanitarian intervention.”
US warships are now positioned in the Mediterranean close by. About 1,200 Marines went to Greece for “Operation Libya.” “Rebels” are being sent military and other supplies. Armed intervention is coming, colonial subjugation planned. Libya’s “humanitarian crisis” was made in the USA. The pattern by now is familiar, used against many past targets.
On March 4, hinting about what’s already begun, Obama said:
So what I want to make sure of is that the United States has full capacity to act potentially rapidly if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on our hands, or a situation in which civilians were – defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger.
He already called on Gaddafi to step down. Among his options, he included a no-fly zone, saying:
I don’t want us hamstrung. I want us to be making our decision based on what’s going to be best for the Libyan people in consultation with the international community.
In Geneva, Hillary Clinton called intervention “an option we are actively considering,” referring to a no-fly zone and other measures. Stiff economic sanctions were also imposed, effective 8:00 PM EST February 25.”
The die is cast. Colonizing Libya is planned to exploit its vast energy reserves, other resources, and people, doing what’s best for Washington, not Libyans, what’s always top priority.
Major Media Suppressed Independent Voices
On August 13, 2011, Fidel Castro will be 85. An elder statesman, he remains active, thoughtful and incisive, now writing commentaries on world issues. On March 3, the Havana Times headlined, “Fidel Castro Forecasts War on Libya,” publishing his full article in English.
Until America intervened, Libya “occupie(d) the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa,” including the continent’s highest life expectancy. Authorities gave special attention to health care and education. Poverty is low. “The cultural level of the population is without a doubt the highest. The population wasn’t lacking food and essential social services.” Employment was plentiful, including for “hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries (to) carry out ambitious plans for production and social development.”
America plans naked aggression to halt them. “The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media,” distorts reality on the ground, including by Al Jazeera. Its daily commentaries feature misinformation and distortions based on unverified reports, including about alleged bombings that Russian satellite imagery proved untrue. Nonetheless, Gaddafi is falsely called an aggressor, not victim, his regional despot status notwithstanding.
Telesur Journalists Targeted
Reporting from Libya, Pan American broadcaster Telesur’s Jordan Rodriguez said members of his team were threatened, assaulted, and arrested for trying to report events accurately, including about pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli’s Green Square.
Prior to Mubarak’s ouster, Egypt’s military junta detained and interrogated its Cairo team, preventing them from reporting the same way. Other independent journalists were also accosted. Dozens of incidents were reported.
Telesur’s Rodrigo Hernandez said he and his colleagues were bullied face down on the pavement, left there for hours, then “forced into an armored police vehicle, with armed personnel inside, and blindfolded,” en route to a military barracks for questioning.
They were also threatened with imprisonment, deportation, or “something much worse” if they kept reporting and were detained again. Similar tactics are ongoing in Libya to prevent accurate reports coming out. Imperial Washington wants none of its plans exposed.
Accurate Independent Journalism
Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and longtime observer of African country events. On March 1, his article titled, “Petroleum & Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway” provided detailed Libyan information. Access it through the following link:
Key points he stressed included:
– In 2004, America’s sanctions were dropped “in exchange for Gaddafi’s (limited) collaboration, (paving) the way for a new era of US-Libyan bilateral trade.” America’s main interest is Libya’s vast oil, gas and other mineral reserves. The Oil and Gas Journal estimates 46.4 billion barrels of oil and around 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, producing 95% of Libya’s 2010 export earnings. Its petrodollars “were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into (companies) like the Carlyle Group, one of America’s most seedy arms dealers.”
– the CIA “long wanted” Gaddafi removed and replaced.” In 1986, Reagan-ordered air strikes tried to kill him. His infant daughter was murdered instead. “The CIA (downed) Pan Am 103,” not Gaddafi who had nothing to do with it.
– Libya’s “opposition” includes “unspecified, unnamed, unidenfied ‘rebels’ of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent ‘pro-democracy’ protesters….” They seemingly “appeared out of thin air.” Who they are isn’t explained. NFSL, in fact, was established in 1981 by Sudan’s Colonel Jaafer Nimieri, a US puppet dictator from 1971 – 1985.
