RSS

De ce a primit Gaddafi cartonaşul roşu?

03 Sep

În această săptămână, la Paris, a avut loc summit-ul „Prietenii Libiei”, cu obiectivul principal al stabilirii următorilor paşi în direcţia ajutorării statului din nordul Africii. S-a stabilit ca NATO să continue operaţiunile militare atâta vreme cât liderul Gaddafi şi aliaţii săi încă mai reprezintă o ameninţare pentru democraţie, dar şi deblocarea a 15 miliarde de dolari pentru nevoi urgente ale statului libian. Summit-ul nu a avut loc deloc întâmplător în Franţa. Statul francez a fost vârful de lance în susţinerea ofensivei militare din Libia. Dar care ar putea fi motivele ce l-au determinat pe Nicolas Sarkozy să aibă o poziţie atât de tranşantă? Şi ce semne ar fi trebuit să-l anunţe pe liderul Gaddafi că i se pregăteşte ceva? Pentru a afla mai multe despre interesele Franţei în Libia, vă invit să citiţi un articol interesant şi cu o abordare inedită, publicat de „Asia Times” şi semnat de Pepe Escobar.

Măsurând peisajul libian dintr-o cameră confortabilă ticsită cu LCD-uri subţiri, într-un palat din Pyongyang, liderul Republicii Populare Democrate Coreea, Kim Jong-il, trebuie să fi fost surpins în timp ce contempla situaţia dificilă a colonelului Muammar Gaddafi.

“Ce prost,” murmură previzibil Conducătorul Iubit. Nu e de mirare. El ştie cum Marele G şi-a semnat practic sentinţa la moarte în acea zi, în 2003, când a acceptat sugestia urmaşilor săi nesuferiţi – toţi îndrăgostiţi nebuneşte de Europa – să renunţe la programul său privind producerea de arme de distrugere în masă şi să lase viitorul regimului în mâinile Organizaţiei Tratatului Atlanticului de Nord (NATO).

Saif al-Islam, Mutassim, Khamis şi restul clanului Gaddafi încă nu au putut face diferenţa dintre petrecerile din St Tropez şi a fi bombardat de elicoptere tip Miraje şi Rafale. Dar Marele G, oriunde s-ar afla, în Sirte, în deşert sau într-o caravană silenţioasă spre Algeria, trebuie să-i blesteme pentru eternitate.

A crezut că a fost un partener al NATO. Acum, NATO vrea să-i zboare capul. Ce fel de parteneriat este ăsta?

Dictatorul monarhic sunit din Bahrain se menţine; nu vedem bombe „umanitare” peste Manama, nu există nici un preţ pe capul lui.Clubul dictatorilor Casei de Saud se menţine; nu vedem bombe „umanitare” peste Riyadh, Dubai sau Doha – nu există un preţ pus pe capetele lor încoronate, pro-Occidentale. Chiar şi dictatorul sirian e lăsat în pace – acum cel puţin.

Deci întrebarea pusă de mulţi dintre cititorii Asia Times Online, este inevitabilă: care a fost linia roşie traversată de Gaddafi pentru care a primit un cartonaş roşu?

O revoluţie fabricată în Franţa

Sunt suficiente linii roşii depăşite de Marele G – şi suficiente cartonaşe roşii- pentru ca ecranul întreg al unui computer să se transforme în roşu.

Să începem cu elementele de bază. Întotdeauna merită repetat, acesta este un război francez. Americanii nici măcar nu spun că este un război, ci o “acţiune cinetică”, sau ceva de genul ăsta.”Rebelul” Consiliu National de tranziţie “(CNT) este o invenţie franceză.

Şi da – acest lucru este mai presus de întregul război neo-napoleonian al preşedintelui Nicolas Sarkozy. El este personajul George Clooney din film (săracul Clooney). Restul, de la David Cameron de Arabia până la câştigătorul Premiului Nobel pentru Pace şi dezvoltatorul mai multor războaie Barack Obama, sunt actori în roluri secundare.

Aşa cum a fost deja spus de către Asia Times Online, acest război a început în octombrie 2010, atunci când şeful de protocol al lui Gaddafi, Nuri Mesmari, a fugit la Paris, a fost abordat de serviciile de informaţii franceze şi o lovitură militară de stat a fost născocită, implicând dezertori din Cirenaica.

