Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label Muammar Gaddafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muammar Gaddafi. Show all posts

Hillary Clinton is Not a Feminist: Consider the Women of Saudi Arabia and Libya

Illustration by DonkeyHotey.
By Sophie Stephenson
Hillary Clinton says she’s a feminist, and claimed, astonishingly, while promoting her book “Hard Choices” last year:
“Women and girls … [are] central to our foreign policy,” saying that countries that value the rights of women are “less likely to breed extremism.”
However this statement is completely at odds with her actions as Secretary of State, such as with Libya – of which it has been said was her own project rather than Obama’s – where she put her own vile agenda ahead of the rights of the nation’s women, which were until that point light-years ahead of most other Middle Eastern countries. Since the death of Gaddafi, the rights of Libyan women have been rolled back by decades, with them now having to leave the house covering their heads, if not also their faces. It should be noted that the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – Abdelhakim Belhadj – whose group was backed by NATO air strikes and who afterwards had his photograph taken with Washington’s leading warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham, is now said to be leading ISIS in Libya.

_______________

Hillary Clinton is a "Gloria Steinem Type of Feminist" —
Merely a Willing Stooge of the Deep State

When I did research on this subject years ago, I discovered that Gloria Steinem (left) first denied she was
organizing student conferences for the CIA, then she claimed she didn't know it — until she was outed in
an article published in the New York Times. Now a world renown feminist, the ex-long time girlfriend of
Henry Kissinger now says she "knew" she was working for the CIA and would "do it again" if given a
choice.—Ronald David Jackson
_______________

Clinton was also central to the “Friends of Syria” group, an ironic name if ever there was one, which advocates for the violent overthrow of the country’s President Bashar al-Assad. Syria is also one of the few countries in the Middle East where women are treated as human beings. In November, Al Arabiya reported that nightlife has returned to the besieged ancient city of Aleppo. In the government-held half women dance the night away underneath the lasers, even on weeknights…whilst in the rebel-held part of the city, cafes and restaurants are divided into men only and family sections, and women do not leave the house without their husbands. Clearly following the example set by Saudi Arabia – perhaps the most oppressive country on earth in terms of women’s rights.

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue she has staunchly defended Israel’s massacres in Gaza, and has said that if she were the Israeli Prime Minister, she would not give up “security” in the West Bank – suggesting that she does not support a two-state solution.

Therefore, Hillary proclaiming herself a feminist, and her claim that women’s rights are important to the Obama administration’s foreign policy, is crude and absurd. As Kelley Vlahos wrote in The American Conservative last year:

Hillary Clinton just may prove to be what the defense establishment has been waiting for, and more. Superior to all in money, name recognition, and influence, she is poised to compete aggressively for the Democratic nomination for president. She might just win the Oval Office. And by most measures she would be the most formidable hawk this country has seen in a generation.
Read More


Al Shabaab Benefited from The West's Destruction of the Libyan State

Al Shabaab fighters training in Somalia (Screen capture from YouTube video)
Al Shabaab fighters training in Somalia (Screen capture from YouTube video)
By Robert Barsocchini
Al Shabaab, the Islamic terrorist group that has just laid siege to a Kenyan university, killing nearly 150 people, benefited from the 2011 Western aggression that backed al Qaeda and affiliated militias to destroy the state of Libya:

The Telegraph:
Libyan arms that went missing during the fighting to remove Col Muammar Gaddafi are now spreading even further afield…
The new report by a special UN security council committee suggests that they have now travelled even further, with Libyan ammunition showing up in the continuing war being waged by al-Shabab [pictured above], an al-Qaeda offshoot in Somalia.
RELATED STORY: Nation Killing: Libya — From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
Somalia borders Kenya, where Al Shabaab has just attacked a university.

Al Shabaab has “Wahhabi roots”; Wahhabism is the extremist version of Islam exported by missionary theocracy Saudi Arabia, which is itself currently carrying out US-coordinated terrorist attacks against people in Yemen. “Al-Wahhab’s teachings are state-sponsored and are the official form of Sunni Islam in 21st century Saudi Arabia”.

In addition to support for Saudi Arabia dating to the 1930s, the US has on numerous occasions openly or indirectly supported al Qaeda and other Wahhabi terrorist groups.
RELATED STORY: The Lockerbie Bombing Hoax - Governments & Big Media Told Decades of Lies About The Bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 Libya Didn't Do It
The Western aggression that destroyed Libya also benefitted other al Qaeda and al Qaeda linked militias, such as Boko Haram:

Al Jazeera: “…heavy weapons such as SAM-7 anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles…were either surreptitiously obtained by posing as Gaddafi’s supporters or indirectly purchased from mercenaries who had acquired these arms from Libyan depositories. …these arms have been transferred to groups such as Ansar Dine, Boko Haram and MUJAO, emboldening and enabling them to mount more deadly and audacious attacks.

  • Commentary Magazine: “Unsecured Libyan weapons went to Boko Haram”
  • Human Rights First: “Unsecured Libyan stockpiles empower Boko Haram and destabilize African Sahel”
  • NBC News: “Apart from benefiting from sympathizers in the Nigerian military, the Islamic terror group is able to purchase small arms and occasionally some larger weaponry in nearby conflict zones, ‘probably Libya’ … The collapse of Libya has further flooded the market”
  • Reuters and United Nations: “The Libyan civil war may have given militant groups in Africa’s Sahel region like Boko Haram and al Qaeda access to large weapons caches, according to a U.N. report released on Thursday. … Boko Haram killed more than 500 people last year and more than 250 this year in Nigeria.”
  • Washington Post: “Boko Haram … militants, who traveled to northern Mali last year to join the fight there, have returned with heavy weapons from Libya, presumably from former Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s arsenal.”

Reporter and UK-based colleague on Twitter.



Reprinted with permission from Washingtons Blog

Media Silence on Libya — Totally Destroyed by the US and NATO

Screen capture from YouTube video.
Screen capture from YouTube video.
By Margaret Kimberley, BAR
Despite the all-encompassing belief in democracy and a free press, Americans have very little democracy left and perhaps the worst media in the world. Even people who make efforts to be informed don’t know what is happening domestically and internationally because of the constant lies and disinformation they are exposed to by the corporate media. They act as spokespersons for the powerful instead of providing analysis and information for readers and viewers. The result is a world turned upside down, with lies being sold as the truth. Libya is just the latest example of press malfeasance.

In 2011 the leaders of NATO appeared to pull off the perfect crime. That year they used the Arab Spring democracy movement as a cover to destroy Libya, kill its president, Muammar Gaddafi, and turn that nation over to jihadists supported by the Persian gulf monarchs.

Migrant Prisons of Libya: Europe or Die - Trailer



Regime change was the only issue ever on the agenda. They used the dubious doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, R2P, as a means of getting away with murder. This was no mysterious conspiracy either. The American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said quite publicly that her government wanted Gaddafi dead. “We hope that he can be captured or killed soon,” said the characteristically undiplomatic diplomat. After the deed was done she again spoke openly about killing a head of state. “We came, we saw, he died.”

The American government unleashed a race war in the intervention and, to this day, African migrants and darker skinned Libyans are at risk of assault and death. The town of Tawergha was turned to rubble and inhabitants who survived the assault were forced to flee. America’s first black president was responsible for this terror.

2011 was the year that Barack Obama made his bones and a fiendish re-election campaign commercial by going on a killing spree in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki were all victims of the U.S. hit squad, in a clear violation of law.

Now Libya is back in the news and this very recent past is never mentioned by corporate media. When ISIS decapitated 21 Egyptian Christians the horror was separated from American involvement in that country. The murder of the American ambassador in 2012 is used by Republicans as a club to beat Obama but none of them question the very premise of American involvement there.

Libya is now a ruin. As Vladimir Putin pointed out, everything America touches will end up the same way. The once prosperous country is now in a tumultuous civil war, with war lords fighting for their own piece of the action and ISIS using the media to spread fear and outrage. None of this would have taken place had NATO left Libya alone.

One wouldn’t know this of course from watching the news or reading the newspaper. The United States role in the destruction of Libya has been shoved down the Orwellian memory hole, never to be seen or discussed again.

Boko Haram’s rampages in Nigeria and jihadists incursions in Mali are all a result of the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Death was unleashed not just in Libya, but throughout the region. The killing of the United States ambassador at Benghazi in 2012 was a harbinger of things to come as the jihadists repeat their standard operating procedure toward their benefactors. Now Libyans and Egyptian migrant workers pay the price for western aggressions.

It is staggering to see the depth of manipulation directed at the people of this country. If the president openly calls for the overthrow of a sovereign state, networks and newspapers go along and regurgitate every word. When the project goes south, no one who bragged about it in 2011 will now admit to their role in the disaster and the press continues to repeat official policy like the good little scribes they have always been.

The ISIS story has been dumbed down to tired analysis about a clash of civilizations and whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims can be peaceful or warlike but the hand of American involvement and the silence about it is the real story.

Therein lies the perennial problem. This is not the first time in history that an administration directed what the media does and doesn’t report. Journalists know that they have to play ball so to speak. If they want the good gig and access to senior officials they will write only what they are told to write. They won’t stray from the script or tell any inconvenient truths like the United States spending the last nearly forty years supporting jihadists who they later end up fighting.

When the next ISIS video of immolation or beheading is released, the history of American involvement ought to be told too. But no one should hold their breath and think that the press will report on any such thing.

__________________
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in Black Agenda Report, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com.

Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.




 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

Nation Killing: Libya — From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention

Photo by David Holt.
Photo by David Holt.
By Garikai Chengu (This article was first published on October 19, 2014.)
This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.

On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of “600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills…to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi”.

Hifter’s forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.

Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.

Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.

In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.

For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

One group that has suffered immensely from NATO’s bombing campaign is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.

Nowadays, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.

Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Truth is, Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.

A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America’s Military-Industrial-Complex.

Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America’s military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Following the bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now building military bases in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.

NATO’s military intervention may have been a resounding success for America’s military elite and oil companies but for the ordinary Libyan, the military campaign may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest failures of the 21st century.

____________
Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com


Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

Libya: From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention

Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank. 

Libya (CIA Factbook)
By Garikai Chengu
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.


After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.

On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.
The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of “600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills…to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi”.


Libya's Dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi Upon His Capture and Just Before His Summary
Execution by Western-backed 'Rebels':
  All Gaddafi got for capitulating to a multi-billion dollar
payoff for a bombing that his country didn't
commit and agreeing to all other demands of
the West was a Western-backed overthrow of his country, and a knife up his rear end.
(Screen capture from video)

Hifter’s forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.

Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.


Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.

In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.

For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

One group that has suffered immensely from NATO’s bombing campaign is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.

Nowadays, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.

Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Truth is, Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.

A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America’s Military-Industrial-Complex.

Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America’s military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Following the bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now building military bases in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.

NATO’s military intervention may have been a resounding success for America’s military elite and oil companies but for the ordinary Libyan, the military campaign may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest failures of the 21st century.

____________________
Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com


Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

The Destabilization of Africa and the Role of 'Shadowy Islamists' — From Benghazi to Boko Haram

Boko Haram
You can’t understand the threat posed to Nigeria by Boko Haram, or the ghastly destruction of Syria over the past three years, outside the context of “the vicious NATO obliteration of the state of Libya.” One huge crime begets many consequences, including the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. The Left should be outraged at Obama policies – in North Africa, in Syria, and in backing neo-fascists in Ukraine.
By Ajamu Baraka
Seemingly out of nowhere, Boko Haram burst into the awareness of people around the world as a shadowy group of Islamists with the ability to carry out audacious attacks that paralyzed the army of the most populous country in Africa. People now want to know the group’s origins, where they came from, why they are kidnapping girls and how they became such a powerful threat. All important questions – but questions that cannot be answered by just looking at the internal politics of Nigeria, as important as those are, because Boko Haram is incomprehensible when decontextualized from the destabilization, death and destruction unleashed across Africa from the Sahel into West Africa as a result of one historic event – the vicious NATO obliteration of the state of Libya.


African Union Commission chief Jean Ping warned NATO, during its bombing campaign and arming of so-called rebel forces in Libya, that the weapons they provided the “rebels” would end up in the hands of al Qaeda throughout Africa. He said,
“Africa’s concern is that weapons that are delivered to one side or another … are already in the desert and will arm terrorists and fuel trafficking.”
Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo expressed what many in Africa feared from the NATO attack on Libya:
“We knew that at the end of the Libya operations, there would be fallouts. And the fallout would be where would all the weapons go? Where would be some of those who have been trained how to use weapons [and] how would they be accounted for? … Part of what is happening in Mali is part of the fallout from Libya, and we should not expect that Mali will be the last.”
Reports from the United Nations, the Guardian newspaper and many other sources reveal how Boko Haram benefited from the destabilization of various countries across the Sahel following the Libya conflict, receiving arms and training from an emboldened al Qaeda and its Saudi backers.

That is just one reason why the Benghazi hearing is important, especially for people concerned about the abduction of the school girls in Nigeria. The destruction of Libya not only led to the strengthening of Boko Haram – it also led to arms being transferred out of Libya to Syria, in violation of international law, to overthrow the sovereign government of Bashar al-Assad. This ended up increasing the military capacity of right-wing Salafi/Jihadi Islamists in a half dozen countries and setting the stage for the blowback on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. citizens.

But of course there is significant opposition to the hearings.

In what House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi characterized as a “political stunt,” “subterfuge” and a “diversionary tactic,” House Republicans voted last week to form a 12-member committee to investigate the Obama Administration’s handling of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

Claiming that they now have a “smoking gun,” with the forced release of previously suppressed emails that suggest the Obama Administration deliberately misled the U.S. public about what it knew about events that led to the attack and death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, House Republicans appear poised to give the Obama Administration its Iran-contra affair – not with the objective to further weaken the Administration, but rather to destroy Hillary Clinton.

The response from the Democrats has been predictable. Democrats already lined-up behind a Clinton campaign understand that no matter what comes out this inquiry, Benghazi has the potential to become a permanent yoke that wears down the Clinton candidacy. But in another bizarre display of political and ideological subordination to the Democrat Party and its rightist elite, elements of the left have also expressed opposition to this inquiry.

One would think that those on the left would support this inquiry, as limited and partisan as it will be, on the democratic principle that the people have a right to know what occurred before, during and in the aftermath of the attack. But even more importantly, by demanding a more comprehensive examination of all the activity of the U.S. in Libya in the aftermath of the destruction of that state, including the mission of the CIA in Benghazi, the left can and should raise serious questions that expose the dangerous strategy of empowering anti-democratic, right-wing forces, from al Qaeda-connected jihadists in Syria to neo-fascists in Ukraine.

We understand that there will be an attempt to keep the focus narrow. Members of both parties and everyone in the higher echelons of the military/intelligence community knew that the U.S. had aligned with groups in Eastern Libya that were known to be jihadists. The fact that both parties supported the NATO intervention knowing that jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda played a major part in the overthrow of Gaddafi and that the largest CIA station in North Africa was established in Benghazi where it provided arms and was used as staging ground for inserting jihadist’s forces into Syria, means that both parties share an interests in avoiding the serious legal and moral implications of U.S. actions in Libya.

I welcome the hearings and could not care less about the implications for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton or the reputation of Barack Obama. I am more interested in curbing the rightward militarist trajectory of U.S. policy. As an African American the plight of the more than 200 school girls captured by Boko Haram holds a special outrage for me. But I am also outraged by the murder of people defending their rights to self-determination at the hands of U.S.-supported thugs in Odessa Ukraine, outraged by the fact that people are daily terrorized by the constant buzz of U.S. drones that kill women and children in wedding parties and individuals who may “act” like they might be so-called terrorists, outraged that people can call themselves moral and even progressive and support the brutal Israeli occupation and de-humanization of Palestinians.

And I am outraged knowing that U.S. policy-makers don’t give a damn about the school girls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the Northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the South and to block the Chinese in Nigeria.

Exposing the whole sordid story of the destruction of Libya and the role of Al-Qaeda as the “boots on the ground” for U.S. geo-strategic objectives in North Africa and the Middle East represents the only strategy that an independent and principled left could pursue in wake of the fact that the hearings are going to occur. Anything other than that is capitulation, something that the left has routinely done over the last six years, and some of us still struggle against in the hope that one day the “responsible” left will eschew the privileges that stem from its objective collaboration with the interests and world-view of neo-liberal white power and re-ground itself in authentic radical principles and the world-wide struggle against Western domination.

__________________
Ajamu Baraka a long-time human rights activist and organizer is an editor and contributing columnist for Black Agenda Report. He is currently an Associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C.


Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

What Was Accomplished With The Overthrow of Libya's Muuamar Gaddifi?: U.S. CREATED a Terrorist Safe Haven In Libya

Bombing aftermath in Tripoli, Libya. (Screen capture from YouTube video)
Bombing aftermath in Tripoli, Libya. (Screen capture from YouTube video)

By WashingtonsBlog

Heck of a Job …

The U.S. State Department released its 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism on April 30th, stating:
With a weak government possessing very few tools to exert control throughout its territory, Libya has become a terrorist safe haven and its transit routes are used by various terrorist groups, notably in the southwest and northeast.
***
Terrorists continue to utilize ancient trade routes across these borders. All of Libya’s borders are porous and vulnerable to this activity ….
Why has Libya become a safe haven for terrorists?

The State Department’s 2012 Country Reports on Terrorism – the first Country Report to list Libya as a terrorist safe haven – explains:
In 2012, Libyan internal security suffered significant challenges and setbacks as it sought to reassert central authority following the fall of the Qadhafi regime ….
And why did the Qadhafi regime fall?

Oh, yeah … in 2011, the U.S. launched a war in Libya and “regime changed” Qadhafi. As then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
We came, we saw, he died.

Read More


The Lockerbie Bombing Hoax: Governments & Big Media Told Decades of Lies About The Bombing of Pam Am Flight 103

Photo: Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial - Plaque - Arlington National Cemetery
Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial - Plaque - Arlington National Cemetery.
(Photo by Tim Evanson)

"I cannot accept blood money
when I know that the Libyans are not involved”
-Matt Berkeley, relative of a Pam Am Flight 103 bombing victim, on why his family won't accept
the cash settlement agreed to by the Libyan government.


By Ronald David Jackson
From almost the moment of the downing of Pam Am Flight 103 by a sophisticated time bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, the finger of blame was pointed at Libya and the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Led by the United States, governments of the West accused Libya of involvement in the bombing and the corporate media followed right along. The charade continued for decades and culminated with the imposition of crippling sanctions and diplomatic isolation on Libya; the families of those killed being lied to, manipulated, and exploited, and an innocent man being arrested, put on trial, convicted, vilified and hounded to his death bed.

The West Blames Libya
In 1992, after a four-year blizzard of anti-Libya/anti-Arab propaganda, the UN voted to impose sanctions against Libya. Part of the global puppet show required that Libya hand over an alleged perpetrator, Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi, who was placed on trial at a Scottish court in the Netherlands where he was convicted and jailed in 2001. Sanctions against Libya were finally lifted in 2003—after a decade—when the government of Libya capitulated to international blackmail and agreed to pay up to $10 million to each of the 270 victims of the bombing.

Photo: Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial Cairn - Arlington  National Cemetery
Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial Cairn - Arlington
National Cemetery. The memorial lists the name of
victims at its base. (Photo by Cliff)
Every year, around the anniversary of the bombing (December 21), governments and corporate media re-start the propaganda parade, telling the world the "Libya-did-the-Lockerbie-bombing-and-the-perpetrator got-away" story all over again.

The United States government—and many other governments and corporate media entities—have been involved in a coverup of the key facts surrounding the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103.  The question is, why?

The Trial Was A Sham
The Chief Prosecutor in the Lockerbie trial, Britain's Lord Hardie, shocked the world when he resigned just weeks before the trial was to begin. At the time it was suggested Hardie rather resign than go further with a case that was thoroughly lacking in sufficient evidence and get caught "holding the parcel." A suggestion Hardie denied. Belief in the trial and conviction began to wane when witnesses insisted they never made statements attributed to them by investigators, and a key forensic witness against Al-Megrahi, admitted to lying and other deceptions during the Lockebie trial, including going so far as stealing a key piece of evidence and giving it to criminal investigators.

Al-Megrahi was ultimately granted a new trial on appeal in 2009. By this time the Scottish government no longer believed in Al-Megrahi's guilt. Al-Megrahi had always insisted on his innocence but was allowed to drop the appeal and return to die in Libya (he was gravely ill by the time he won his appeal).



Despite questions about his trial, and despite the fact that he was freed by the Scottish government and allowed to return to Libya, the chorus of "Libya was involved, and Al-Megrahi did the bombing" continued unabated. As part of the cruel charade, the United States asked the Western-backed rebels who had just overthrown the Libyan government and executed Muammar Gaddafi to "re-examine" the Al-Megrahi case. "This is a guy with blood on his hands, the lives of innocents," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland back in August of 2011. For the most part, the corporate media and US government never bothered to fully inform the gullible public about the facts of the sham trial.

Scotland Knew Al-Megrahi Was Innocent
In March of 2012 (11 years after Al-Megrahi's original conviction and three years after he won the right to a new trial), a Scottish newspaper published a report on the Lockerbie bombing that had been kept secret for five years by the government of Scotland. The full 861-page report was published by the Sunday Herald with the permission of Al-Megrahi. The newspaper admitted that it had "chosen to publish the full report online today to allow the public to see for themselves the analysis of the evidence which could have resulted in the acquittal of Megrahi." The newspaper went on to state that  "the report adds weight to calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity – something for which many of the relatives have been campaigning for more than two decades."

The blockbuster report was all but ignored by the Western media and governments like the United States.

Photo: Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi on his death bed.
Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi was hounded by questions about
the Lockerbie bombing even on his death bed. Tribune's caption calls
Al-Megrahi the "convicted Lockerbie bomber" but doesn't point out
that his trial was a sham.
(Screen capture from video, Telegraph, UK)

Pam Am Investigator Raised Questions About Libya's Involvement Early On
Long before the revelation of the report by the Scottish government, the results of an investigation on the Lockerbie bombing surfaced. The investigation was conducted by Interfor (also known as Interforce), a private intelligence contractor which bills itself as an "international investigation firm." Founded by "ex-Mossad agent" Juval Aviv, Interfor was commissioned by Pam Am after Pam Am and its insurance company was sued for negligence (letting the bomb on the plane) by victims' families.

The Interfor report exposed a tangled web of suspects that included a Syrian drug trafficker linked to Major General Richard Secord (Secord had become famous for his association with Colonel Oliver North and the Iran-Contra "Cocaine for Guns" fiasco. The secret operation by the Reagan Administration sought to arm rebels fighting against the Nicaraguan government with guns paid for by drug trafficking).




Artist impressions of the Lockerbie bombing. (Illustration by Anynobody)


The Interfor report was presented to Pam Am officials as well as members of the US Congress. One member of Congress, Jim Traficant of Ohio, took up the issue. Traficant demanded an investigation and entered the report into the Congressional Record. Not long after that, Traficant was accused of corruption and hounded from Congress. The Interfor report itself was attacked and Interfor's founder, Aviv, was subjected to a systematic smear campaign, especially when the issue was raised about possible CIA foreknowledge of an attack on Pam Am Flight 103. Meanwhile, governments and the corporate media continued to sell the "Libya-did-it" hoax.

Latest Report: CIA Held Syrians Responsible
The latest nail in the coffin of the "Libya-did-it" scenario surfaced just a few days ago. A sworn deposition signed by a former US spy who worked in the Middle East, Dr Richard Fuisz,
shows the CIA believed that Syrians—not Libyans—were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Dr. Fuisz says he was told directly by his CIA bosses that Syrians operating under orders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) carried out the attack on Pam Am Flight 103.


Libya's Dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi Upon His Capture and Just Before His Summary
Execution by Western-backed 'Rebels':
  All Gaddafi got for capitulating to a multi-billion dollar
payoff for a bombing that his country didn't commit and agreeing to all other demands of
the West was a Western-backed overthrow of his country, and a knife up his rear end.
(Screen capture from video)

What We Now Know
We now know what the United States, Scotland, other Western governments and some members of corporate media have known all along: 1) The Lockerbie bombing trial of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi was a total sham; 2) The Scottish government knew the trial was a sham, Al-Megrahi was innocent, and that Libya was likely not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing (and the Scottish government said as much in its own report); 3) Pam Am Airlines had information that suggested Al-Megrahi was likely innocent, and that Libya was likely not involved based on an investigation Pam Am had commissioned itself, 4) The CIA (and therefore the United States) did not believe the Libyans were involved in the Lockerbie bombing and blamed Syrians and the PFLP-GC instead. However, the United States continued to tell the public otherwise, perhaps to cover-up involvement of some of its "assets" in drug trafficking which perhaps resulted in the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

Many Questions Still Remain
Why the charade all of these years? Why were sanctions unfairly forced on Libya by the UN at the behest of Western governments? Why did Libya agree to hand over Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and why did it agree to pay reparations to victims' families (most likely, Libya wanted to rid itself of the UN sanctions and avoid a threatened "Iraq-like" attack)? Most important: Why were victims families (and the world) lied to by the United States, Scotland, the UN and corporate media? 

Maybe one day soon the corporate media—and members of the so-called "progressive media"—will stop yelling "conspiracy theorist" long enough to seek real answers to these questions.


_______________


For a thorough background on the real story of the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103,
this is a "must listen to" radio broadcast:
"Libya and Lockerbie: The Untold Story"
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone


Ralph Schoenman (Left) and Mya Shone
(Video capture from video: Victoria Indy TV, left; Marin Humane Society, right)

Taking Aim Radio
(Originally broadcast on WBAI, NY Radio, Pacifica Network
September 2, 2003)



________________



Accused Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi speaks from
his death-bed in Libya: 'truth will soon emerge'
(Notice the Tribune's title for the video still refers to Al-Megrahi as the 'Lockerbie bomber')



_______

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...