Webster Tarpley om att imperialisterna tvingades visa sitt rätta ansikte när det inte gick lika lätt som i Egypten att byta regering. övriga delar

Är det början på mörkermännens, västs ayatollors, endgame vi ser? Desperata försök att starta ett 3:e världskrig, ställa till med fullt kaos när deras ekonomiska pyramidspelssystem nått vägs ände?
Enligt Nigel Farage i det här inslaget från Russia Today, har det lilla kräket man kallar EU’s president sagt att attacken mot Libyen inte hade kunnat ske utan att att EU deltagit, och att målet är att byta regim i Libyen!
FN’s kapitel 7 säger att militärt våld endast får användas om internationell fred och säkerhet hotas, vilket det definitivt inte handlar om här. Man fick ju skapa en bild av att Khadaffi angrep fredliga demonstranter med flyg för att skaffa sig ett alibi för angripa landet! För det första var upprorsmakarna beväpnade, troligen av USA genom Egypten, och det där om flygangrepp var troligen en propagandalögn, ryska satellitövervakare hade inte sett något sådant! Men det var vad man behövde för att kunna föra flygförbudszon på tal, och när man väl hade myglat igenom FN-beslutet dröjde det inte många timmar innan ordet krig användes istället.

En fd general i USA sa i en intervju i Democracy Now från 2007 att han redan 2001 fick höra att USA tänkte invadera 7 länder på 5 år, ”This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” – så man förstår ju att de har bråttom, att man ligger efter tidsschemat.

Diana Johnstone – Reasons and False Pretexts: Why are They Making War on Libya?

Reason Number One: Regime change.

This was announced as the real objective the moment French president Nicolas Sarkozy took the extraordinary step of recognizing the rebels in Benghazi as ”the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”. This recognition was an extraordinary violation of all diplomatic practice and principles. It meant non-recognition of the existing Libyan government and its institutions, which, contrary to the magical notions surrounding the word ”dictator”, cannot be reduced to the personality of one strongman. A major European nation, France, swept aside all those institutions to proclaim that an obscure group of rebels in a traditionally rebellious part of Libya constituted the North African nation’s legitimate government.

Since factually this was clearly not true, it could only be the proclamation of an objective to be reached by war. The French announcement was equivalent to a declaration of war against Libya, a war to defeat Qaddafi and put the mysterious rebels in power in his place.

False Pretext Number One: ”to protect civilians”.

The falsity of this pretext is obvious, first of all, because the UN Resolution authorizing military action ”to protect civilians” was drawn up by France – whose objective was clearly regime change – and its Western allies. Had the real concern of the UN Security Council been to ”protect innocent lives”, it would have, could have, should have sent a strong neutral observer mission to find out what was really happening in Libya. There was no proof of rebel claims that the Qaddafi regime was slaughtering civilians. Had there been visible proof of such atrocities, we can be sure that they would have been shown regularly on prime time television. We have seen no such proof. A UN fact-finding mission could have very rapidly set the record straight, and the Security Council could then have acted on the basis of factual information rather than of claims by rebels seeking international aid for their cause.

Instead, the Security Council, now little more than an instrument of Western powers, rushed ahead with sanctions, referral of alleged present or expected ”crimes against humanity” to the International Criminal Court, and finally an authorization of a ”no-fly zone” which Western powers were certain to interpret as a license to wage all-out war against Libya.

Once the United States and its leading NATO allies are authorized to ”protect civilians”, they do so with the instruments they have: air strikes; bombing and cruise missiles. Air strikes, bombing and cruise missiles are not designed to ”protect civilians” but rather to destroy military targets, which inevitably leads to killing civilians. Aside from such ”collateral damage”, what right do we have to kill Libyan military personnel manning airports and other Libyan defense facilities? What have they done to us?

Intervju med Diana Johnstone på Red Ice Creations

Vad som gör det hela än mer skrämmande är att det talas allt mer oförblommerat och öppet om att detta bara är en början, att detta är den melodi som ska gälla från och med nu. Som i det här hemska inlägget av Ingvar Persson på Aftonbladet:

Omvärldens beslutsamhet
i fallet Libyen är ett slags milstolpe för en ny världsordning, en ordning där formuleringen ”skyldighet att skydda” har en konkret innebörd.

I Libyen kan världssamfundet förhoppningsvis stoppa en tyrann från att mörda sin ­befolkning. Men det är fort­farande mycket långt till en världsordning utan tyranni.

och från en text under bilden, ”… men det finns fler länder kvar att hjälpa”. Men herregud Ingvar, det som framför allt ska kallas tyranni är väl vad de du kallar världssamfundet utövar mot stora delar av världen! Dvs USA och övriga västländer som lyder under det bank/finans/militär/olje/industriella komplexet.
Tony Cartalucci:

Perhaps sensing the momentum of the ”Arab Spring” grinding to a halt, Nicolas Sarkozy of France recently cited the bombardment of Libya and the ”responsibility to protect” as a warning to the remaining Arab states. In particular he directed his warning toward Syria stating that, ”every ruler should understand, and especially every Arab ruler should understand that the reaction of the international community and of Europe will from this moment on each time be the same: we will be on the side of peaceful protesters who must not be repressed with violence.”

Sarkozy is not hindered by the fact that Libya’s opposition consisted of armed rebels from the very beginning who have been fighting Libya’s government on and off with US aid for the last three decades.

Sarkozy went on to say that there is a new post-UNSC 1973 model of ”world governance.” This is interesting to note, as this is foreshadowed in a Brookings Institute report titled ”Libya’s Test of the New International Order” back in February 2011. In it, proving the primacy of international law over national sovereignty was considered being at stake in Libya and the need to intervene being essential. Indeed, as the illusion of the ”Arab Spring” fades, and targeted nation-states start fighting back, more aggressive measures are being rolled out to achieve the globalists’ objectives. This includes military intervention on behalf of armed rebels, torn right from the pages of Brookings’ own 2009 ”Which Path to Persia?” report. Sarkozy’s dangerous rhetoric certainly does open the door to intervention in both Syria and Iran.

Toxic Intervention: Are NATO Forces Poisoning Libya with Depleted Uranium as They ‘Protect’ Civilians?

A University of Michigan peer-reviewed study of births in Fallujah published in December 2010 found that of 547 births in Fallujah General Hospital in May of 2010, six years after the all-out US assault on that city of 300,000, in which DU weapons were reportedly used widely, 15% of babies had birth defects–a rate more than five times higher than the global average of 2-3%.

Depleted uranium: a strange way to protect Libyan civilians

In the first 24 hours of the Libyan attack, US B-2s dropped forty-five 2,000-pound bombs. These massive bombs, along with the Cruise missiles launched from British and French planes and ships, all contained depleted uranium (DU) warheads.

DU is the waste product from the process of enriching uranium ore. It is used in nuclear weapons and reactors. Because it is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, it is highly valued by the military for its ability to punch through armored vehicles and buildings. When a weapon made with a DU tip strikes a solid object like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it, then erupts in a burning cloud of vapor. The vapor settles as dust, which is not only poisonous, but also radioactive.

William Hague has said that we are in Libya ” to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”.You don’t have to look far for who and what are being ‘protected’.

In that first 24 hours the ‘Allies’ ‘expended’ £100 million on DU-tipped ordnance. The European Union’s arms control report said member states issued licences in 2009 for the sale of £293.2 million worth of weapons and weapons systems to Libya. Britain issued arms firms licences for the sale of £21.7 million worth of weaponry to Libya and were also paid by Colonel Gadaffi to send the SAS to train his 32nd Brigade.

For the next 4.5 billion years, I’ll bet that William Hague will not be holidaying in North Africa.

Celente: Libya civil war none of US business



Publicerat i Libyen. Leave a Comment »

Skriv här

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s