Mainstream Media’s double-betrayal of Libya

Source

By Adam Garrie Adam Garrie | The Duran | November 26, 2017

The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya whose most prominent leader was Muammar Gaddafi, even after he relinquished titular status, was a country that moulded itself on the unique Third International Theory. This new ideology combined elements of traditional Arab Nationalism, the socialist model of Yugoslavia, direct democracy and pan-Africanism.

As detailed on his Green Books, Gaddafi’s official ideas helped develop Libya from a state which in its pre-revolutionary days had virtually no modern infrastructure, little modern housing, no real modern irrigation or sewage systems, low levels of literacy and a very low life expectancy, to one which attained the highest living standards in Africa history, where housing was either cheap or free, education and healthcare were free, petrol and car ownership was subsidised by the state, food was cheap and plentiful and where a highly elaborate man made river made the desert bloom.

But above all of these achievements, Gaddafi’s revolutionary leadership helped close the gap between Arabism and the pan-African liberation movement.

Gaddafi’s foreign policy could not be easily pinned-down into any specific geo-political bloc. He was his own man and the foreign policy of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reflected this.

Libya was the only Arab state to support Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, apart from Syria and likewise, one of the few states in the wider Muslim world to support the socialist Yugoslav government in its war against terrorism and fascism during the 1990s.

As Gadafi became increasingly ostracised by Arab League governments who loathed his independent streak in foreign policy and moreover, resented Libya’s general independence from the western financial system, Gaddafi turned increasingly little to the prodigal Arab world and more towards Africa.

Gaddafi supported every major African liberation movement on the continent, even those who were rejected by both China and the Soviet Union. South Africa’s Nelson Mandela maintained a lifelong friendship with Gaddafi whom he called ‘Brother Gaddafi’, as did many Africans.

But Gaddafi did more than support liberation movements in Africa. Because the economic boom Gaddafi created required a larger labour force than Libyans could provide, Gaddafi invited many black Africans to work in the Arab state. They were paid incredibly well, not just by African but international standards and they became integrated into Libyan society in spite of their racial backgrounds. While most of the black Africans who came to Libya were Muslims, some Christians also come and they were treated with the same courtesy as Muslims.

This was Libya then. Today, Libya is a failed state with several governments and many terrorist groups and piratical gangs competing for land, resources and influence. Among the first casualties of Libyan society when NATO invaded, was the safety of the black population. From the beginning of the NATO led war, black men and women in Libya were beaten, tortured, physically molested in other unspeakable ways and of course many more were killed. Those who could escape, did so, with many dying of dehydration in the desert, during the process.

Shortly after 2011, captured blacks became literally enslaved by various Takfiri gangs ruling Libya. This trend is nothing new, all that has changed is that the price of a black slave has recently gone up from the low hundreds or a few barrels of oil, to at most, the mid hundreds.

It has only been since the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq that the western mainstream media has paid any attention to the tragic condition of black men and women in Libya. From 2011 until very recently, very little was ever said about this tragic development.

While some welcome this apparent about face from the mainstream media, I would urge caution. It was the mainstream media that lied constantly about Libya in the prelude to NATO’s deadly invasion in 2011.

It was the mainstream media that failed to state that those in 2011 causing agitations in Benghazi were al-Qaeda terrorists, many of whom were trained and transported to Libya by western governments. It was the mainstream media that made up a total lie about Libya, saying that the armed forces gave the drug Viagra to soldiers and told them to go on a raping spree. This outlandish allegation had zero basis in fact.

It was the mainstream media that failed to tell its gullible viewers that Libya was transformed by Gaddafi from a wasteland into a sophisticated society with high living standards and a population with extremely long life expediencies. More to the point, it was the mainstream media which dismissed early reports that black people in Libya, would be among the first victims of the war.

With the western powers on the losing side of the wars in Syria and to a degree, in Iraq also, many of the terrorists who have not been killed will flee to Libya. Many already have reached Libya which is effectively the next stop on the ‘jihad express’.