– For decades, CIA front groups have been operating in Libya, “backing armed insurgents and interventions” portrayed as “pro-democracy” movements.
– Western media is reporting misinformation about events on the ground, including alleged bombings, massacres, and possible nerve gas used. None of it is credible. Libya, in fact, is being attacked. It’s responding in self-defense.
– Vicious propaganda is being used to enlist support for imperial intervention. “US troops have already moved ashore….joining the ‘opposition….The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya.” British and American Special Forces are operating out of Benghazi and Tobruck. Other covert US forces have been on the ground for weeks. Nothing humanitarian is planned.
– More than oil and gas is wanted. So are valued mineral deposits. “Libya has a huge land mass with massive untapped mineral potential (including uranium),” besides known energy resources.
– Accusing Gaddafi of genocide is malicious and untrue, like other major media fabrications. Their “disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds.” No verifiable evidence exists, but there’s plenty proving US genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in other targeted countries, causing many millions of deaths for decades. Western media air brushed them out, including The New York Times, America’s lead propaganda instrument.
In “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Gerald Perreira wrote:
The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. (It’s) fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi’s vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject (his) vision of Libya as part of a United Africa.
For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and ‘Westoxicated’ analysts who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on….Libya’s system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside the Western imagination.
As a result, all Western government and media reports lack credibility. They’re malicious imperial agitprop, including from top officials, BBC and Al Jazeera, each with its own agenda, all serving Western interests, harmful to Libyans.
A Final Comment
Ongoing events in Libya are familiar. Like many of his past counterparts, Gaddafi’s been targeted for removal. For weeks or much longer, covert CIA and Special Forces operatives recruited, funded and armed so-called “opposition forces.” They, not Gaddafi, instigated violence, heading for civil war. He responded in self-defense. Doing less would be irresponsible.
Western media portray instigators as victims, saying Gaddafi’s waging war on his people. America and Western nations are called white knights, offering “humanitarian intervention” when, if fact, imperial colonization is planned. The longer violence continues, the more false media reports will exaggerate it, enlisting support for another nation to be destroyed to save it.
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Pakistanis, and many other oppressed people understand, victimized by imperial aggression, occupation, exploitation, immiseration, and regular drone attacks murdering innocent men, women and children called militants.
The latest in Afghanistan were nine young children, aged seven to 12, gathering wood in the mountains near their village. They were murdered in cold blood, what’s escalating in Libya, being softened up in preparation for colonization and greater harshness.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:45 am
Brits Bollix Benghazi Caper
'Diplomacy' or deception in the desert?
by Justin Raimondo, March 07, 2011
As the usual suspects started howling for Western intervention in the Libyan revolution – in the name of “humanitarianism,” of course – the objects of their concern made it clear they didn’t want or need any such “help.”
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right on the mark when he described this howling as nothing but “loose talk” – and just how loose was dramatized by the dispatch of a British Special Forces team to Eastern Libya, a move that backfired badly. The Libyan rebels made their point by detaining the team, whose ostensible mission, as described by Western media, was to “escort a junior diplomat” to “reach out” to the Libyan rebels. They were discovered in the Eastern part of the country, which is held by the rebels, and brought to Benghazi – where they were promptly clapped in jail. After holding them for some 24 hours, the rebels sent them packing.
As the embarrassing incident came to light, British Foreign Secretary William Hague sought to rationalize his government’s rash action:
“It is a very difficult situation to be able to understand in detail. There are a number of different opposition groups to Colonel Gadhafi in Libya who do seem relatively disparate.
‘We want to clearly understand what the dynamic is here because we want to be able to work with them to ensure the demise of the Gadhafi regime, to see a transition to greater stability in Libya and ultimately to more representative government.”
Translation: We just were unlucky enough to meet up with the wrong group – but give us time, we’ll find more pliable elements soon enough.
Undeterred by the rude reception, Hague promised that efforts to “contact” the Libyan opposition would continue. We can count on that, I’m sure. “We intend, in consultation with the opposition, to send a further team to strengthen our dialogue in due course,” he said. “This diplomatic effort is part of the UK’s wider work on Libya, including our ongoing humanitarian support. We continue to press for Gadhafi to step down and we will work with the international community to support the legitimate ambitions of the Libyan people.”
