How very few of the voices urgently raised now for a no-fly zone over Libya, said anything at all when Israel killed 1,400 civilians in the Gaza Strip, raining down white phosphorous bombs. Did NATO meet to discuss a no fly zone then?
The Libyan National Council recognised by France includes some good men but also includes Gadaffi’s former interior minister and former head of the national security service. These are people drenched in the blood of dissidents. You can be quite sure that the rush by Western governments to pick a side is related to positioning by oil interests seeking to benefit from those who take over power.
None of which is to excuse Gadaffi or demean the thousands of ordinary people genuinely fighting for freedom. They should be supported. But anyone who believes the NATO governments are acting from humanitarian concern is a fool. This is their chance to capture and tame the Arab revolution. The African Union was quite right to reject outside intervention.
You have to ask yourself what good are politicians who serve only to promote fiscal manipulation, distortion of values, the mechanics of gain, the goals of redundancy and the attraction of wealth and power. Governments are aware a tipping point has been reached they can no longer print money to 'ease' contraction of the economy and placate a public moving into poverty.
The system serves the elite with the majority of millionaires getting interest from their money without contributing anything to society, no invention, no creativity, no nothing, money made from money. That insidious interest comes from your loan interest, your credit card interest; stealing from the poor to give to the rich. A stupid 'game' that promotes corruption and now endless war. When the bankers screw up then it is public money that bails the system out – pathetic. A classic case is Mr Blair and his 'blood-money' made from consultations to a torturer, a tyrant, a leader who murders his own people, women and children dying from the bombs, poisons and war machinery we supplied to fill the coffers of the elite. The pursuit of profit has caused war, terror, poisoning of the planet and neglect of sustainability.
Just like the tremors from an impending tsunami, the 2008 financial crash serves as a warning that the current system is restricting human extensionality and only serves to promote crime, fraud, neglect, stress and chaos. Thousands of young people are becoming activists, empowered by the protests in the Middle East that are accurately and truthfully presented on PressTV; not only has torture and rendition become 'real to a sheepish British public' moved by violence towards demonstrators, young people are realising that the world today is really a series of tribalistic mafias and the line between organised crime and traditional business is really non-existent. Change is needed to restore an equilibrium in survival processes and restore a holistic perspective world-wide; a social revolution is on the starting blocks and education processes are already in place to ensure a smooth learning curve into change without intimidation.
Unfortunately what you say, Craig, is right. It is about oil. That was also the purpose of no-fly zones, and US/UK bombings over Iraq prior to a US/UK war which was also about oil. The stakeholder in Basra oilfields now is BP. My banner on the demonstration in Hyde Park paraphrased Oscar Wilde. 'Bush and Blair: the unthinkable in full pursuit of the undrinkable'. 2 million marching voices plus armchair support from millions more, all of whom were ignored. What can individuals do?
I feel that "oil" is too simple. I would have said it's about power and control, and that when you possess the worlds largest hammer, every problem takes on the appearance of a nail.
It is not just people of middle-eastern origin whose lives are important only when useful to those who seek power. White North Americans are just as expendable.
I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half. Jay Gould
Think it's important to point out that many of the African Union members have benefited from Gadaffi's largesse, I don't think it came as a huge surprise to see them reject a call for intervention which is more likely to help the rebellion.
Edwin, trust m,e itsd about oil when France is doing it, unilaterally. France has not significant oil gas or coal reswerves, it is totaly dependent on dwingling (50-100 years reserves) uranium resources and its fast breeder programe.
France is very much up for it. Ghadaffi's clever move, judging the west's response for two weeks, looking what reactions are most likely to occur, and then pounce on the democracy movement, if I may call it this, with NATO, the UN and various other protagonists talking until the cows come home.
France should have been chancing it last week, wihtout much talk and notice of others, hitting his chemical weapons depot, tanks and airports, hard, taking out his navy vessels which he is using as troop transporters to get to Brega and soon Benghazi. It would have made the fight more equal, France could have retreated, to the international flak , no doubt, and watch it from the sidelines.
Now Ghaddaffi will be able to hide everything he wants to, thanks to colloective mincing.
The UK's posturing for a no fly zone is just show. I'm sure they're covertly supporting Gadaffi.
Yes, I thought that was what you were suggesting in an earlier post, Ruth. Can you share with us any evidence for this? I'm always suspicious of 'forked-tongue' governments, so almost anything is possible. They support all kinds of heinous dictator/monarch, so one wouldn't really be too surprised. But have you any evidence?
Gilad Atzmon: What About A No Fly Zone for The Palestinians? (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-what-about-a-no-fly-zone-for-the-palestinians.html)
Thing is, though, in international relations people take sides, and we naturally condemn harm to our allies while justifying harm to our enemies.
Sometimes opponents seem to get what's coming to them.
For example, it was rash of Saddam to openly insult the US before the second Gulf War with that mosaic in the entrance lobby of the Al Rasheed Hotel describing Bush I as a war criminal (http://www.seattlepi.com/iraq/bushvac.shtml).
A not altogether inappropriate analogy, it seems to me, of the relations between US/Nato and the Muslim states is with the behaviour of kids in an unsupervised school yard:
There is the bully and his cronies and a bunch of little guys. One of the little guys lives with a devoted aunt who provides him with a bag of candies every day as he leaves for school. The little guy might do one of the following things:
(1) go round the school yard offering candy to anyone who will join him in an alliance to neutralize the bully and his followers;
(2) offer the bully a handful of candy in the hope of being left alone or adopted as a henchman.
If the little guy opts for (1) and the bully sees what's going on, it's clear what'll happen. The bully will knock the little guy down and take all the candy to share with his cronies.
Iraq and Libya are the little guy. They have beneath their soil ten and five trillion dollars worth of oil, respectively. If they sell it and invest the proceeds in the development of their people and economy, the bully's clout in the ME is gone. So what to do? Saddam was defiant, he refused to share or become a tributary of the US Empire. He was knocked over.
Gaddafi was willing to share — BP was about to begin drilling — but maybe he didn't share enough. Or maybe he cosied up too close to the Chinese — another little guy getting decidedly too big for his boots. Maybe the negotiations are still continuing, and the uprising was intended to concentrate Gaddafi's mind.
Not that I'm arguing for intervention in Libya. On the contrary, I believe that international relations should be conducted along the lines set forth in the Sermon on the Mount.
Ah, yes, the notorious Jew-hater Gilad Atzmon.
Sermon on the Mount? Run away from Hitler?
Don't like the idea of a no-fly zone for Gaza?
Spoken like an anti-Semitic Palestinian-hater.
"Sermon on the Mount? Run away from Hitler?"
Hitler's foreign policy was hardly as advocated by Jesus, so any practical response had to be different. My father served in the RAF during WWII. Did yours?
No, you're missing the point. The foreign policy of Jesus was apparently to run away, turn the other cheek, ignore the problem. Thus, if you adopted the foreign policy of the Sermon on the Mount, you'd pretty quickly find yourself underneath the jackboot of a tyrant.
No, my father did not serve in the RAF during WWII. That would have been quite impossible. But my grandfathers served in WWII, and both were scarred. However, that they served has nothing to do with my standing, just as your father's service has nothing to do with your standing.
How typical it is for a Brit to cite some familial connection to WWII as if it reinforces some silly argument he or she is making.
Forget the Sermon on the Mount. A strange collection of ideas, but then it's author was, apparently, expecting the end of the World in the immediate future. My initial reference was more or less in jest, although my point was that the world should be run on those idealistic lines, a condition that cannot apply when you have psychopathic entities such as Nazi Germany or present-day US/Israel at large.
As to running away from Hitler. There were 70,000 Jews who fled to Britain in WWII but only two, I believe, who served in the RAF. There were some Jews from Palestine, about 5000, who served under British auspices in the Jewish Brigade, however that was not until 1944. No doubt there were Jews serving with other branches of the British armed forces, including that splendid psychopath Robert Maxwell, awarded the Military Cross by General Montgomery.
What the hell is the source of your obsession with Jews? You bring up "George Soros the Jewish Nazi" and now this. Does your Jewish hatred consume you so much that you have to always tie it in? Do you wake up in the morning hating Jews? Do you go to be hating Jews?
Given what you wrote on another thread, I'm guessing that you think the Jews did 911.
It was you who brought up the issue of "running away from Hitler".
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what is the source of your obsession with Hitler?
Re Soros, I see you decline to respond to my response elsewhere to your questions about George Soros, so I'll repeat them here"
"Why is George Soros a Jewish Nazi." My source is Ezra Levant, who seems to have a case: http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah…
"Why does it matter that he's Jewish?"
A Jewish Nazi is not someone that most people would implicitly trust, or whose pronouncements on what Libya should do with its oil wealth can necessarily be assumed to be made in the interests of the Libyan people .
"Are you even sure that he's a practicing Jew? "
I've never seen him in one of those black hats or wearing a scull cap. If he's not practicing would that make him not a Jew? What's your definition of a Jew?
I see also that you decline to tell us whether you are an agent of cognitive infiltration either for the US Government of Israel. Com'on, do tell us.
I really have problems with the entire concept of "humanitarian intervention", or "humanitarian warfare." Are some kinds of killing "good" and even noble, whilst others are "bad"? Who decides and in what circumstances? Do innocent civilians care about the sincerity or motives, good or bad, behind the rockets or bombs that blow them to pieces?
It looks very like the 'West' is busy assembling a tame 'government' for Libya, complete with that country's very own Ahmed Chalabi.
The speed with which Western nations have rushed to take action against Libya – freezing the Qadhafi family's assests, imposing a travel ban, discussing no fly zones, recognising the interim govt etc – are in stark contrast with their inaction not only over a succession of Isareli wars, but over the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain too.
It's also worth noting that Jordan is the first Arab nation to freeze the assests of the Qadhafi family. Remember, this is the same Jordan that refused to close its Israeli embasssy or even downgrade relations during the onslaughts in Gaza and Lebanon. Is there a tamer Arab client than Jordan? I doubt it.
And meanwhile, as you dither and argue against intervention, thousands of brave rebels and civilians are being massacred. These are people fighting for secular democracy and progressive politics. The so-called progressive left used to support such people, but now your moral cowardice and appeasement is happy to see them crushed. Orwell will be turning in his grave. The Arab League is calling for a no-fly zone – why don't you? This is not Afghanistan, nor is it Iraq and if you can't spot the difference you are more stupid than I thought. All of you.
No one here wants to appease Gadaffi, and on one is happy to see this happening. You say this situation is not like Iraq; have you finally stopped supporting that atrocity? My problem with intervention is that there is no force with the moral authority to carry it out, precisely BECAUSE of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Completely agree with you. If it wasn't for oil, Libya would suffer in silence like the other African countries. The people in the new government is questionable. The new head was only placed in Gaddafi's government in 2007, he was previously a trusted judge in the east of Libya. He surprised many by questioning Gaddafi on live television why there were still innocent people in prisons, but survived since some think he was only placed there to try to appease the east. The "posts" in the Libyan government aren't real posts, and just because someone works in the government does not mean they are automatically evil. Some people get into there and try to change what they can with what they have. Plus, if Gaddafi tells you to take a post or take a job, and you refuse, you basically put your life and your family's life in danger. Of course, noone knows anybody's true intentions…
"These are people fighting for secular democracy and progressive politics"
And do you really think they'll get it? Under a government headed by Gadhaffi's "Justice" Minister. LOL
The rebels are backed by western interests who want to break up Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Much easier to manage when balkanized.
Libya could well go back to being run as three countries corresponding to the Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica.
They are not backed by any western interests that I can see – if they were we would have been in there much quicker. In fact these uprisings appear to have taken the west by surprise – hence the dithering of Obama and Europe. They perhaps fear that the alternative to Gaddafi et al may be worse forms of dictatorship – but from what I can see (based on reading reports and watching Al Jazeera etc) the protestors appear to want democracy and more progressive forms of government. Of course, revolutions can always be betrayed and lead to dictatorship (Iran 1979) but to stand by and do nothing is a crime, in my view.
Eddie,
Good to see you've found us again.
Craig good to see the revamped site but it seems a bot cumbersome – you have to press the back button several times to get back to the original page. I hope you are enjoying life in Ramsgate. I grew up there.
Eddie,
Yes, very happy in Ramsgate. The new site still has a few glitches, which I gather can't be tackled until all the comments from the old site have been loaded, which is quite a lengthy process.
It's dreadful to see the opposition to Gadaffi being beaten back, and worse to think of what will happen after they're beaten. I think the UN should act, with air cover and a no-fly zone, ground forces only with agreement of the opposition. Am I right in believing that it's Russia that would veto that? Russia should be leading the forces.
If only the West, especially the US, hadn't morally bankrupted itself. Who do you trust when the "world's policeman" is well known to be bent? Is Blair still a good friend to Gadaffi? Maybe Blair should just ask Gadaffi to stop.
"It's dreadful to see the opposition to Gadaffi being beaten back, and worse to think of what will happen after they're beaten. I think the UN should act, with air cover and a no-fly zone, ground forces "
Why is it dreadful? What do you know about Abdel Jalil and the party he leads? He was Gaddafi's "Justice" Minister. You think he's going to provide better justice if he's the dictator, not Gaddafi?
And who do you think the UN is, when it comes to acting "with air cover and a no-fly zone," and what do you think a no-fly zone means?
If the UN "acts" with air cover and a no-fly zone that means bombing raids to destroy Libya's air defenses — radar, air bases, aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles. That means killing Libyans. And who's going to do the killing. The RAF, among others, almost certainly. All to insure a successful transition to power of someone with no humanitarian credentials, a reputed Islamist, and someone almost certainly in cahoots with the CIA.
In other words, you advocate an armed assault on the legal government of Libya without any stated justification. Wow!
Are you being naive, or are simply a fan of the New World Order, as being ushered in by the US
Alfred, you make good points, especially "All to insure a successful transition to power of someone with no humanitarian credentials…"
I don't know what should be done. I'm very much in two (or more) minds about this. But I'm sure that the lack of decent options flows from an immoral policy that has lasted decades. I'll add a link to a conversation between George Galloway and Mark Pritchard. I think Galloway is right in that an Arab force would be best to stop Gadaffi. But all that's there are a bunch of dictatorships that have been propped up by the West to secure cheap oil. Those dictatorships seem to be in the process of changing, but that's too slow for the people of Libya.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/…
"I think Galloway is right in that an Arab force would be best to stop Gadaffi."
Why this desperate need to "stop Gaddafi"?
Gaddafi is a dictator, but what is wrong with that? Most of the world's population since the dawn of history have been ruled by dictators. Britain was run by an autocratic monarch until 1688 and since when it has had a democratic system that transferred power, not to the people, but to the business and propertied classes. Today British democracy, like that in the rest of the Western world, is largely a joke. As Philip Berrigan said "if voting made any difference it would be illegal."
To justify foreign intervention in Libya on moral grounds seems impossible. Under Gaddafi the people have done quite well. Literacy rates have gone from almost zero to 80% or more, life expectancy is comparable to that of western nations, income distribution is more egalitarian than in Britain. What more do you want? Oh, George Soros, the Jewish Nazi, says Gaddafi should share the oil wealth, but Soros means with the western oil cos. not the people of Libya. And it is because they object to sharing the wealth that the eastern provinces, which have the oil, are at war with Gaddafi's allies in Tripolitania who have prospered by sharing the oil wealth.
And sharing the oil wealth is really the only justification for outside intervention. A war of conquest for oil wealth. At least that is a rational justification for war. Let;s not kid ourselves that we'd be killing Libyans for their own good.
Now why is George Soros a Jewish Nazi? And why does it matter if he's Jewish?
Are you even sure that he's a practicing Jew?
"Why is George Soros a Jewish Nazi." My source is Ezra Levant, who seems to have a case:
http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah…
"Why does it matter that he's Jewish?"
A Jewish Nazi is not someone that most people would implicitly trust, or whose pronouncements on what Libya should do with its oil wealth can necessarily be assumed to be made in the interests of the Libyan people .
"Are you even sure that he's a practicing Jew? "
I've never seen him in one of those black hats or wearing a scull cap. If he's not practicing would that make him not a Jew? What's your definition of a Jew?
Craig, thanks for that. I visited Kent recently. I hope you are enjoying your new domains. Mark Golding, yes, youthful cynicism is starting to blossom, but no fruit goes on to set if the blossom is exposed to frost. I The Zionist cause is going through a period of 'wot me, guv?' and it's good to be reminded of their recent terrorist crimes.
Objective no. 1 of the new world theme park is resources. As predicted, Obama has started to move against Africa. He will fail, because China has established a stronger moral authority that the Anglo-saxon colonials.
Objective no. 2 of the new world theme park is destruction of Islam, because Islam is a witness against the oppression of materialism. Islam will prevail, because whichever tyrant is put out like shiny new shoes by the US to replace the ageing Arab dictators, the vast resources of these countries will continue to be absorbed by their elites, leaving the people with just their faith and the clothes they stand up in.
The Zionist/ Masonic cause continues to be awe-inspiringly ignorant. Ignorant of its own ignorance and ignorant of its ignorance of its ignorance, or as Allah Glory be to Him says in a parable: Over them is a wave, and over that another wave, and over that a cloud. Darkness over darkness. Stupidity over stupidity. Destination Hell.
With apologies to co-commentators who don't like too much religion at breakfast time, or any other time.