Because of this, western media outlets are looking for an angle to justify further military intervention in Libya. Moreover, with the secular Libyan House of Representatives making gains against terrorists thanks to the leadership of Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army, many are worried that the western backed puppet government in Tripoli called the Government of National Accord, may lose what very little power it has. Haftar by contrast is openly supported by Egypt and has had many high-level meetings with Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

If Haftar is able to gain further success in his war against terrorism, it would be another sign that the west has lost control of a country they once successfully destroyed.

If the western mainstream media did not care about the black population of Libya when they cheered on the terrorists who killed and enslaved them, why should they care now? The logical answer is that they do not care any more now than they did when they had a chance to explain why a war on Libya would unleash a plague of racist violence on a stable country. The mainstream media are now, simply looking for a new narrative to justify further war on a country whose only stable, secular factions are those operating independently of the west.

Advertisements

Putin is My Flunky (satirical essay)

 

Russia, Iran And Turkey Converge On One Point

Sputnik/ Igor Zarembo

Written by Dmitri Evstafiev; Originally appeared at eurasia.expert, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

On November 22, in Sochi, an unusual summit will be held [SF comment: It already took place] – talks between the leaders of Russia, Iran and Turkey. At the centre of attention will be the settlement in Syria, where the three countries come out as guarantors of peace. Along with that, cooperation in the Moscow-Ankara-Tehran triangle can go beyond the Syrian scope. Professor of the NRU “Higher School of Economics” Dmitry Evstafiev assessed the prospects of the “axis” formed between the three countries and the accession of Azerbaijan.

Preparing to Redraw Maps

On the main agenda of the meeting of the leaders of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Sochi on November 22 are issues related to the necessity to start the political reconstruction process of Syria and the prevention of its transformation into a platform for the development of Islamic radicalism, however on an internal socio-economic basis. It is possible, if there are no effective political mechanisms created, reflecting the new system of interests and influence, which arose both inside and around Syria.

In addition, the three countries are concerned that in the issues of the Syrian settlement the United States are beginning to take a more and more unconstructive position, which can bring destabilisation. Especially considering that the USA in today’s Syria and Iraq will “lose” almost nothing, and they may not particularly care for the fate of their assets and allies.

It is difficult not to notice, however, that the tripartite summit of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Sochi has become a kind of an “answer” to the APEC summit of Da Nag (Vietnam) and the preceding Sino-American negotiations. Agreements between the United States and China stayed away from the “strategic partnership”, but were clearly marked as “pre-freezing” strategic rivalry between the two countries, which was seen as the epicentre of processes in the Asia-Pacific region over the last few years.

World politics abhors a vacuum, especially if politics are in a transition period. In conditions of stagnation in key economic and political terms, Asia-Pacific region (obviously in the absence of a force majeure by the DPRK) will intensify attempts to change the situation in other regions. At a minimum, approaching the new cycle of showdowns in the Asia Pacific region relations with new opportunities. And at a maximum, protecting oneself from possible economic and political destabilisation.

Neither Russia, Iran or Turkey claim for global leadership, but have the status and capacity substantially greater than what the term “regional power” attributes. Three countries, although Turkey to a lesser extent, were focused on the connecting processes for the formation of a new economic space in South-East Asia. Now comes the time for them to restructure their own relationships in order to approach the new “points of bifurcation” with the best outcome.

The Potential of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran «Axis»

And from this point of view the potential of the “troika” Russia-Iran-Turkey is much more than just cooperative interaction in Syria or even in the Middle East. Speaking of development prospects of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran “axis” it is necessary to note three conditions that makes this geopolitical project not just interesting but also potentially of leadership.

First, the basis of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran “axis”, without a doubt, is the economic interests. Primarily, it is the formation of the logistics corridor “North-South”, which now can be viewed in an operational way. There is sufficient transit and, most importantly, non-transit goods for it.

But beyond the economic factors the “axis” brings together a shared vision of military-political issues and security. Not only in Syria or in general in the Middle East, but also in the broader context of South Asia and partially in Africa, in the Horn of Africa.

As practice shows, political and military components of the coalition are now the most enduring elements of the partnership.