If the Libyan people should begin entertaining any ambitions considered illegitimate by Her Majesty’s Government, well, then, that’s another matter.
This incident raises a number of questions, including: what were the Brits really doing in Libya, and why – if this was a “diplomatic” mission – did it require the services of 8 SAS (Special Air Service) tough guys, members of Britain’s legendary elite commando unit, crack troops who are the tip of Britain’s interventionist spear? After all, the normal way to engage in diplomacy is to contact the government– or, in this case, the rebel committee in Benghazi – one wishes to communicate with, and make arrangements out in the open. Why send a covert action team, peopled with top-notch military personnel whose job is not to negotiate but to kill – unless one is not engaging in diplomacy but in other activities of a less benign nature?
The Guardian reports that this very odd “diplomatic” delegation consisted of 6 SAS officers and 2 MI6 intelligence agents – who arrived via helicopter, although from where is unknown at the moment – and cites a rebel source as saying:
“They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. This is no way to conduct yourself during an uprising.
“Gadhafi is bringing in thousands of mercenaries to kill us, most are using foreign passports and how do we know who these people are?
“They say they’re British nationals and some of the passports they have are British. But the Israelis used British passports to kill that man in Dubai last year.”
That last sentence was quite a zinger, and I had to laugh out loud as I read it. The whole affair is uproarious, rather like a particularly subversive installment of Yes, Minister. As the Western powers try to mold, manipulate, and “manage” events on the ground in the Middle East, this is a measure of just how much credibility they have in the people’s eyes: zero. Go home – and stay there: that’s the message. And one can hardly blame the Libyans, especially in the case of the Brits.
After all, wasn’t it Tony Blair who held Gadhafi’s hand throughout the despot’s rather rapid “rehabilitation” – and signed a secret military agreement with the Libyan government, affixing his signature to a document pledging to arm and train Gadhafi’s “specialized military units, special forces and border security units?” It most certainly was. As a reward for capitulating to the West so readily and publicly, Gadhafi was also to be given access to NATO’s military secrets. All this was done during Blair’s last trip abroad as the representative of the British government, in which his job was clearly to say to the Libyan dictator: “Join the club, Moammar. You’re one of us, now!”
What I want to know is why, having pledged to train and support the very troops the rebels are now battling, the British government thought they could send a “diplomatic” team into the country and be greeted with open arms. Unless, of course, their mission wasn’t just an innocent diplomatic blunder, and was, instead, of a more sinister cast.
There’s no end of hilarity in this episode. Feast your eyes on this Telegraph story, which purports to tell us “what went wrong” with the SAS intervention. The subhead alone is priceless: “As the diplomatic team in Libya were rescued by HMS Cumberland after their humiliating capture, the Ministry of Defense was left trying to work out what on earth went wrong.” The tone of wide-eyed naivete persists throughout:
“When the helicopter touched down outside Benghazi in the early hours of Friday morning, the SAS troops on board knew they were entering a volatile situation. Tasked with escorting a diplomat to meet rebel Libyan forces and assessing the humanitarian situation on the ground, they did not, however, expect a hostile reception. With the British Government openly rejecting Colonel Moammar Gadhafi and already in dialogue with opposition leaders, it should have been an uncontroversial visit.”
What, me worry?
Ah, but even the credulously pro-government Telegraph noted the, er, unusual circumstances of this diplomatic courtesy call:
“However, the manner of their arrival – in the dead of night, armed with weapons, maps and explosives while dressed in plain black clothing – did little to assuage local panic.”
Yes, that does seem a tad suspicious, now doesn’t it? But, of course, those excitable Libyans would go into a “panic.” Just because their country has been invaded and occupied countless times by foreigners, why get all huffy and hostile when a mysterious helicopter carrying armed foreigners arrives in the dead of night? I guess some people are just hypersensitive.
Whether the Brits really believed they would be showered with rose petals and hailed as saviors upon arrival, as the “allied” forces were supposed to have been greeted by grateful Iraqis in 2003, is almost beside the point. The point being that what is happening in Libya, and throughout North Africa and the Middle East, is the exact opposite of what occurred in Iraq, and – contra Charles Krauthammer – refutes the Bush Doctrine that served to justify the invasion.
The idea that Washington could lead a regional revolution against corrupt authoritarians who ruled with our open support – in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf emirates – is such an obvious contradiction that several observers doubted the President’s sincerity, concluding that Bush’s “global democratic revolution” was just an ideological cover for some ulterior motive – oil, Israel’s “security,” or some combination of the two.
In order to “drain the swamp” of the Middle East, and eliminate the conditions that led to the proliferation of terrorism in the Muslim world – as the neoconservative Deep Thinkers theorized – the first obstacles to be removed were US allies in the region: Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Pharaoh Mubarak, and the tinpot kings and emirs of the Gulf. In any genuinely revolutionary upsurge in support of democracy these characters would logically be the first to go – and so they are gone, or going very shortly. The very fact that these tyrants were – and are – valued allies of the American Imperium will mean that we can expect the same “welcome” experienced by our British partners.
As the tag team of John McCain and Joe Lieberman calls for all measures short of an outright invasion to “help” the rebels, the War Party is being told firmly but politely “thanks but no thanks” by the emerging rebel leadership.
Aside from the complete repudiation of the War Party’s agenda, what’s interesting about this story of a spy mission gone bad is the question of just what these “special forces” were really doing in Libya. My guess is they were trying to aid a particular faction of the Libyan opposition by providing its members with logistical and military support. They could hardly do so openly, and so they arrived in the dead of night, armed to the teeth and loaded down with enough spy paraphernalia to outfit a James Bond movie.
Apparently determined to provide as much comedic relief during the Libyan crisis as possible, the Telegraph released a partial transcript of the conversation between the British ambassador, Richard Northern, and a rebel leader. Here is Mr. Northern, explaining what that crack team of British commandos and two spooks were up to:
“We have been planning to send some officials to stay in Benghazi to liaise with you, with the National Council,. … And we sent today, ahead of those officials who were coming, we sent a small group just to find if there was a hotel, if everything was working, if there was somewhere they could stay and work when we get our group organized.”
Did the Ambassador really think the Libyans would fall for this? Somehow, I doubt it. A more calculated insult would be hard to imagine. The rebel leader, who is not named, responded with admirable calm: instead of berating Northern, the official said the matter is “under investigation.” That’s one investigation I would love to see pursued to the very end.
The hilarity ends, however, with the realization that this dubious “diplomatic” mission will have some real-world consequences, the first being that Gadhafi will use this incident to do what all tyrants do when their rule is challenged: point to a dreaded foreign threat to justify the continuation of their onerous rule. The Gadhafi clique has maintained from the very beginning that the rebellion is the result of a foreign “conspiracy” consisting of Washington, Al-Qaeda, and the purveyors of “hallucinogenic drugs.” To this rather disparate rogues gallery they can now add the Brits, giving the germ of credibility to Gadhafi’s somewhat LaRouchian paranoia – and prolonging the civil war that is tearing the country apart.
Speaking of paranoia: it almost makes one wonder if, perhaps, they did it on purpose – that they wanted to be caught. What else did they expect by landing in an open field, on the outskirts of a populated center? When confronted, they claimed they weren’t armed. From all accounts, however, they had enough explosives and other weapons to outfit a small army. So much for that “weapons embargo”!
The British government is saying – with a straight face – that they intend to send in yet more “diplomatic” missions, presumably with the agreement of the rebel high command, but if I were them I wouldn’t count on it.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
On another topic: If you’re wondering where the next Muslim domino is going to fall, I say look to Pakistan – where the corruption that provoked the ire of the Tunisians, Egyptians, Bahrainis, and Iraqis has reached Brobdingnagian proportions. And speaking of the Iraqis – expect the anti-government demonstrations to be met with even worse repression (dozens have already been killed by US-funded “security” forces), and the protests to grow much larger and more radical in their demands.
Some of you may have noticed that we have resumed our relationship with Amazon.com. The reason is simple: it was dumb to boycott just Amazon when practically every banking institution and every hosting service in the country was caving in to pressure to refuse services to WikiLeaks. We thought it was important, however, to speak out against the intimidation tactics of the US government, and that we did: as George W. Bush would say – “Mission accomplished!” Seriously, though, we didn’t really think that one through: and I, for one, never thought that so many would be cowed into bowing to the dictates of the US government. Ever the optimist, I was shocked when so many caved. Live and learn.
And of course another reason for our return to the Amazon fold is financial: we just can’t afford the thousand or so dollars a month we make from the relationship, and several of our donors raised this question with us during the recent fundraising drive. It is a point well taken. We listen to you, our readers and supporters, and not only that, we respond.
Speaking of our recent fundraising campaign: I am pleased to say it was a great success – although it did get scary for a while there, especially in the beginning. And it did take a good three weeks: why, I remember – years ago – when it used to only take a single week to make our goal. Times sure have changed: they’ve gotten harder.
Yet we at Antiwar.com are determined to ride out this economic storm, and we’re doing it with your essential and much-appreciated support. To all those who dug down deep in their pockets and gave, you have my eternal thanks.
It’s always hard to write these thank-you notes, because it’s difficult to express the depths of my gratitude. However, let me try.
Every time I sit down to write a column I give silent thanks to Antiwar.com’s readers – and its incomparable staff – for the opportunity to spread the anti-interventionist message far and wide. It is a privilege, and a responsibility, to be in this position, and I never forget – not for a moment – that this kind of support has to be constantly earned.
This is the whip that drives me, and keeps me trotting along, sometimes at a very rapid pace, and it can get exhausting. I struggle mightily, however, to make sure that exhaustion never turns up in my writing. By constantly challenging myself, and my readers, I strive to ward off the worst afflictions of the ideological writer: the recourse to formulaic jargon-clotted prose, and the kind of groupthink that accompanies every movement for social change. I may not always succeed as well as I would like, but this is the kind of lazy writing I could never habitually indulge in – because it would bore me to tears.
by eyeno » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:04 am
NATO starts 24/7 surveillance of Libya
By the CNN Wire Staff
March 7, 2011 -- Updated 2049 GMT (0449 HKT)
(CNN) -- NATO has launched around-the-clock surveillance flights of Libya as it considers various options for dealing with escalating violence in the war-torn country, America's ambassador to the organization told reporters Monday.
Representatives of key Western powers also highlighted the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone in Libya -- part of growing campaign to break strongman Moammar Gadhafi's grip on power.
British, French and U.S. officials were working on a draft text that includes language on a no-fly zone, diplomatic sources at the United Nations told CNN.
The language in the text will deal with triggers rather than timelines for taking such a step, one diplomat noted. If gross violations of human rights are committed, the diplomat added, the elements of the text could be quickly turned into a resolution.
Any resolution on military intervention in Libya, however, would be subject to a vote by the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council. Such intervention could face sharp criticism from Russia and China, who rarely approve of such measures.
"The violence that's been taking place and perpetrated by the government in Libya is unacceptable," U.S. President Barack Obama said at the White House. Moammar Gadhafi's government "will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there."
Obama stressed that NATO is considering a wide range of responses -- including military options -- for dealing with the crisis.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney later cited three potential responses under active consideration: establishing the no-fly zone, military-backed humanitarian aid, and stronger enforcement of the U.N. arms embargo.
Carney downplayed speculation about the possibility of providing arms to the Libyan rebels, telling reporters that "it would be premature to send a bunch of weapons to a post office box in eastern Libya."
"We need to not get ahead of ourselves in terms of the options we're pursuing," he warned.
A senior U.S. official familiar with the administration's deliberations on Libya denied a report in the British press that the administration had asked Saudi Arabia to arm the rebels.
U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague told members of the British parliament, however, that "we are making contingency plans for all eventualities in Libya."
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Belgium that the organization has no immediate intention to intervene in the Libyan civil war. But "as a defense alliance and a security organization, it is our job to conduct prudent planning for any eventuality," he said.
Rasmussen stressed that it is important to "remain vigilant" in light of "systemic attacks" by Gadhafi's regime against the Libyan population. "The violation of human rights and international humanitarian law is outrageous," he said.
Rasmussen also noted that the defense ministers from member states will meet Friday and Saturday to discuss how the organization can help partner countries in North Africa and the broader Middle East.
"We can see a strong wind of change blowing across the region -- and it is blowing in the direction of freedom and democracy," he asserted.
Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kasa lashed out the Western leaders, calling their response part of "a conspiracy to divide (and) partition the country."
"The English are yearning for the colonial era" while Obama is acting "like a child," he said. "Territorial integrity is sacrosanct and we will die for it."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, meanwhile, appointed a new special envoy to Libya to discuss the crisis with officials in Tripoli, the United Nations said in a statement Monday.
Abdelilah Al-Khatib, a former foreign minister of Jordan, will "undertake urgent consultations with the authorities in Tripoli and in the region on the immediate humanitarian situation as well as the wider dimensions of the crisis," according to the statement.
As diplomats debated various options, the violence in Libya continued to intensify. Forces loyal to Gadhafi took aim at the rebel-controlled town of Ras Lanuf, launching aerial strikes meant to help crush the uprising against him.
Death toll estimates from the conflict have reached as high as 2,000 people. Roughly 200,000 people have fled Libya, with nearly equal numbers going to Tunisia and Egypt, according to the United Nations.
by Plutonia » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:11 am
Libyan4life Jeel Ghathub
A Twitter account to be the voice of the “Libyan Transitional National Council” has just been launched. You can follow it @LibyanTNC
6 Mar Favorite Retweet Reply
by DevilYouKnow » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:48 pm
Libya: MI6 officer seized in SAS mission fiasco 'was carrying letter signed by David Cameron'
The MI6 officer seized during the secret mission in Libya at the weekend was carrying a note signed by David Cameron, it has been claimed.
By Andrew Hough, and James Kirkup 8:00AM GMT 08 Mar 2011
The Prime Minister wanted the note hand-delivered to the rebel leaders to help help win their trust in the campaign to oust Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, according to the Daily Mirror.
In doing so he was following in the footsteps of Baroness Thatcher, who liked to begin "difficult negotiations" with personal messages while she was Prime Minister.
The Foreign and Commonwealth said it was investigating the report on Tuesday morning.
The claim came after William Hague told the House of Commons on Monday that the Prime Minister was aware that SAS soldiers and MI6 officers were to mount the secret mission in Libya.
The Foreign Secretary made clear the Prime Minister knew about last week's operation, which ended in embarrassing failure when the British personnel were held captive by Libyan opposition groups.
As the secret mission was condemned in the Commons as "ill-conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed", a Whitehall blame-game broke out over the operation.
Guarded by Special Forces troops, British intelligence officers last week arrived near Benghazi by helicopter as a "pathfinder" exercise to prepare the ground for a larger diplomatic delegation.
The secret mission failed when local Libyan forces put the British personnel in "temporary detention". Drawing laughter from MPs, Mr Hague said that was caused by a "serious misunderstanding" about their mission.
The Prime Minister has faced persistent criticism over his handling of the Libyan crisis, and Labour said the botched "diplomatic mission" has raised fresh questions about the Government's competence.
Speaking about the signed letter, one senior Special Forces source told the Daily Mirror: “David Cameron ... (was) trying to do a Maggie Thatcher and using the SAS regiment as his own tame fighting force.
“Throughout this flawed mission and the fallout from it, it has been clear the SAS men were not backed up – even when they were rescuing civilians in the desert.”
On Monday morning, Downing Street said that Mr Hague was responsible for the mission in the Benghazi area.
No 10s version of events caused anger in the FCO, where diplomats saw it as an attempt to shift blame. "Some of the Foreign Secretary's colleagues are keen to blame him for just about everything these days," said one source.
Mr Hague later told MPs that Mr Cameron and other ministers were privy to the secret operation.
He added: "The Prime Minister and other colleagues were aware that we would attempt to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya."
by zeeeeeeek » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:07 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUxK02f2mQby gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:22 pm
by 23 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:03 pm
by 8bitagent » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:34 pm
by eyeno » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:20 am
Behind the demonizing of Gadhafi
Published Mar 2, 2011 4:50 PM
Africa continues to be the most underdeveloped continent, despite having the world’s most abundant mineral wealth.
The United States in 1847 created Liberia as a place to send freed African-American slaves. Eventually it became the biggest rubber plantation in the world. In the late 19th century, most of the rest of Africa was carved up by the European colonial powers, including Germany, Britian, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Belgium. By the time of World War I, Africa was nothing more than a gigantic plantation, with hundreds of millions of African peoples made into virtual slaves and their resources ripped off to help enrich European and U.S. capitalists.
After World War II, anti-colonial struggles spread like wildfire throughout Africa, bringing forth dynamic African leaders at the head of campaigns for independence and sovereignty from their former colonial oppressors. These heroic leaders included Patrice Lumumba, Amilcar Cabral, Samora Machel and Kwame Nkrumah.
Libya had been an Italian colony until Italy’s defeat in World War II. After the war, the U.S. and Britain set up a monarchy in Libya under King Idris I. Moammar al-Gadhafi was a military officer when he led a coup in 1969 against the monarchy. This led to the nationalization of Libya’s oil and social gains for the Libyan people.
In recent years, however, U.S. sanctions and military aggression against the Gadhafi regime led the government to make concessions and agree to austerity measures demanded by imperialist banks, all of which fueled unrest in the population.
On top of this growing imperialist intervention and pressure, the capitalist media are carrying out a vicious, vindictive campaign against Gadhafi, characterizing him in demonizing, racist terms like “mad dog.” Such terms are never used to describe former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak or other U.S. puppets in the Arab world, from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Bahrain.
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on President Gadhafi and his family’s bank accounts; by contrast, the U.S. did not impose similar sanctions on Mubarak and his reported $70 billion in bank accounts. While President Barack Obama has publicly called for Gadhafi to step down from office, he treated Mubarak with kid gloves before the resolve of the Egyptian masses forced Mubarak to leave office.
The racist, hostile treatment of Gadhafi is not an isolated example. Another African leader who has been demonized in a comparable manner is Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe. Unlike Gadhafi, Mugabe has been the leader of a national liberation movement, ZANU-PF. Mugabe forced Britain, the colonial oppressor, to the bargaining table in 1979 to work out an agreement in which Britain would subsidize the giving back to African war veterans of millions of acres of land stolen by white farmers. But Britain didn’t live up to the agreement. When Mugabe kept his promise to these freedom fighters by seizing the land, the U.S. and British governments in 2000 imposed genocidal sanctions on the Zimbabwean economy and also sought to isolate Mugabe with a prolonged character assassination. They called him a “tyrant” and “despot” and accused him of starving his people — when the real culprits were “structural adjustment” measures imposed by the IMF, along with periods of severe drought.
The Western imperialists have also made every effort to demonize President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan while funding secessionist movements in the oil-rich South and West of the country, imposing sanctions and bringing criminal charges against him in the International Criminal Court.
It is the right of any oppressed people to oppose and organize against their leaders if basic needs and rights are not being met. It is not the right of imperialist governments to manipulate, exploit and outright intervene in the internal affairs of another country while personally and politically demonizing their leaders. This is a violation of the basic right to self-determination.
There have been reports from news sources, including Al Jazeera, that low-waged migrants from Chad, Niger and other sub-Saharan African countries working in Libya have been physically attacked and accused of being “mercenaries” hired by Gadhafi. These attacks are being carried out by anti-Gadhafi forces who are receiving backing from the West.
The imperialists don’t care about any suffering of the Libyan people but will do what they deem in their interests to gain control of the oil that Libya possesses. The people of Libya don’t need imperialist intervention; they need and deserve reparations from imperialist banks and governments that have held back real economic development and political independence on a continent that has been severely abused for centuries, beginning with the devastating slave trade.
It is imperative that the progressive movement in the U.S. take up the clarion call of getting imperialism off the backs of the African people by intensifying the class struggle here. This is what real solidarity is all about.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests