.. the supreme international crime, ...
.. differing only from other war crimes in that ...
.. it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole
Subtitle: They've killed off not only "The Enlightenment" but some 'just' law and all decency with it.
Summary: We, the sheople, have *NO* say at all. We were not even asked (last time we had time to demo - but/and were ignored; called "a mob"), nor this time were the 'sham' parliaments even (publicly) 'briefed.' Our so-called 'leaders' procured an UNSC resolution, 'to protect civilians,' and what we've got is a full-on = total war, all the US plus (cowed &/ coerced = corrupt, quisling) 'allies' know. They will destroy any- and every-thing (civilian infrastructure as well as 'military'); that'll teach any dissidents who dare disobey = 4th Reich by stealth = lying propaganda; via and often *assisted by* corrupt & venal MSM + Hollywood (no, it's *not* just a movie!) TV + film = dumbing-down the sheople; how/why else do they so easily swallow the horrid lies?
-=*=-
Trigger article:
Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations
By Felicity Arbuthnot
March 19, 2011
«"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever." - George Orwell.»
[ICH/Arbuthnot]
Comment: Absolutely, chillingly correct - how did he know?
-=*=-
Trigger article:
The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya
By Robert Naiman
March 18, 2011
«It is crucial that the goal of protecting civilians, which the Security Council has endorsed, and the goal of overthrowing the Libyan government, which it has most certainly not endorsed, be kept distinct. There is a clear effort by some actors - especially the French government - to conflate these goals ... »
[ICH,justforeignpolicy/Naiman]
Comment: One should read both - I did.
-=*=-
Fazit: Another 'Western' (see 'US plus' above) murdering war for oil. Apart from asking Q: Why not just *buy* oil (supposedly 'free' market), every barrel of oil burnt (over any *sustainable* minimum) adds to the coming excess CO2-caused climate catastrophe. This time, the so-called un- and anti-democratic ruling 'élite' (nothing élite about crime) are taking the world down with their totally unnecessary (they're already obscenely rich) greed.
-=*end*=-
PS
Q: Why "'sham' parliaments," "un- and anti-democratic?"
A: Functionally 'proper' democracy (of, by, for the people etc.) requires at least (1) a fully and honestly informed electorate (we're not), (2) a 'fair' choice of honest candidates (most are not, and bipartisan policies offer us *no* choice at all), and (3) elected representatives who faithfully implement the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities' interests (most do not so-represent).
QED
The people must regain sovereignty; all else is otherwise lost.
THE ISRAELI ZIONISTS OBSESSION WITH IRAN
9 years ago
When a military force crosses a border inwards, it's called an invasion, and unless formally invited by the target country, any invasion is *aggressive* = Nuremberg.
ReplyDeleteIn this case it was French (formerly 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys') planes first, followed by UK planes & US+UK robot-missiles.
'Of course,' the 'allies' are being scrupulously careful to keep the number of hapless civilian collateral casualties 'low' - but people get killed in war, don'cha know?
We have to ask "Why Libya, why now?" - when an aggressive alien force so long ago invaded (by stealth; by immigration, that often declared illegal), people-not-from-there = aliens invaded Palestine, and continue to this very day killing innocent ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) and stealing land, 62+ bloody, criminal years later.
Note that the UN 'approved' both the invasion of Libya, and the partition of Palestine.
Q: How many people knew that a 'no-fly zone' meant total war against Gaddafi?
Suggested A: About the same number who thought any partition of Palestine was going to be peaceful.
The UN had the chance, after seeing Plan Dalet with its Deir Yassin type massacres, to do something to stop the unfolding aggressive war and associated brutal injustices. The UN did nothing effective then, and has done nothing effective ever since.
Now, the UN has let slip the French, UK & US dogs of war again.
Q: Something wrong here? (Tip: Look up "Cry 'Havoc!'")
"Naturally the imposition of neo-liberal economics will soon change all that."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Gaddafi had already taken some (filthy!) neo-liberal economic (mis)steps.
«Qaddafi earned a reprieve when the United States in the Reagan years bombed his compound, killing his daughter Hanna (15 months old). The Libyan people rallied around him and his regime. Anti-Americanism, easy enough with Reagan at the helm in Washington, provided cover for what Qaddafi called the “revolution within the revolution.” This was the Libyan phrase to describe the entry of neo-liberalism, or what Qaddafi called “popular capitalism.” In 1987, anemic import-substitution policies came to a close and “reforms” in agriculture and industry flooded out of IMF manuals.»
«UN sanctions in 1992 threw the “reforms” into turmoil, and it allowed the old Qaddafi to emerge out of the sarcophagus that he had become. Cracks in the ruling elite at times slowed and at time speeded up the “reforms.” The main face of the neo-liberal agenda was Shokri Ghanem, who would be removed as Prime Minister of the cabinet in 2006 for the more important role as head of the National Oil Corporation. Ghanem aggressively pushed for foreign investment into the oil sector, and hastened to implement the Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements with companies that ranged from Occidental Petroleum to China National Petroleum. Britain’s Tony Blair and France’s Sarkozy went to kiss Ghanem’s ring and pledge finance for oil concessions. It is the reason why the British government freed the alleged Lockerbie bomber and that Berlusconi bowed down before Omar al-Mukhtar’s son in 2008 and handed over $5 billion as an apology for Italian colonialism. In his characteristic bluntness, Berlusconi said that he apologized so that Italy would get “less illegal immigrants and more oil.”»
It goes to the question of (reflexive) anti-Americanism; IF it's good for Amerika THEN it's 99.999% guaranteed to be bad for the victim(s).
Proof; if the shoe fits, wear it: The rich get (ever-more obscenely) richer, and the US, with 5% of the world's population, guzzles 25% the world's resources. Any action which assists these (foul, unjust) tendencies is both contemptible & to be condemned; neo-liberalism fits...
Corollary: Any government implementing neo-liberalism (privatisation of public utilities, say) is *NOT* operating in we, the sheople's interests, and is also both contemptible & to be condemned.