This is due to the deceleration of globalisation and preparation of key governments of the world to the significant redistribution of markets in the calculation of the new industrial revolution and the restructuring of global political institutions. As counter-examples we can cite the fate of the Trans-Atlantic economic partnership and NATO.

Second, challenges of industrial modernisation stand before the partner countries. And in circumstances when former concepts of development, based on the idea of connection to the centre of economic growth in the EU, with variations, they lose their relevance. Over a potential range of industrial goods the countries practically do not compete with each other with the exception of certain areas. But they do not appear crucial against the background and can be harmonised in the development process of foreign markets.

The countries are too different for the “intraspecific” competition to emerge. The industrial modernisation will allow to further “spread” competitive “zones”. The partner countries stand before necessary new industrial modernisation but for each it will be different at the sectorial and technological focus.

It is important as well that the “axis”, for the economic cooperation to be successful, becomes a community with a base population of over 300 million people, which is sufficient for the development and initial commercial implementation of technologically rich projects. The community potentially has good chances for the formation of self-sufficient financial investments and billing cycles, with a high level of resistance to external pressure. Problems with access to financial tools are experienced, at the least, by two of the three countries of the “core”, Russia and Iran, and it seems that in the near future, Turkey will begin to experience it as well.

Third, at the “core” the axis naturally formed its own “semi-periphery” and “periphery” countries, which objectively will be pulled in into the “core’s” economic processes and projects. Moreover, these countries are different as to their status and capabilities and development. This gives the “core” of the “axis” sufficient flexibility to secure economic and political interests at the national level.

Around the “core” partnerships can be built with other countries ranging from Syria (logistically important territories and valuable agricultural space) and ending with Qatar (financial resources and a favourable geographical position), not excluding Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and several other countries.

With such allies, each participant of the “core” can find its own specific niche interest, both political and economic. This does not mean that there will not be any conflicts. On the contrary, in such strong members of the “core” contradictions are inevitable. However, a compromise will be easier to find amid the multiplicity of opportunities, facilitating economic and political “exchanges”.

Challenges for the New Coalition

The paradox of the relations in the Russia-Iran-Turkey triangle is that separately at the level of bilateral relations, the three countries are doomed to contradictions and the absence of long-term prospects, not to mention a strategic partnership. Any bilateral partnership will trigger a reaction not only from foreign players but also from the inside of the respective states. Indeed, the economic and political interests of partner countries are more than contradictory. This is obvious by looking at the confused and not yet successful cooperation of Russia and Iran, despite the good prospects.

But within the coalition, the objectives directed not against each other but on the “development” of the outer space, these three states may well create a relatively self-contained vector with a minimum of internal contradictions, which, of course, will not be able to completely avoid.

A key issue stands in front of the three “core” countries of the coalition. The answer to it depends on how the “troika” will be able to outgrow the framework of the situational alliance. The talk is about the formation of a new system of relations in the Caspian region. And the key issue will be the resolution, or at least long-term stabilisation, of the Karabakh conflict. Otherwise the level of political risks, limited investment processes in the “core” and around it, in the North-South corridor space, will be too considerable. But most importantly, the partnership system will not be able to include Azerbaijan, which in its potential in the future may become the fourth member of the “core”. The leadership of Azerbaijan clearly has the political will and common sense to do this.

The development of the “troika” partnership with Azerbaijan could significantly change the balance of power and relations not only in the Caspian region but also in the whole post-Soviet space.

And, of course, it must be understood that the potential geo-economic “axis” Moscow-Ankara-Tehran is highly vulnerable to information and political manipulations. This requires in-depth and thoughtful interaction at the expert and information level. Moreover, such manipulations are simply predetermined by the situation not only in Syria, but also in general in the Middle East.

The future of the Moscow-Tehran-Ankara “axis” is largely a matter of development and alignment of interests, not an immediate political institutionalisation. The formation of a new coalition will unlikely to resemble a geopolitical “revolution”. Its success will be judged initially by how and in what form the inclusion of the relative “semi-peripheral” countries will occur.

It is important as well that the new geopolitical and geo-economic “troika”, if its development is successful, will become a project, in many respects, an alternative EEU, at least because of the focus on the real industrialisation, not only the formation of the free regime and participation in logistics projects. For Russia, the economic success in filling the new coalition will be a real step towards not only political, but also a geo-economic multi-direction. This will be for the Eurasian states fundamentally a new challenge.

Dmitri Evstafiev, professor NRU “Higher School of Economics”

The Biggest Threat to World Peace Is NATO

Eric Zuesse

On November 8th, Britain’s Daily Mail bannered “NATO tells Europe to prepare for ‘rapid deployment’:” and sub-headed “Defence chiefs say roads, bridges and rail links must be improved in case tanks and heavy vehicles need to be quickly mobilised” (to invade Russia, but the newspaper’s slant was instead that this must be done purely defensively: “In October, NATO accused Russia of misleading them, saying that Moscow had deliberately violated international rules of military drills”).

The article continued:

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called for the infrastructure update across Europe as NATO is set to overhaul its command structure for the first time since the Cold War

During a press conference in Brussels, Stoltenberg said NATO needs a command structure to ensure ‘we have the right forces, in the right place, with the right equipment at the right time.’

He then added: ‘This is not only about commands. We also need to ensure that roads and bridges are strong enough to take our largest vehicles, and that rail networks are equipped for the rapid deployment of tanks and heavy equipment.

‘NATO has military requirements for civilian infrastructure and we need to update these to ensure that current military needs are taken into account.’

The NATO military alliance against Russia has been continuing the Cold War, and is now intensifying it, after the voluntary end of the Cold War in 1991, by the Soviet Union, and by its mirrored military alliance, which was the Warsaw Pact.

With that end of communism, and end of the communist military alliance, all of the constructive reason for NATO likewise ceased, and so NATO should have ended simultaneously when the Soviet Union and its military alliance did; but, instead, certain corporate interests in Western nations have prevailed; and, so, the Cold War is now ratcheting up even further on the U.S.-NATO side. This escalation, which is being done under false pretext (on the basis of lies), is forcing Russia to similarly increase its military budget and military exercises (such as the drills that are the pretext for NATO’s latest aggressive move here) — and Russia’s responses are being called by NATO ‘Russian aggression’, as if NATO hasn’t actually forced Russia to increase its military defenses (including those “drills”).

The need that the NATO-supplying corporations, such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, have — companies whose enormous profits depend heavily upon intensifying the Cold War instead of ending it (such as ought to have happened in 1991) — has become the mass-murdering and land-destroying corporate tail, which is actually wagging the governmental dogs, of Western nations’ foreign policies, so as to increase global expenditures into the mass-killing industries, in order to keep their war-profits high. Wall Street is heavily involved in this, and most of America’s billionaires have these types of investments.

Economic theory considers all purchases and sales to constitute ‘economic growth’; and, so, expenditures and purchases for mass-killing and bombing, and for defenses against same, are considered just as much ‘economic growth’ as if those expenditures had gone into building things, instead of into destroying things — and neoliberals are therefore just as supportive of the military-industrial complex as are neoconservatives — neoliberals merely view the matter from the perspective of internal domestic policies (’growth’), instead of from the perspective of external foreign policies (conquest). This neoliberal-neoconservative consensus, in the West, keeps the profits going for the owners of all sorts of corporations — it’s “the Washington Consensus” that’s sold to vassal nations by promising that this path will allow them to join in the imperial nations’ ‘growth’. The leadership of the Soviet Union was sold a neoliberal bill of goods by the the Harvard economics department in around 1990, and the World Bank and Harvard’s people took the Russians for all they could, which was able to be done because Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was naive and accepted neoliberalism — he didn’t know about its neoconservative side, the aristocracy’s pursuit of conquest. He had rejected Marxist economics, and thought that the only alternative would be capitalist economics.

Back in 1991, when Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union and its military alliances, NATO had 16 member-nations. Later in the decade, in 1999, NATO under U.S. President Bill Clinton, started expanding — taking on as new members, nations that had previously been allied with Russia.

The Soviet Union had consisted of: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and Estonia (the last of which was forcibly joined with it in 1940 so as to assist Russia’s fight against the Nazis). NATO has since absorbed, into its anti-Russia ranks: Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), and Estonia (2004), and is seeking the additional admissions of Ukraine, and of Moldova.

The Warsaw Pact, of Soviet-allied nations, had included: U.S.S.R., Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. All of those except the Russian portion of the U.S.S.R. have since been absorbed into the anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.

Thus: 10 formerly Russia-allied nations have now been switched into the anti-Russia military alliance. And NATO accuses Russia of ‘aggression’. Nobody talks about how the U.S. would react if Russia had a military alliance which included both Mexico and Canada, and called upon them to strengthen their bridges so as to be able to carry today’s Russian battle-tanks. But, the people who are doing this, know very well what they are doing, and why, and to whom. They play dumb but they aren’t.

In addition, Yugoslavia was non-alligned, but now most of its parts have joined NATO: Slovenia, Croatia, and Montenegro. (Montenegro was brought into NATO on 5 June 2017, by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is being investigated by the rabidly anti-Russia U.S. Government, for allegedly being insufficiently hostile against Russia. His response to the accusations has been to try to out-do his domestic opponents’ hostility against Russia — to up their anti-Russia ante, instead of to wage political war against America’s military-industrial complex and its owners.)

And, the other parts of the former Yugoslavia continue to be courted. On November 15th, Radio Free Europe headlined “Serbia Hosts Joint Military Drills With U.S. As Bosnia Hosts NATO Delegation”. They reported: “NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, speaking at a joint news conference with visiting Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic in Brussels on November 15, said ‘there is no doubt whatsoever that we absolutely respect the decision by Serbia to remain a military neutral country.’” Were Hitler’s troops being allowed to hold military exercises in neutral Switzerland? Of course not. Obviously, this isn’t any ‘military neutrality’. Instead, it’s those small countries trying to avoid becoming targets of U.S. missiles and bombs.

Most of the 13 new admittees to NATO after the 1991 end of the Cold War (on Russia’s side, but not on America’s), are located to the east of West Germany (closer to Russia than even East Germany was). In the negotiations to end the Cold War, the understanding that George Herbert Walker Bush’s people communicated to Mikhail Gorbachev’s people was that if the Cold War ends and East Germany becomes absorbed into West Germany to become again simply “Germany” and thenceforth a capitalist country (such as all did happen), then NATO would not move “one inch to the east.” That’s the basis upon which Gorbachev ended the Cold War. George Herbert Walker Bush lied — via his agents. Gorbachev was incredibly naive, and he didn’t specify that NATO would need to end if the Warsaw Pact would end. He believed in the goodwill, and honesty, of Bush and of his agents. He accepted merely the vague verbal promise that NATO would’t be expanded even “one inch to the east.” He didn’t know that he was dealing with people who were negotiating on behalf of, and who were following the instructions of, a super-scoundrel — U.S. President Bush. Bush’s dream, of encircling Russia with U.S. bombers, missiles. and tanks is now coming true. Would the U.S. tolerate Russia placing its invasion-forces on and near our borders, in Canada and in Mexico?

If this isn’t the time to end NATO, then when will be? And how much time to do it remains, before there is a WW III? Anyone who is supportive of the formation of a non-profit “End NATO Now” is hereby invited to indicate so, in a reader-comment to this article, at Washingtonsblog; and, if enough people indicate there that they would be willing to donate time or money to such an organization, then I shall establish it. Because: if we don’t end NATO now, then maybe NATO will end us all, surprisingly soon.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Seems the USA and their attack dog, NATO, are willing to sacrifice Europe in their bid to destroy Russia

NATO Tells Europe: “Prepare for a Russian invasion”. Who Are the Most Dangerous Russians in the World Today?

By Marcus Godwyn

As western media and politicians relentlessly continue to spew forth warnings to their hapless populations about the ever present and growing “Russian threat”, only today: 12-11-2017 NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has told Europe to “Prepare for a Russian invasion”. Let us take a moment to analyse just who exactly among the hundred and fifty million odd Russians in the world actually constitute a threat to “the West”, to anywhere else or indeed, to other Russians.