Sarko avea suficiente motive pentru a se răzbuna pe Marele G.

Băncile franceză i-au spus că Gaddafi era pe cale de a transfera miliardele sale de euro în bănci din China. Astfel, Gaddafi nu putea să devină un exemplu pentru alte naţiuni arabe sau fonduri suverane.

Corporaţiile franceze i-au spus lui Sarko că Gaddafi a decis să nu mai cumpere Rafale şi că a decis să nu mai angajeze francezi pentru a construi o centrală nucleară; era mai preocupat în a investi în servicii sociale.

Gigantul energetic Total a vrut o bucată mult mai mare din sectorul energetic libian – care era în mare parte consumat, pe partea europeană, de către ENI din Italia, mai ales că premierul Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi, un cunoscut fan al Marelui G, a obţinut un acord complex cu Gaddafi.

Astfel, lovitura de stat militară a fost perfecţionată în Paris până în decembrie, iar primele demonstraţii populare din Cirenaica, în februarie au fost deturnate. Filosoful Bernard Henri-Levy, ce nu mai are nevoie de nicio prezentare, a mers la Benghazi, pentru a-i întâlni pe “rebeli” şi pentru a-i telefona lui Sarkozy, practic, cerându-i să le recunoască legitimitatea de la inceputul lunii martie (nu că Sarko mai avea nevoie de vreo încurajare).

CNT a fost inventat în Paris, dar şi Organizaţia Naţiunilor Unite, de asemenea, l-a recunoscut ca fiind guvernul “legitim” din Libia – aşa cum nici NATO nu a avut un mandat ONU pentru a trece de la zona de interdicţie aeriană la bombardamente “umanitare”, culminând cu asediul actual de la Sirte.

Francezii şi britanicii au redactat ceea ce avea să devină Rezoluţia ONU 1973. Washington s-a alăturat vesel petrecerii. Departamentul de Stat american a intermediat o înţelegere cu Casa de Saud prin care saudiţii ar garanta un vot al Ligii Arabe ca un preludiu pentru rezoluţia ONU şi în schimb ar fi lăsaţi în pace să reprime orice proteste pro-democraţie din Golful Persic, după cum au făcut, sălbatic, în Bahrain.

Consiliul de Cooperare din Golf (CCG – apoi transformat în Clubul Contra-Revoluţiei) a avut, de asemenea, tone de motive pentru a scăpa de Gaddafi. Saudiţilor le-ar plăcea să găzduiască un emirat prietenos în nordul Africii, în special prin eliminarea fricţiunilor dintre Gaddafi şi Regele Abdullah. Emiratele au dorit un nou loc pentru a investi şi a “dezvolta”. Qatar, foarte confortabil cu Sarko, a vrut sa facă bani – ca de exemplu, prin manipularea vânzărilor noi de petrol ale rebelilor “legitimi”.

Secretarul de stat american Hillary Clinton s-ar putea simţi foarte confortabil cu Casa de Saud sau cu criminalii al-Khalifas în Bahrain. Dar Departamentul de Stat l-a criticat puternic pe Gaddafi pentru “politicile sale naţionaliste din sectorul energetic”, şi, de asemenea, pentru că a „libanizat” economia.

Marele G, un jucător viclean, ar fi trebuit să fi văzut toate aceste semne. Din moment ce prim-ministrul Mohammad Mossadegh a fost demis în esenţă, de către Agenţia Centrală de Informaţii din Iran în 1953, regula este că nu antagonizezi Marele Petrol. Să nu mai vorbim de sistemul financiar-bancar internaţional- promovarea de idei subversive cum ar fi transformarea economiei în beneficiul populaţiei locale.

Daca eşti pentru ţara ta eşti în mod automat împotriva celor ce conduc – băncile occidentale, mega-corporaţiile,”investitori” dubioşi, care vor să profite de pe urma a ceea ce produce ţara ta.

Gaddafi nu numai că a traversat toate aceste linii roşii, dar, de asemenea, el a încercat să scape de petrodolari, a încercat să convingă Africa de necesitatea unei monede unificate, dinarul de aur (majoritatea ţărilor africane l-au sprijinit),a investit într-un proiect de miliarde de dolari – Marele Fluviu făcut de mâna omului, o reţea de conducte care pompa apa proaspătă provenită din deşert, până la coasta Mediteranei – fără să îngenuncheze la altarul Băncii Mondiale, a investit în programe sociale în ţările sărace sub-sahariene, a finanţat Banca Africană, permiţând astfel unor naţiuni să ocolească, încă o dată, Banca Mondială şi în special Fondul Monetar Internaţional, a finanţat un sistem de telecomunicaţii african ce a ocolit reţelele din Vest; a ridicat standardele de viaţă din Libia. Lista este nesfârşită.

De ce nu am sunat la Pyongyang

Şi apoi există unghiul militar crucial Pentagon / Africom / NATO. Nimeni nu a vrut ca Africa să găzduiască o bază Africom; Africom a fost inventat în timpul lui George W. Bush ca un mijloc de a constrânge şi controla Africa de la faţa locului, şi de a lupta în secret cu succesele comerciale ale Chinei.

Deci, Africom a fost forţat să se stabilească în cel mai african dintre locuri; Stuttgart, Germania.

De abia s-a uscat cerneala de pe Rezoluţia ONU 1973 când Africom a început bombardamentele din Libia, cu peste 150 de Tomahawk-uri – înainte să fie transferată comanda la NATO. Acesta a fost primul război în Africa al lui Africom şi un preludiu al lucrurilor ce se vor întâmpla. Înfiinţarea unei baze permanente, în Libia va fi, practic, o afacere încheiată – parte a unei militarizări neo-coloniale nu numai a Africii de Nord, ci a întregului continent.

Agenda NATO de a domina întreaga Mediterană ca un lac al NATO este la fel de îndrăzneaţă ca agenda Africom de a deveni un Robocop al Africii. Singurele zone cu probleme au fost Libia, Siria şi Liban – cele trei ţări care nu sunt membre NATO sau nu au legătură cu NATO, prin nenumărate “parteneriate”.
Pentru a înţelege rolul NATO de Robocop la nivel mondial – legitimat de către ONU – trebuie doar să acordăm atenţie secretarului general al NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen. În timp ce Tripoli era încă bombardat, el a spus: “Dacă nu eşti capabil să disloci trupe în afara graniţelor tale, atunci nu poţi exercita influenţă pe plan internaţional, iar apoi acest decalaj va fi completat de către puteri emergente, care nu împărtăşesc neapărat valorile şi modul tău de gândire. ”

Deci, iată, spus răspicat. NATO este o miliţie occidentală high-tech, ce apără interesele americane şi europene, pentru a izola interesele ţărilor emergente BRICS şi pe ale altora, şi de a păstra “băştinaşii”, fie ei africani sau asiatici, sub papuc. Înşelătoria este deghizată şi de R2P – “responsabilitatea de a proteja”, nu civilii, dar jafurile ulterioare.

În ciuda tuturor acestor lucruri, nu e de mirare că Marele G a primit un cartonaş roşu, şi va fi exclus din joc pentru totdeauna.

Doar cu câteva ore înainte ca Marele G să înceapă lupta pentru propria viaţă, Iubitul Conducător bea şampanie rusească împreună cu preşedintele Dmitri Medvedev, vorbind despre un viitor „Petrolistan” şi evocând întâmplător dorinţa de a vorbi despre arsenalul său nuclear încă activ.

Cam asta rezumă de ce Conducătorul Iubit creşte, în timp ce Marele G. se prăbuşeşte.

http://www.danandronic.ro/de-ce-a-primit-gaddafi-cartonasul-rosu.html

 
3 Comments

Posted by on September 3, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

3 responses to “De ce a primit Gaddafi cartonaşul roşu?

  1. Horatiu 2010

    September 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    THE ROVING EYE
    It’s a TOTAL war, monsieur
    By Pepe Escobar

    The winners of that “kinetic” thing in northern Africa (the Barack Obama administration swears it’s not a war) – collectively described as Friends of Libya (FOL) – were all in a jolly mood as they gathered in Paris on Thursday, with no air-conditioning but potent odors of runny Brie and Roquefort, to gloat about their United Nations-sanctioned, North Atlantic Treaty Organization-implemented “operation” for regime change in Libya.

    Call it the FOL war; the R2P war (as in “responsibility to protect” Western plunder); the Air France war; the Total war; anyway, the FOL had a blast spinning their win.
    Sarkozy, gloated, “We have aligned with the Arab people in their aspiration for freedom.” Bahrainis, Saudis, Yemenis, not to mention Tunisians and Egyptians, have every right to be puzzled.

    Sarko added, “Dozens of thousands of lives were spared thanks to the intervention.” Even the “rebels” are spinning there are at least 50,000 dead, with NATO still hooked on a wild bombing spree.

    The emir of Qatar at least admitted that on-the-run Muammar Gaddafi could not have been toppled without NATO. But he added that the Arab League could have done more; in fact it did – by providing a bogus vote that opened the way for the Anglo-French-American redacted UN Resolution 1973.

    Transitional National Council (TNC) interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril asserted, “The world bet on the Libyans and the Libyans showed their courage and made their dream real.” “World” now means NATO and a bunch of regressive Persian Gulf monarchies. As for the rest, shut up.

    Yet the most sinister, true to character, must have been NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen; “We have no plans whatsoever to intervene in conflicts in the region.” Then came the inevitable “but”. Rasmussen added, “But more generally speaking, I think this could set a template. We have demonstrated an ability to act in support of the United Nations and we have demonstrated an ability to include partners outside NATO in such operations”.

    Africa and the Middle East, not to mention most of the global South, you have been warned; Humanitarian imperialism, under the cloak of R2P, is the new law of the land.

    Securing the loot
    Hours before the Paris bash, French daily Liberation published on its website a letter written only 17 days after UN Resolution 1973. In the letter, the TNC ratifies an agreement ceding no less than 35% of Libya’s total crude oil production to France in exchange of Sarko’s “humanitarian” support.

    The letter is addressed to the office of the emir of Qatar (the go-between for the TNC and France from the beginning) – with a copy to then-Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa. The letterhead is supplied by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya.

    The promise totally matches what an official from an oil company in Cyrenaica said last week – that the “winners” in the oil bonanza would be the nations that supported the TNC from the start.

    As expected, denials piled up. The Quai d’Orsay – the French Foreign Ministry – said it had never heard of such a document. Same for Mansur Said al-Nasr, a TNC special envoy to the Paris conference. The TNC’s man in Britain, Guma al-Gamaty, added that all future oil contracts would be awarded “on the basis of merit”. And even energy giant Total had to muscle in; its chief executive officer, Christophe de Margerie, swore he had never discussed oil deals with the TNC.

    As if Sarko and Total were altruistic, Rousseau-style humanitarians who would never spare a thought for 44 billion barrels of oil. Total was in Benghazi discussing business with the TNC already last June. A bitter intra-European “oil war” between Total and Italy’s ENI is already in effect.

    ENI – active in Libya since 1959 – has already signed an agreement with the TNC to be back in business and immediately supply fuel to Libya – in exchange for future payment in oil. Total’s push is to secure a much larger piece of the Libya energy pie than it already had – as in future contracts.

    Slouching towards Arabia
    It’s quasi-official. Libya is not in Africa anymore. It has been relocated (upgraded?) to Arabia. Maybe Saudi King Abdullah ordered it by decree and no one noticed. The FOL do not include Africans. The African Union (AU) has refused to recognize the TNC; it will only do so when a legitimate government is in place.

    While NATO went the Air France way – liberation from above, in business class – the AU from the start pleaded for a ceasefire and negotiations. The FOL imperially ignored it.

    Perhaps Africans have noticed that NATO’s mission “to protect civilians” now includes bombing Sirte – where smart projectiles carefully target only “evil” Gaddafi supporters disguised as civilians, while the good guys escape unharmed.

    Perhaps Africans have been the only ones to listen to the Vietnam-era threat by TNC member Ali Tarhouni – very cozy with Qatar – who said, about the few towns and regions still loyal to Gaddafi, “Sometimes to avoid bloodshed you must shed blood – and the faster we do this the less blood will be shed.”

    Perhaps Africans were the only ones to notice the sustained and increasingly reported (not by corporate media) ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the “rebels”; as if no one knew that people in Cyrenaica have historically been extremely prejudiced against sub-Saharan Africans.

    Or perhaps Africans see right through the FOL’s agenda; the new Libyan status as a barely disguised Western colony; and the neo-Orwellian fable of humanitarian imperialism.

    Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

    AICI

     
  2. Fabio

    September 3, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    THE ROVING EYE
    The Big Gaddafi
    By Pepe Escobar

    It’s late night in Tripoli and The Big Gaddafi is sipping a White Russian, smoking some prime Maghreb produce and tuning in to a bank of plasma TVs in his tent at the Bab al-Aziziyah fortress. No luscious Ukrainian nurse could possibly appease his restless soul.

    He stares in disbelief at the narrative unrolling in the digital Western alphabet soup known as “news”; they swear Muammar Gaddafi is “besieged”, “exhausted”, “looking for a way out”, “preparing to flee” (to Tunisia) and it’s “only a matter of time” before his regime “collapses”.
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombs had decided to pee on his carpet.

    The Big Gaddafi: That rug really tied the room together.

    He can hardly picture himself as “besieged”. After all his box-office appeal in Libya at least doubled in the past few months. And then some White House dude told his guys they would abide by a ceasefire where NATO would rule only some patches of Cyrenaica – yes for Benghazi, no for Misrata – and would make way for a blue helmet UN peacekeeping force.

    He looks at his iPhone calendar; the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan will go on until August 29. There are still roughly 10 days for the ceasefire to go into effect. But the Americans – as usual – were greedy. They wanted all the oil and gas concessions they could lay their hands on, and they wanted him to retire. The oil and gas, that’s negotiable – for a price. As for the retirement, stuff it.

    Big Gaddafi sidekick: When we make the handoff, I double back, grab one of ’em and beat it out of him! Huh?

    The Big Gaddafi: That’s a great plan. That’s fuckin’ ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It’s a Swiss fuckin’ watch.

    What kind of “popular” war was that? His intel guys had brought him on a silver plate the latest Rasmussen poll – according to which only 20% of Americans supported the US/NATO bombing scam, especially because those goons were bombing scores of civilians, even kids. The Europeans – real people, not Brussels bureaucrats – were even more disgusted.

    And to believe that these European nihilists tried to sell the fiction that he, Gaddafi, was an “evil dictator” who wanted to “kill his own people”!

    Big Gaddafi sidekick: Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Arab Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

    The European nihilists were bombing civilian infrastructure – depriving a lot of people in Western Libya of food and water, so they would “rise” to topple him. That’s how a war to “protect civilians” works out in those sick Western minds: you terrorize the shit out of civilians.

    The Big Gaddafi knew he was not alone. People in Tripoli were not “fearful”. Students, teachers, average citizens, all fully armed with kalashnikovs, RPGs and mortars, were ready to dig in, to take over the edges of town, to man a cordon of check points, to organize house-to-house defense. The “NATO rebels” would never prevail.

    Big Gaddafi sidekick: I’ve got information, man – new shit has come to light!

    Indeed. He now knew for sure that the largest tribes – Warfa’llah, Washafana, Tarhouna, Zlitan – were all behind him. And that, contrary to “NATO rebel” propaganda, Zawiya, Gharian and Surman had not fallen.

    He knew those unsavory Transitional National Council (TNC) characters would always be embroiled in their own tribal wars, in fact mini civil wars.

    He couldn’t believe how dumb those Americans and Europeans were, showering money on the Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah brigade – who refuses to fight under the “rebel NATO” arm and instead maintains “internal security” – by beheading their enemies.

    He was now even profiting from support by the furious Obeidi tribe – which includes the family of General Abdul Fatah Younis, his former Interior Minister turned defector and “rebel” commander-in-chief, killed by the “NATO rebels” themselves.

    Those dumb Westerners that until yesterday were kissing the hem of his lavish tunics in his itinerant tents were now salivating over juicy commercial deals and the even juicier carve-up of the oilfields, believing they would later be able to contain the inevitable, monster tribal, civil war.

    The Big Gaddafi: So if you could just write me my check for 10% of a half trillion … 50 billion …I’ll go out and mingle.

    He had always known why they came to pee on his carpet. Because he didn’t hand the Brits, the Frogs and the Yanks the oil concessions they wanted. So them, and those unspeakable Saudi bastards started propping up these fanatic al-Qaeda-related types – just like they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    Western “banksters” invented an “alternative” Central Bank – with HSBC’s help – to rob Libya’s money. They also invented a new, to be fully privatized, national oil company, managed by Qatar, to rob Libya’s oil. Why haven’t he thought about this scam before – “humanitarian war”? He could have made a killing.

    The Big Gaddafi: You have your story, I have mine. I say that I entrusted the money to you, and *you* stole it!

    The “coalition”: As if we would ever *dream* of taking your bullshit money!

    Blowback will come – and it will be a bitch.

    NATO’s bombs had downgraded the Libyan oil industry at least three years. But those cowards wouldn’t have the guts to engage in a Battle of Tripoli – killing women and children en masse.

    The Big Gaddafi: Ow! Fucking fascists!

    They would have to bomb Tripoli to the stone age – just like they did to Baghdad. Or drop some crazy biological plague to void the whole city.

    The Big Gaddafi: I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.

    Well, if this is the kind of paradise NATO plus those “democrat” Saudis and Qataris wanted, the Arab Dude would abide – and make their lives hell. A free market free-for-all, an Africom base in the Mediterranean, a flimsy puppet government, a Libyan Karzai – and a vicious guerrilla force fighting them till Kingdom Come. Afghanistan remixed.

    The Big Gaddafi rolled The Chocolate Watchband on his iPod – I just dropped in/ to see/ what condition my condition was in – checked the perimeter and stepped out into the not so cool Northern African night. Not for long. NATO jets circled the sky above – and seven loud blasts hit Bab al-Aziziyah.

    The Stranger: Darkness washed over the Dude – darker’n a black steer’s tookus on a moonless prairie night. There was no bottom.
    AICI
    Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

     
  3. ALEXANDRA

    September 3, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    The Untold Story in Libya: How the West Cooked Up the “People’s Uprising”
    Wait! Did the West just engineer the overthrow of another unpopular regime to get at an easy supply of oil?

    As I write this, a new day is dawning in Libya. The “people’s revolt” against yet another tyrant is unquestionably exciting, and the demise (political and/or otherwise) of Muammar Qaddafi will, of course, be widely hailed. But barely below the surface something else is going on, and it concerns not the Libyan “people”, but an elite. In reality, a narrowly-based Libyan elite is being supplanted by a much older, more enduring one of an international variety.

    The media, as is so often the case, has botched its job. Thus virtually all of its resources over the past six months have gone into providing us with an entertainment, a horse race, a battle, with almost no insight into the deeper situation..

    ***

    It’s true that Qaddafi, like many—perhaps a majority of—rulers in his region, was a thug and a brute, if at times a comical figure. But one doesn’t need to be an apologist for him—nor deny the satisfaction of seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ouster—to demand some honesty about the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes to our own government’s role in funding it, and thus every American’s unwitting participation in that action.

    Let’s start with the official justification for NATO’s launch of its bombing campaign—for without that campaign, it’s highly improbable the rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told from the beginning that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombing—indeed, its sole purpose—was to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps because of NATO’s initial intervention, the feared Qaddafi-sponsored, genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the military actions one would expect a government to take when facing a civil war: after all, remember General Sherman’s “scorched earth” policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians apparently didn’t generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we started to hear about other purported reasons for it. Qaddafi was encouraging his soldiers to…commit mass rape! And giving them Viagra! And condoms!

    You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO crew did—made it up. The media, always glad to have a “sexy” story, especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no evidence to back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if it was true.

    We’ve been expressing doubts about these claims, for a number of reasons—including logic—for some time now. (For more on that, see this [3] and this [4] and this [5].) But it’s tough to counterpoise hot-button issues with rationality. If you questioned the mass rape story, you were a “rape-enabler.” If you pointed out that Qaddafi was being bombed for anything other than humanitarian reasons, you were a “Qaddafi-lover.”

    The media was so gullible that the professional disinformation guys went onto auto-pilot, recycling tired old tropes that nobody ought to be buying anymore. For example, most news outlets reported recently that Libya had fired a SCUD missile at the rebels.

    “That it didn’t hit anything or kill anyone is not the point. It’s a weapon of mass destruction that Col. Qaddafi is willing to train on his own people,” said one Western official.

    If the effort to rally public opinion against Qaddafi centered on any one factor, it was fury over Libya’s purported role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As we noted in a previous article [6], in the years since the conviction of a Libyan intelligence officer in the tragedy, a chorus of doubts has grown steadily. The doubt is based on new forensic evidence and research, plus subsequent claims by prosecution witnesses that their testimony was the result of threats, bribes, or other forms of coercion. It is an ugly and disturbing story, not well known to the larger news audience.


    AICI

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: