just cruis'n (Libya, Gaddafi, France+US+UK aggressive attack)

One assumes that cruise-missiles need *very* accurate targeting info, the US has actually provided us with proof of this in that they claim to have *accurately* hit a quite *specific* part of a Gaddafi building. (Wiki = Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi).

So, Q: Did the US (+ quisling 'allies' like France, UK) only acquire their targeting info *after* the UNSC resolution?

So much for the means.

The motive is as clear as drilling-mud.

The opportunity was provided by a 'popular' uprising, conveniently occurring after those in Tunisia & Egypt, i.e. Arab/Muslim++. An 'unleashed' commenter has pointed to the "pre-revolutionary royalist flags," curiously all the same & seemingly brand new. Then there are the pick-up (detested US-speak; spit!) vehicles with machine-guns welded into their trays. Curious, as to all the rest of the revolutionary weaponry, up to tanks and aircraft (one of which the revolutionaries shot down themselves). True, the tank and aircraft crews could be defectors - who, according to 'Western' propaganda, would be risking summary execution if caught, sooo heavily has Gaddafi been demonised (exactly as they did to Saddam).

The 'ideal' revolution should be peaceful (Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, etc.); one wonders why it degenerated into real-bullet chaos so fast in Libya? Q: Did Gaddafi shoot 1st, or was he attacked = provoked (i.e. infiltrated by subversives)? One publicly-financed broadcaster kept saying "We cannot get any reliable information;" refreshingly honest. Yet the so-called 'allies' were *sooo* sure, after so very few hours after the UNSC resolution, that Gaddafi had violated the cease-fire that they let loose with their 120 (160? how many altogether?) - carefully *pre-programmed* cruise-missiles, right after the mini-Napoleon had sent his formerly cheese-eating surrender-monkey air force off to cross the shores of Tripoli, inbound = aggressively attack.

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding."

the enemy of my enemy is my friend (enemies = US, Zs; liars, cheats & criminals)

.. getting censored by the AusBC ...

  .. proves that they are un- & anti-democratic ...

    .. but WTF when a so-called 'friend' censors my comments?

Thesis: One single event, i.e. a deliberate lie[1] (always bad) or action (worse->worst = cheat[2] or rip-off then theft, murder) - is enough to declare the perpetrator = enemy.
 
[update, 11:09]

-=*=-

Trigger event: Comment submitted to Damian Lataan's blog item "IF INTERVENTION IN LIBYA IS GOOD ..." was *not* published = was censored; grrr! My comment summarised: Western (US + sycophantic quisling hangers-on) intervention in Libya was/is *not* good; see the comment in full here. Damian may have a bearable 'excuse' so I'm not declaring him enemy (yet), and so to my wider topic = friends vs. enemies:

What sparked my comment to Damian's blog was amongst other things this: "the American desire for intervention was reflexively always likely to be viewed with suspicion by the Left anyway ..."

Specifically: "reflexive," by which I *assume* is meant "as an automatic response."

Q: Is/are there ground(s) to be 'automatically' against any particular US action?

A: Lots. They should not need enumeration, and let's face it, a full list would likely never end. Blum has documented much, for an example try here. Hardly a day goes by without some new proof 'surfacing,' but not usually via the corrupt & venal MSM. Think WikiLeaks, say.

The US 'has form,' and does *all* of what I term the 'basic crimes' of lying, cheating, theft & murder.

They even dare boast of it: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," nothing at all 'tongue-in-cheek' about it, since that's *exactly* what they do.

No documentation of the Z's multifarious grave crimes need be given; suffice it to say that any project which began with a vast crime (= Deir Yassin type massacres, say) and continues the same criminal way for the last 62+ grisly years (latest outrage = the murdering high-seas attack on the 'peace-flotilla') - such a project is not only criminal but actually illegitimate to boot.

Quickly now and somewhat repetitively, the world faces *massive* problems, possibly the worst and getting the least remedial action being the becoming ever less-avoidable excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe, then resource depletion, pollution and generally *unsustainable* consumption. We simply can't afford to continue down that idiotically destructive path, but any progress is a) blocked by the so-called 'world-leader' and b) our attention diverted partly by idiot entertainment - and Israel's continued ghastly crimes.

Going back to lies being a) deployed to decieve and b) leading on to crime, what's needed is a world-wide 'MiniTrue' authority to stamp out lies so the US&/Zs can't keep their filthy propaganda going, can't keep the real problems being obscured and ignored.

Stop and reverse:

The military domination by the US empire must be stopped and reversed - go home, bastards!

The economic depredation by the US empire must be stopped and reversed.

The criminal dispossession of the hapless Palestinians must be stopped and reversed.

The excess-CO2 polluting our life-supporting biosphere must be stopped and reversed.

Get that done; get the world back on track, restore "The Enlightenment" as our *correct* method and destination - then perhaps lots of us could stop suffering the inner terror which the US&Zs continuously inflict upon us all.

-=*end*=-

PS - An absolutely vital point:

We know - or by now bloody-well should know - that we're being lied to = propagandised, and that continuously. I 'monitor' the output of several state-supported broadcasters; they've *all* been sending the same 'tone' = demonising Gaddafi, reporting 'his' atrocities by attacking his own people etc.. Some of it is undoubtedly true, but the important 'hook' here is the 'some,' namely what proportion really is true (as opposed to mainly US-sourced propaganda), and how much/many of the atrocities are really being done by Gaddafi forces, as opposed to how much is being done by infiltrator/destabilisers?

The intervention itself was done with what appears to have been unseemly haste; one report held that the French aircraft were on the way before/during Sarkozy's Paris conference, a fact which was notified *only* at the end, another - equally hastily revised, perhaps, to say that Sarkozy'd advised the conference 'beforehand.' Hmmm. Haste was of course required everywhere, because it looked like the 'rebels' were headed for a loss or the exits, if not both.

The next and obvious question is Q: How much of the supposed 'revolution' was being instigated/done by 'ring-in' (CIA etc.) subversives?

Let me put that, another way: Recalling the known fact that the MSM conduits and *actively* assists lies being transmitted to us, so exactly how far have we been led down the garden path - this time?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. [POD]

[2] cheat -v. 1 a (often foll. by into, out of) deceive or trick. b (foll. by of) deprive of. 2 gain an unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules. -n. 1 person who cheats. 2 trick, deception. cheat on colloq. be sexually unfaithful to. [from *escheat] [ibid.]

-=*=-
 
Update, 11:09; Damian has explained (see his comment of 10:42 below) and all is OK.

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Comment posted Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:47:00 PM 'blog-time:'
IDHolm said...
G'day Damian, may this 'lefty' dare to differ?

Vis-à-vis black vs. white, the US will *always* act only when there are $s in it, even when aiding the gruesomely criminal Zs.

The parallels between Saddam & Gaddafi are far more important than any differences, namely both tried to extract a 'fairer' return on their 'patrimony' (that word 'popularised' thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush), and both returned more to their own people than is 'neoliberally' acceptable. These are similar/same parallels we see with Iran & Chavez, say.

All US 'enemies' suffer covert destabilisation attacks, we can only speculate how far this secret subversion aggravates or even actually creates any tendency towards tyranny = suppression of civil rights by Saddam, Gaddafi, Iran & Chavez, etc.. We know about the "El Salvador" option and how al-Qaida was created, and some of the US/CIA/Z/Mossad dirty tricks. How or why would we *not* suspect all the same dirty tricks to have been active against Gaddafi?

Any 'nuanced' analysis must acknowledge the realities, one of the starkest being the contempt of the people demonstrated by the US regimes = ruling 'élite' (nothing élite about crime) - over more than the last 100 years, and the interventions they have done, and the utter misery they inflict. See "Rogue State," see "Hit Man," see "Hegemony or Survival."

The neoCons are an extension, perhaps 'merely' a continuation, of the US erring ideology, typified by their utter negation of communism, socialism, or even mild 'welfare state' assistance to the 'lower' (= poorer = serf) classes. The lower classes are *deliberately* forced there, *deliberately* held there, and if at all possible, *deliberately* made to suffer ever more.

The current attacks on Libya already vastly exceed anything needed to 'protect' any civilians, and the end-result will be the same as Iraq; namely infrastructure widely if not completely destroyed (not 'merely' military but transport, utilities = water, sewage, power, phone, possibly hospitals and schools). The other and (for the US) most important of all end-result will be the 'harvesting' of the 'economic rent' by 'the West' (mainly US multinationals) of Libya's oil. Any other result would contradict the habitual, vast, criminal record of the US.

[«back»].

Proof of posting:

Shockin' Whore Mk2 = Nuremberg, Libyan version .. eight years after Iraq outrage, 'new' president, same-old criminality

.. 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 TINA lie, & other such leadership failures

.. things one really knows ...

  .. things one thinks one knows ...

    .. things one can simply *never* know

-=*=-

Preamble: There are two opposing philosophical outlooks of interest here, a) the (eternal?) optimist: "We never had it so good!" - vs. b) the (pragmatic?) pessimist: "*Must* do better... " Given the current 'state of play,' I choose pessimism. We will start with a few of the things going wrong:

1. Run-away pollution. Any sort of pollution is always bad news, since it has the potential to poison or otherwise negatively affect our once jewel-like planet's life-supporting ecosphere. Excess-CO2 may be the worst pollutant, in that it could - if not sufficiently reversed most likely will - induce a climate-change catastrophe.

Q: Are any effective steps being taken? A: No; since the result could be terminal for most life as we know (& like) it; possibly the greatest leadership failure.

2. Excess population growth. «The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, commissioned by the Club of Rome.» From 4bio in 1974, we are about to cross the 7bio line, with 9.2bio as estimated peak. Already, some resource limits may have been exceeded.

Q: Were effective steps taken? A: If any then not sufficient (too little, too late), some even to the contrary; another leadership failure.

3. Systemic economic failure. As one of the 1st, Thatcher cried "TINA!" and began neoliberalising. Add Reagan, Hawke/Keating, Clinton, Howard/Costello, Blair et al.. (Note bipartisan; why that?) As a result, in combination with globalisation policies, economies across the planet are failing, most people getting less well off etc. These policies were deliberate, continue to be implemented and even extended to affect more victims.

Q: Any effective steps being taken? A: No; *deliberate* leadership failure.

4. More war, rather than less. The UN was *supposed* to eliminate war; fell pretty well at the 1st hurdle (UNGA181). The UN 'good intentions' have been crippled, mainly by the US, mainly in the service of Israel and/or US' empire/hegemony.

Q: Any effective steps being taken? A: No; *more, worse & ghastly* deliberate leadership failures.

From the above (incomplete) list, we can see that things are *not* getting better, the obvious, biggest question Q: Why not? Why such grievous *leadership* failures?

Thesis: The world is imperilled by these and other *leadership* failures, so-termed since we the sheople have *NO* effective control over our so-called 'leadership.' They do = fail, we suffer.

Sub-thesis: Our so-called 'democracies' mostly do not work = sham.

-=*=-

Argument:

1) Things one *really* knows ... in comparison (1:7bio), not much. An old saw: "Trust half of what one sees, far less of what one hears." Already we hit a, if not *the* problem; Q: Why trust half/less, why not trust *all*? Simple (but not simplistic) A: Lies[1].

Q: Who wants to be deceived? A: Not me. Worse, IF voters are deceived THEN democracy is destroyed, since deceived voters cannot possibly deliver informed votes.

Q: Are we the sheople being lied to? A: Yes, ergo democracy *impossible* - the 1st of three blows, *all* fatal[2].

Proof: "All politicians lie!" - Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Howard.

Corollary: Lying so-called 'leaders' have a looong history, see Plato's 'noble lie[3].'

Debunk: My main thesis; our so-called leaders' lies are now so 'advanced' that they may well be killing the planet's ecosphere & therefore killing us, we the sheople off, as 'collaterals.' The wiki even says as much: "whereas noble lies ... would ... cause discord if uncovered." - Gotta be stopped! And not so BTW, so-called 'élites' are totally mis-named; there's nothing élite about crime - seemingly their forte (will be elaborated, even if not already apparent).

Summary: IF 'things one really knows' are only derived from personal experience (necessarily limited) OR untrustworthy sources, THEN we're condemned in large part to (relative) ignorance. See next.

-=*=-

2) Things one *thinks* one knows: Say the things that we read, hear &/or see via the (corrupt & venal) MSM. A personal anecdote:

Many years ago, I had a 'debate' with a friend over Israel vs. Palestine. I argued pro-IL, she pro-Palestine. It turns out that she had it mostly correct, and me almost everything totally wrong. The point of this story: I had accumulated almost all of my current-affairs 'knowledge' from the local publicly-financed broadcaster, then & still known as the AusBC. In a nutshell, I had trusted the AusBC - but they had lied (not just 'little whites' - Oh no!) Here is a *grave* problem. The AusBC was then, as it remains, a taxpayer-financed agency of the government, indirectly but literally 'our' AusBC. That they *dare* lie to us means that they are 'permitted' by the government to so lie, confirming that neither the government nor the AusBC are our 'friends.' Thus (via GWBush), IF they are not our friends THEN both the government and the AusBC are our enemies. All this before we get to the 'for profit' MSM, i.e. on the one hand Murdoch's News Ltd./theAus group, on the other 'extremist' talk-back radio. No need to say much, if anything, more.

A BTW re the AusBC: Allegations of 'left bias' are risible; one only needs to read/listen/watch for a while to see huge pro-US, pro-IL, pro-war, pro-religion, not to mention pro-Liberal bias. Any alleging 'left bias' is either an outright idiot/liar, a trouble-maker, or both & more.

The point: As with the politicians, the 'news-gateways' relay & often actively augment lies, again making proper democracy impossible.

-=*=-

3) Things one can simply *never* know: How may one list 'known unknowns?' (Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Rumsfeld[5]) Physicists (Heisenberg, say) tell us that there are things, mostly in the quantum frame, that we may never know, i.e. "that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known." Note that there is an 'or' in there; we may determine one but not the other, we have an 'or' choice, and it is *not* as if we may know *nothing*. But there is *one* important one, in no *physical* frame at all, namely the (non!)existence of some g*d (or other/s). We do know, also from science, that our universe is 'closed' via the conservation laws. No message = information (mass or light, nothing) may either 'leave to' or 'arrive from' 'outside' our universe - for *two* very good reasons; (1) any such 'transmission' would violate the conservation laws and (2, much worse); Q: How can one define 'outside?' A: Impossible. But again, that's the whole point of religion & the 'g*d-delusion,' the impossible is claimed possible - via 'faith.' Their 'next trick' is to claim that yes, their g*d is in fact *supernatural*, again on faith alone (aka lacking any evidence; circular). This gives rise to 'belief is what some do in the absence of evidence.' All I can say in this 'here&now' is "Suit yourself!"

There is a point to my anti-religious diatribe, namely this(these):

1. By 'promising[4]' life (and/or justice) after death, religion reduces the need and opportunity to properly enjoy life in the 'here&now' *and* reduces the need and opportunity to properly pursue criminals. A *very* convenient, ultra-cynical swindle.

2. Again worse; by 'hoaxing' people into believing an impossibility, they propagate what may be the biggest lie of all. After *that* particular 'extreme-of-extremes' lie, propagating all other lies must be a doddle.

Not such a BTW re g*d/religion: There is an 'Age of Reason' before which children are vulnerably gullible (it's in their survival-interests to place 100% trust in their primary-carers). Beginning the above referred to hoaxing *before* the child's 'Age of Reason,' especially by presenting the 'believe in g*d and get eternal life - or else' swindle, (usually?) allied with scaring the child with the fear of death, is about the worst child-abuse possibly imaginable. Minds (indeed, whole lives) handicapped, basically before they even start.

-=*=-
 
Facit: Lies are the 'gateway' to crime. ('Basic' crimes = lies, cheating, theft & murder.) Lies are deployed to deceive, and deceivers are out to rip you off, if not kill you. See 62+ bloody years of land-theft from Palestine by murdering Zionists (Zs = the worst liars on the planet), the (mainly) US theft of (the returns from) resources (via resource-rent, say), the (mainly) US lust for oil leading the US to wide-scale aggression, one result the current side-effect revolutions among the repressed & ripped-off Arab/Muslim citizenry. There's lots more, like the US rape of South America (death-squads, support for tyrants). Then, see [5]. Q: Why '(mainly) US?' A: With appr. 5% of the world's population, the US consumes appr. 25% of the world's resources; that didn't happen by chance. The US 'defense' (actually attack) budget rivals the entire rest of the world's arms-spend, and it's mainly the US a) attacking resource-owners and/or ripping them off & b) pushing neoliberal 'voodoo' economics. [This section slightly revised on 7Mar'11.]

Since lies are the 'gateway' to crime, stopping lies is the first step to stopping the crimes - before the crimes (cheating = banks etc., other rip-offs = thefts, by war = (mass)murders, worst: *lack* of leadership climate-change catastrophe) - before the (mainly) US(Z) crimes stop us all - dead.

Plato is sooo yesterday; we *demand* proper democracy!

(Read [5] yet?)

-=*end*=-

PS The 'noble lie' swindle *exactly* explains the unreasoned and unreasonable US rage at Wikileaks; the leaked = exposed US lies turn out to be anything *but* noble. Time to boot the lying, perfidious ruling-class right *out*?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to: show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]

[2] The other two blows: 2) False = no effective choice, reduced choice (i.e. no matter who 'wins' we still cooperate in US aggressive wars); worse, when Lib=Lab=bipartisan, which allows the voter no real choice at all, and 3) representatives who after election a) do what *they* want to do (as opposed to doing the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities) and b) who generally favour the sheoples' *enemies* = vested interests = the 'big end of town' - by privatising the sheople's utilities, say. Such representatives are literally both worse than nothing and worth less than nothing. [This section slightly revised on 7Mar'11.]

[3] «In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. A noble lie, although it may benefit all parties, is different from a white lie since a white lie does not cause discord if uncovered whereas noble lies are usually of a nature such that they would do so.»
[wiki/Plato]

[4] promise -n. 1 assurance that one will or will not undertake a certain action etc. [POD]

Note that the 'g*d promise' is both unverifiable & unpunishable; the dead *never* come back. Oh! Except, for believers, that single, very special once. Just how desperate, how gullible, how *pitiful* is that?
 
[5] «If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns," that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns" - the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.»
[wiki/Slavoj Žižek]

Although Rumsfeld&Co told vicious lies and Žižek's formulation is not perfect, one point is *supremely* important; it is in fact the point of this essay, namely the "disavowed [facts, crimes] we pretend not to know about." We are subjected to a barrage of lies, submerged into what I call the pushed-propaganda paradigm. Things happening, things reported even half-honestly by the MSM, are somehow (PR-tricks; not for nothing did Bernays re-brand propaganda as PR) - minimised into unimportance - when in fact we should be screaming for relief = stop the killing, restore justice. US/Z wars and depredations are effectively 'should not occur' travesties = murder + theft injustices - yet the world just rolls on, apparently oblivious. Q: Why? A: Lies. Remedy: Stop *all* lies, restore justice (to the hapless Palestinians & similar victims) - and reinstate 'The Enlightenment' (via proper democracy) as our *honourable* target.

[Back to «Facit»]