For the rest of this article, I will use the term “the West” to define the rulers, as well as the public faces (politicians, journalists etc) of North America, the rest of the Anglo Saxon world and western and northern Europe i.e. the geopolitical alliance whose leaders have once again declared war on the Russian world

So who are the most dangerous Russians in the world today? Are they, as the west so desperately needs you to believe, the Russian government and its president Vladimir Putin?

A resounding NO is the only possible answer that any sane, rational and even slightly informed conscious individual could give.

If I had to think of one word to sum up the behaviour of the Russian government over the last four years it would be: “ZEN”!

The West started openly provoking Russia in the early 2000s but since the attempt to attack Damascus by the US in 2013 was thwarted by Russia, (and some say China too) Russia has been subjected to endless and very extreme provocations which can only be interpreted as being designed to goad Russia into making the first move towards war with the West.

Whether the Western rulers actually want a third world war now and nuclear Armageddon (We have all read the stories and seen the photos of what are allegedly the luxury underground “bunkers” that the ruling elites have been preparing for themselves to inhabit while the rest of us burn at their bidding) or, whether they are arrogant and self deluded enough to think that Russia will just capitulate to their will if faced with the threat of all out war or that the population of Russia is actually oppressed and ready to rise up against its leadership for the chance to be “liberated”, or whether they believed that the Russian armed forces remain as inefficient, ill equipped, demoralised and potentially disloyal as they seemed to be, or at least as we in the west were told they were, in the years immediately after the collapse of the USSR and thus war with Russia this time round will be a pushover, I cannot tell but these provocations have been extreme and extraordinarily dangerous on the part of the west.

The violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government by the US and EU in February 2014 could oh so easily, if hotter heads had been in charge in the Kremlin, have led almost immediately to WW3.

It is clear that the Russians did not expect such an extreme move from the West and were caught napping. If Putin was the kind of person who allows himself to be eaten by personal pride or whipped into action while smarting from loss of face and even a few of his ministers and advisers were of a similar hue we could all be radioactive dust by now.

Clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014-4.jpg

Clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The fact is that under Putin’s leadership, Russia has simply absorbed and dissolved every attack the west has thrown at it resorting to physical, military action only when considered absolutely necessary but also, crucially, when the possibility of success without bringing the west into a major, immediate armed conflict seemed virtually assured. The saving of Crimea and its population and the Russian intervention in Syria at the Syrian governments behest being the two most prominent examples.

The Russian restraint in retaliating in kind and refusing to be dragged into war has left the west increasingly exposed, at least to the more perceptive among its own population and others around the world, as the aggressive, lying, land grabbing force it actually is and has led to increasing frustration among the west’s rulers culminating in a petulant frenzy of provocations in the dying months of the Obama regime.

Ultimately, this outstanding display of disciplined “Zen” self control from the Russian leadership may not avert the all out war that the West appears to crave so much but it certainly has done so up until now and will still be talked about in a thousand years time assuming we somehow survive.

If ordinary citizens of the West can still go ordinarily about their ordinary business, it is thanks to team Putin in the Kremlin and certainly not their own governments.

 

VIDEO: The Privatization of Nuclear War, Towards a World War III Scenario: Michel Chossudovsky

GRTV Report Produced by James Corbett, Featuring Michel Chossuodvsky

Global Research, November 09, 2017

First published in June 2015.

With tensions growing in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology is making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US is embarking on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike doctrine.

“On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century. 

“Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”. 

 

original

US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”. 

US nuclear doctrine is intimately related to “America’s War on Terrorism” and the alleged threat of Al Qaeda, which in a bitter irony is con- sidered as an upcoming nuclear power.

Click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s book

Under the Obama administration, Islamic terrorists are said to be preparing to attack US cities. Proliferation is tacitly equated with “nuclear terrorism”. Obama’s nuclear doctrine puts particular emphasis on “nuclear terrorism” and on the alleged plans by Al Qaeda to develop and use nuclear weapons. 

“While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.”  

(Excerpts from Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Montreal, 2011.

Order directly from Global Research (also available in pdf and kindle)
 .
original

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War

Michel Chossudovsky

 

 

 

 

The original source of this article is Global Research

UN Continues to Criminally Destabilize Libya

Source

UNITED NATIONS

This is the UN, this is the New World Order, they steal the assets of a country and use the stolen money to control and destroy. They are war criminals of the highest order, they are thieves, liars and rapists. The crimes that they commit against humanity are innumerable, they are the bane of the planet. 

The saga of the criminal destruction and destabilization of the sovereign nation of Libya continues.

During the past few months, the Green Resistance (the movement against the criminals illegally occupying Libya by force) has come to control more than 80% of Libya. This movement is backed by the majority of all the Libyan tribes. As they encroach slowly upon the last area controlled by the radical Islamic terrorist militias and the UN puppet government, fear is creeping up on the criminal occupiers. Fear of loss, fear of retribution, fear of prosecution for crimes against humanity, war crimes and theft of the assets belonging to the Libyan people. This fear has caused these criminals to make stupid, spur of the moment decisions that shows just how desperate they have become and who they really are…

The appointed President of the UN Puppet Government (so called Unity Government or Al-Wefaq in Arabic) is named Faiez Al-Serraj, he is aligned with all of the criminal mercenaries and radical militias in Libya. The UN puppet government has no authority under Libyan law, was not elected but gained his position from the UN in a meeting in Tunisia. The people of Libya did not recognize this puppet government and refused to allow it inside Libya, so the UN sneaked this group of criminals into Tripoli in the middle of the night by boat and declared them the “Internationally recognized” government. This is quite convenient for the US and UN as anytime the US wants to bomb Libya or drop into Libya and pick up Libyan citizens, they state that the “internationally recognized” government has given them permission.

A short history on the UN puppet government and their members – Quote: Dr. Saif al Ghadafi
” in complement of its series of crimes against the Libyans, the Western countries have appointed a war criminal who was responsible for the destruction of Bani Walid and killing of its children, “Abdul- Rahman Al-Swehli” as a head of Libya’s highest authority, the State Council and appointed his nephew, “Ahmed Maiteeq” 44 Vice President, his niece “Nihad Meitiq” 45 General Director of the Foreign and his brother in law, Faiez Al-Serraj, head of the presidential Council.”

Seeing his end in sight, Serraj, decided to solicit/bribe with 50 million Libyan Dinars (stolen Libyan money), a man named Osama al-Juwaili (a rubbish rat who turned on his own people and country) to lead his militias and mercenaries in an attack against the Wershaffana tribe. The Wershaffana tribe is the 2nd largest tribe in Libya and is from Tripoli and the surrounding areas. This tribe controls the gates of Tripoli and the small surrounding towns. al Juwaili is a well known criminal in Libya and is a part of the Zentan tribe. It should be noted that he is in a break away small radical group from the main Zentan tribe. He was fighting with Khalifa Haftar (CIA operative) at the beginning of the 2011 invasion of Libya when Haftar was leading the mercenaries and radicals against the legitimate government of Libya. When Haftar changed sides (big question here) and started fighting the same mercenaries, al Juwaili broke away and started his own militias. al Juwaili is aligned with the Zionists that destroyed Libya, his main connection is with a man named Bernard Levy, well known Zionist who shows up in every country that the Zionist cabal has targeted for destruction. http://libyanwarthetruth.com/israel-involvement-fake-revolution He is also aligned with the terrorist Belhaj, the LIFG, the Misurata militias, the UN puppet government and other radical militia groups working hand in hand with the Zionists/UN attempting to keep Libya broken.

These criminal gangs and puppet governments have kept all resources away from the people of Libya and the tribes all the while becoming millionaires and billionaires. Try to understand, it is like some criminal moved into your home, took over all your bank accounts, your food, water, medicine, fuel, etc. They allowed you nothing but a crumb to live on, meanwhile they were stealing all your wealth, locking you in rooms for years without medical care, raping your daughters and sons and acting as if everything you owned is theirs, including the right to negotiate on your behalf. This is how Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarkozy, Obama and the Zionist Cabal continue to destroy the lives and homeland of Libya. You can imagine the frustration for the Libyan people as they fight to regain their homeland, and are still being embargoed from purchasing weapons by the UN, meanwhile the criminals are fed billions and supplied with any weapons they desire.

The Wershaffana tribe struggled with disagreements inside their council as to their loyalties, etc., in 2011. But, today the biggest majority of the Wershaffana are pro Green, they stand with the Green resistance against the radical militias and puppet governments. They are a strong tribe with a strong militia arm led by General Omar Tantush. Because of the threat made against the Wershaffana tribe by the criminals occupying Libya, all the Libyan tribes are now supporting their Wershaffana brothers. Instead of separating the tribes, it has brought them closer.

This is the UN, this is the New World Order, they steal the assets of a country and use the stolen money to control and destroy. They are war criminals of the highest order, they are thieves, liars and rapists. The crimes that they commit against humanity are innumerable, they are the bane of the planet.

We stand with the great tribes of Libya in their struggle against the criminal NWO cabal that is continuing to poison their land. They will win and in that beautiful North African country, we will see a victory for all mankind.

US Has 150 Nuclear Weapons in Five NATO Countries: Turkish Parliament Report

Source

YANKEE AMERICA ARMY

Editor’s Note: 

It took the Turkish parliament more than ten years to acknowledge something which is known and carefully documented: Five so-called non-nuclear states including Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have stockpiled and deployed in their various military bases 150 tactical B61 nuclear weapons  directed at Russia, Iran and countries in the Middle East. Nobody seems to be concerned and has not received media coverage. Belgium is reported to have 20 B61 nuclear weapons under national command, Turkey has 50.

Double standards. Compare that to the DPRK’s 10 nuclear weapons, heralded as a “threat” to the security of the Western World. 

While the nuclear warheads are made in America, they are entirely under national command.

In other words, these five European countries including Turkey are de facto  “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”. 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 1, 2017

***

The United States has a total of 150 nuclear weapons in five NATO member countries, including Turkey, according to a report on worldwide nuclear arms prepared by the Turkish Parliament.

The report, titled “Data on Nuclear Weapons,” said there were around 15,000 nuclear weapons at 107 sites in 14 countries as of July this year, daily Milliyet reported on Oct. 31.

“Nearly 9,400 of these weapons are in arsenals for military use and the rest are standing idle to be destroyed,” the report read.

It added that some 4,150 of the weapons in arsenals are ready to be used at any minute, while 1,800 are in “high alarm” status, which means they can be prepared for use in a short period of time.

According to the report, 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons belong to Russia and the U.S.

The report also said that nuclear weapons belonging to the U.S. are present in five NATO countries that do not themselves have nuclear weapons.

Saying there are nuclear weapons belonging to the U.S. in five NATO countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

“There are nearly 150 U.S. nuclear weapons in six air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, which are NATO countries that don’t themselves own nuclear weapons,” it added.

The U.S., China, Russia, France and Britain are nuclear-armed state parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while India, Pakistan and Israel never became parties even though they own nuclear weapons.

According to the data in parliament’s report, Russia has 7,000 nuclear weapons, the U.S. has 6,800, France has 300, China has 260, Britain has 215, Pakistan has 130, India has 120, Israel has 80 and North Korea has 10 nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, the U.S. placed nuclear weapons in NATO countries, including Turkey, as part of the organization’s nuclear sharing program. Some of the nuclear weapons placed in the 1960s are still in Turkey today.

At the time, negotiations were carried out between Ankara and Washington in the 1950s and they were concluded at the beginning of the 1960s.

Among those weapons, B61 type bombs are still in the İncirlik air base in the southern Turkish province of Adana. Nuclear warhead Jupiter missiles that were sent to the country during the same time period were only kept in the country between 1961 and 1963.

According to data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the number of B61s in Turkey is estimated to be nearly 50.

Featured image is from Hurriyet Daily News.

%d bloggers like this: