Sirte – the Apotheosis of “Liberal Intervention”

by craig on August 26, 2011 10:14 am in Uncategorized

There is no cause to doubt that, for whatever reason, the support of the people of Sirte for Gadaffi is genuine. That this means they deserve to be pounded into submission is less obvious to me. The disconnect between the UN mandate to protect civilians while facilitating negotiation, and NATO’s actual actions as the anti-Gadaffi forces’ air force and special forces, is startling.

There is something so shocking in the Orwellian doublespeak of NATO on this point that I am severely dismayed. I suffer from that old springing eternal of hope, and am therefore always in a state of disappointment. I had hoped that the general population in Europe is so educated now that obvious outright lies would be rejected. I even hoped some journalists would seek to expose lies.

I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

The “rebels” are actively hitting Sirte with heavy artillery and Stalin’s organs; they are transporting tanks openly to attack Sirte. Yet any movement of tanks or artillery by the population of Sirte brings immediate death from NATO air strike.

What exactly is the reason that Sirte’s defenders are threatening civilians but the artillery of their attackers – and the bombings themselves – are not? Plainly this is a nonsense. People in foreign ministries, NATO, the BBC and other media are well aware that it is the starkest lie and propaganda, to say the assault on Sirte is protecting civilians. But does knowledge of the truth prevent them from peddling a lie? No.

It is worth reminding everyone something never mentioned, that UNSCR 1973 which established the no fly zone and mandate to protect civilians had

“the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;”

That is in Operative Para 2 of the Resolution

Plainly the people of Sirte hold a different view to the “rebels” as to who should run the country. NATO have in effect declared being in Gadaffi’s political camp a capital offence. There is no way the massive assault on Sirte is “facilitating dialogue”. it is rather killing those who do not hold the NATO approved opinion. That is the actual truth. It is extremely plain.

I have no time for Gadaffi. I have actually met him, and he really is nuts, and dangerous. There were aspects of his rule in terms of social development which were good, but much more that was bad and tyrannical. But if NATO is attacking him because he is a dictator, why is it not attacking Dubai, Bahrain, Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, or Uzbekistan, to name a random selection of badly governed countries?

“Liberal intervention” does not exist. What we have is the opposite; highly selective neo-imperial wars aimed at ensuring politically client control of key physical resources.

Wars kill people. Women and children are dying now in Libya, whatever the sanitised media tells you. The BBC have reported it will take a decade to repair Libya’s infrastructure from the damage of war. That in an underestimate. Iraq is still decades away from returning its utilities to their condition in 2000.

I strongly support the revolutions of the Arab Spring. But NATO intervention does not bring freedom, it brings destruction, degradation and permanent enslavement to the neo-colonial yoke. From now on, Libyans like us will be toiling to enrich western bankers. That, apparently, is worth to NATO the reduction of Sirte to rubble.

Tweet this post

217 Comments

  1. “I had hoped that the general population in Europe is so educated now that obvious outright lies would be rejected. I even hoped some journalists would seek to expose lies”.

    Even though education is probably not as corrupt in the average European nation as it is in the UK, I fear you are sadly deceived. Not only has “progressive education” tended to drive down standards; it has also assisted in the progressive brainwashing of each new generation, starting as soon as they go to secondary school. Even at one of Britain’s best public schools in the 1960s, I was heavily disinformed as to the nature of politics and international relations. It took decades of reading news and commentary and gradually piecing together the truth before I began to see the light.

    Any government has a powerful interest in keeping its people docile, and this does not necessarily mean uneducated. It is naive to keep women and children away from school, as Afghan and other fundamentalists strive to do. Far more effective to compel them to attend state schools where they can be imbued with politically correct views from the earliest age.

    As for the complaisance of journalists, I think David Edwards and David Cromwell explain that phenomenon perfectly in their excellent “Newspeak in the 21st Century”. Once again, no overt conspiracy or censorship is necessary. All that is required is for intelligent, ambitious journalists and editors to know which way lies promotion, fame and riches; and which way lies obscurity, mockery, and probable eventual unemployment.

  2. A propos my last comment, I can’t resist citing the following quotation. There’s probably no need to attribute it, is there?

    ‘When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community”’.

  3. Craig

    What’s the duration of UN resolution 1973?

  4. Bloody good stuff Craig.

    Though, like Tom, I’m still somewhat perplexed at your seeming blind-spot concerning the perceptions of Western populations and their gross ignorance of foreign affairs and their resulting ‘biddability’.

    Post WWII ‘history’ was written by its ‘victors’. There is a narrative to be maintained and promoted and that is just what Western educational establishments, with some notable (and therefore marginalised) exceptions, have engaged in ever since.

  5. Well said Craig.

    I hope that the public at large are getting a clearer idea of what NATO is all about. This venture was never ‘humanitarian’. It was about replacing Gaddafi and placing Libya in the hands of western stooges from day one.

    It is hard to see anything other than an Iraq-stlye occupation at the end of this horrible process. We can already see the beginnings of a ‘Green Zone’ in Benghazi.

    The ‘rebels’, mercenaries and tribal gangs will melt away as a single grouping and begin warring amongst themselves. Some people who see themselves (perhaps correctly) as Libyan nationalists, those now supporting Gaddafi, will continue a guerrilla war against occupiers, new government, rebel tribes etc…….

    ……..and we, from the goodness of our loving humanitarian hearts, will have created this hellish nightmare.

    Our supremacist masters are determined to control it all. The fraudulent stooges in Westminster who are supposed to represent us represent this supremacist elite.

    They deceive us into being passive partners in the great crimes committed against the people of Libya.

    If you were an Iranian might not possession of a nuclear arsenal seem like a very sensible precaution against the murdering degenerates that prowl the middle east.

  6. Tom, agree with every word, it is amazing to see how our youngsters, after having only been indoctrinated for soem years fall into the consumer/establishment role allocated for them, without grudge or so much of a whimper.
    When I visisted Essex University, once the hot bed of radicalism in Britain, it was the most calm and oprdered student society I have ever visited, not much scrutiny and questions applied.

    Ghadaffi is not showing himself and the NTC’s propaganda machine is muisled by NATO freakeries. For the last two weeks they should have amplified and broadcast that Muhammar is responsible for the continued fighting, it is his hiding that stops negotiations progressing and a hand over to the Libyan people, but not even the simplest of eyewashes is applied here, just sheer NATO brutality.

  7. Osama bin Laden

    26 Aug, 2011 - 12:13 pm

    [Mod/jon: deleted, abusive again]

  8. Osama bin Laden

    26 Aug, 2011 - 12:15 pm

    [Mod/jon: disruptive, deleted]

  9. exiledlondoner

    26 Aug, 2011 - 12:20 pm

    Craig,

    Being a liberal isn’t easy – it has none of the certainties that other political creeds can offer.
    .
    When this started I reluctantly supported intervention – the alternative seemed to be to leave Gaddafi in place, eventually to hand over to his sons. Realisically there was no prospect of the Libyan people ever being able to overthrow the petro-dollar funded Gaddafi regime.
    .
    The problem is that supporting his overthrow raises a lot of other questions – particularly the motives of the outside forces which may not be the same as the Libyan rebels, and what was to follow Gaddafi.
    .
    While I understand why you focus on NATO, who have clearly gone way beyond the UNSC remit, the problems stem as much from the disfunctional UN and the bad joke that calls itself the Arab League. NATO are not acting as the agents of the UNSC – they are acting as the agents of western business interests who want a share of a “liberalised” Libyan economy.
    .
    While you and I might see Gaddafi as a despot and tyrant, western business sees him as a dangerously independent figure. While he and his family might have had their fingers in the till, it is for denying western financial a share of the booty that he is being punished.
    .
    It is in this light that the attack on Sirte is taking place. The interests behind NATO’s involvement are not patient people – they want to call in their favours. To get what they want the victory must be absolute – a negotiated deal at this stage might see them come away with far less than they want. The plan is for total victory to be swiftly followed by the arrival of the “reconstruction advisors” – a motley crew of the usual suspects fresh from Iraq.
    .
    As with Cuba, I hope that the baby doesn’t get thrown out with the bathwater, but I fear the worse. The new Libya needs a strong, independent Government that puts Libyan interests first, and preserves what is good about Gaddafi’s Libya (and there are things that are good, notably a level of social provision unmatched in the region). What it doesn’t need a client Government eager to pay off their foreign benefactors, and dragging Libya into the neo-liberal fold.
    .
    I guess that I may live to regret my support for intervention – I never kidded myself that it was risk-free, and the NATO route wasn’t my preferred option. Time will tell whether the new Libya will be any improvement on the old Libya.
    .
    If it isn’t, I’ll hold up my hands and say I was wrong, but I won’t be any closer to knowing what was the right course to take. As I said, being a liberal isn’t easy.

  10. Osama, go and find a play ground.. it will suit you better

  11. Some say that the Arab Spring was initiated and organised by the by the CIA. And that Libya is the spearhead of a US/NATO offensive against Africa, competing with China for a resource-grab.
    And they claim that Usama bin Laden’s joint operation with the CIA to attack the twin towers has passed its sell-by date as an inspiration for Muslims. On the contrary, the new youth movements are a direct creation of the planned youth sacrifice which Usam planned.

    The lesson from history is that the West constantly tries to change Islam, from being a religion of total integrity to a religion of fanaticism. The scholars of Islam in Delhi and India were exterminated by the British, in order to change Islam.
    There is no integrity in fighting for its own sake. In demonstrating or fighting and changing governments for its own sake. But a significant number of the the influential and the easily-influenced have swallowed the Usama plan hook line and sinker, playing straight into the power of the enemies of Islam.

    They love the destruction of society, prosperity, rule of law, and see it as a necessary tool for the destruction of Western world-domination. Dis-rule is loathed by Islam and loved by mad mullahs whose political minds see rich pickings in the grain thrown down to them from Western powers. These political minds see human beings as no more than a pile of ballast for them to make the building blocks of their own personal political careers.

    When Disney land comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc, as an economic progression for western advantage, these betrayers of Islam and Muslims will be doing very nicely thank-you under the Western controlled governments they helped to form.

  12. For the most part Craig a fine article that says what needs to be said.

    That’s until this bit:

    “I have no time for Gadaffi. I have actually met him, and he really is nuts, and dangerous. There were aspects of his rule in terms of social development which were good, but much more that was bad and tyrannical. But if NATO is attacking him because he is a dictator, why is it not attacking Dubai, Bahrain, Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, or Uzbekistan, to name a random selection of badly governed countries?”

    A deconstruction…

    “I have no time for Gadaffi”. This’s a meaningless remark which, however, probably helps keep you (just) on the right side of ‘reality’ for western media/establishment (handy for to make sure speaking invites keep coming in and you’re not black-listed by the BBC…)

    “I have actually met him, and he really is nuts, and dangerous.” I see. Or rather, I don’t. Do you always make judgements about someone’s sanity when you meet them? Why not share with us the specifics of your personal meeting that led you to draw that conclusion? Dangerous was he? Did he threaten you with a sabre? Or say ‘Boo’ in Arabic? Do explain.

    “There were aspects of his rule in terms of social development which were good”. Really? How odd that a dangerous crazy-man could achieve much at all. Why not explain what you mean? Did you have in mind, for instance, that over four decades, despite long periods of harassment and sanctions by the west, he led his nation from deep poverty and high illiteracy to the best UNDP Human Development Index ranking in Africa, with the lowest infant mortality and highest life expectancy in Africa, free healthcare and free education (including fees paid for tertiary students overseas). Or did you have in mind the remarkable fresh water system set up on his watch, or Africa’s satellite coms which he funded, or provision of decent housing for all Libyans? Was it the 100 billion dollar pledge to support African development free from western usury? Why be so coy about these “good aspects” of his governance?

    “Much more that was bad and tyrannical”. Quite so, quite so. So very unlike the track record of good democrats such as Sarkosy, Cameron, Obama, Bush, Blair etc. Good to have one good reason for bombing the hell out of his nation, I guess?

    “If NATO is attacking him because he is a dictator, why is it not attacking Dubai, Bahrain, Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, or Uzbekistan, to name a random selection of badly governed countries”.

    If I hear this argument put one more time I think I may scream. It implicitly concedes that it’s acceptable for an unaccountable cabal in far-away places to bomb ANY nations into ‘regime change’. I beg to differ. IT IS NOT! So why don’t we say that for all those other nations too – rather than leave the door wide open for one of them to be next?

    Ghadafi is doubtless not a saint. I have yet to meet anyone who is (are you, Craig?). Most people, however, do not have to demonstrate sainthood in order to justify their continuing existence on this planet. The Zionist media has set up a narrative to make it seem that Ghadafi DOES need to demonstrate that. By this tawdry paragraph in what was otherwise a fine article, you make a concession to that demented idea, which has been used so very successfully to rationalize the murderous bombing of Libya.

  13. On the BBC morning news this week, Bill Turnbull stated that many Libyan ‘rebels’ were out demonstrating in Green Square, waving flags and so on. What he and the BBC failed to mention was that the flags were actually those of India and the ‘rebels’ looked decidedly Indian and not Libyan. No Kalishnikovs firing into the air either. Oops! Another BBC clanger to go with their huge boo-boo over WTC7 when they declared its fall some 30 minutes before it actually fell. Sounds like another prepared script that went awry.

  14. Leak of a 70 page Criminal NATO Plan to Occupy Libya UAE Would Occupy Tripoli in Post-Gadhafi Libya.

    “The document includes proposals for a 10,000-15,000 strong “Tripoli task force”, resourced and supported by the United Arab Emirates, to take over the Libyan capital, secure key sites and arrest high-level Gaddafi supporters.”
    ….
    “The authors of the report also believe the escalation of NATO attacks to an “unbearable” level is a strong possibility.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/iraq-haunts-plans-for-post-gaddafi-libya/story-e6frg6so-1226111211251

  15. The BBC has apparently shown a video of some demonstration in India, claiming it to be from Green Square, Tripoli:
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0

  16. Osama/Yugo/Larry,
    .
    Keep it coming – either someone responds to you before I log on, and I leave your comments be so we can laugh at your silliness; or I log in before a substantive reply comes your way, in which case I delete you at the flip of a coin. In the last few months I think you are the only person I’ve had to delete, so it’s really no trouble. Moderate mouse-clicking keeps RSI at bay, I hear :D .
    .
    I should love to know your motivations, when you’re done hiding under your rock. Mental illness, unhealthy obsession or career? I am not sure if there are any other options, since you repeatedly refuse to explain your abusive comments.

  17. Steve Faraday

    26 Aug, 2011 - 1:45 pm

    Are “the people of Sirte” being “pounded into submission”?
    Aren’t NATO hitting only military targets?
    Aren’t highly dangerous and inaccurate Scuds being fired from Sirte to the city of Misrata?

  18. It certainly pays to plan ahead:

    This week’s toppling of the Qaddafi regime in Libya shows that the Obama administration’s multilateral and light-footprint approach to regime change is more effective than the troop-heavy occupation-style approach used by the George W. Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, a top White House official told Foreign Policy today in a wide-ranging interview.

    “The fact that it is Libyans marching into Tripoli not only provides a basis of legitimacy for this but also will provide contrast to situations when the foreign government is the occupier,” said Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for communications, in an exclusive interview on Wednesday with FP….

    Despite criticism from Congress and elsewhere, President Barack Obama’s strategy for the military intervention in Libya will not only result in a better outcome in Libya but also will form the basis of Obama’s preferred model for any future military interventions, Rhodes said.

    That’s all right, then.

    The whole report at Foreign Policy.

  19. Syd Walker -Spot on comment.
    .
    Clark, yep I saw that youtube vid. Shameful. The complicit media are desperately trying to indicate a mass Libyan peoples’ revolt agaisnt Gadaffi, but they are struggling to find any images/videos of large scale protests at all. Even the front page newspapers pics are of a few of the ragtag rebel army.
    .
    I have no doubt that the whole thing has been driven by foreign secret service agents.
    .

  20. @Syd,
    .
    I think it is fine to criticise Gaddafi, and I don’t see that doing so adds anything to the wall of propaganda from the MSM. I myself said something very similar in comments here recently; that the social programs in Libya are laudable if they are widespread, but they are eclipsed by the totalitarianism of despotic rule. Would recognising those things have made it more likely, all other things being equal, that Libya was next to be invaded instead of Uzbekistan? I don’t see that it would (and no-one who is most at risk of being influenced by mainstream propaganda is likely to be here to read it anyway!).
    .
    I would caution you against supporting Gaddafi unconditionally – democracy in its true form should be the right of every person, and a society is unlikely to be well without it. (I don’t necessarily mean multi-party democracy – one can have soviet democracy or initiative and referendum democracy without it (hat-tip to Evgenui for the latter)).
    .
    I don’t know Craig’s mind, but am not at all of the view that he has one eye on BBC panel invitations. I am fairly sure he has been irrevocably blacklisted already, which is most regrettable.

  21. I’m not getting into the rights/wrongs of the entire campaign. They are well rehearsed on either side. However, you ask a question – why here and not other perverse regimes? The fact is that Gadaffi sealed his own fate with his move on Benghazi and his threat of a massacre which any reasonable person would have expected him to carry out with zeal. Contrary to your assertion, this supposed ‘imperialist’ war has been prosecuted by a lack of enthusiasm by its main protaganists; Britain, France and the US. But once you start something like this you HAVE to finish it. NATO gave Gadaffi umpteen opportunties to do a deal or go into exile. They stayed their hand for almost six months. Liberating everywhere else and leaving Sirte a besieged stronghold of the old regime is militarily and politically not a sustainable position. Whether or not we should have stepped in to help Benghazi in the first place – and i think YES! – the die was cast at that point.

  22. I have not met any of the general population in the UK, Austria or the US that actually agree with what NATO is doing in Libya. The problem is,you cannot stop it.They went in there for 1973 and now we have an undeclared war against one side of the civil war. There are British , Qatari and probably US and French boots on the ground ,as well as weapons smuggled in by NATO countries and Qatar.1973 has been largely ignored because it limited the countries to humanitarian protection.The UN is complicit , and just as in past actions in Gaza, we remain silent !!!! Its shocking and totally against International Law and it’s not the first time. Had Britain tried to go it alone, our population might have had a chance to say NO, but it was NATO, and there is no-one you can say NOTO.All our political parties seem to be quite happy with what is going on and there isn’t a demonstartion on the street.What’s that joke ? How low can you get ? A corgi !! naw, David Cameron

  23. Brian Robinson

    26 Aug, 2011 - 2:11 pm

    Completely agree Craig.

  24. @Clark – the video of “Green Square” – I think that’s more likely to be a balls-up rather than knowingly lying. Sounded like the presenter (who admittedly was making propagandist assumptions subconsciously) was just ignorant, and was umming-and-ahhing her way to a coherent statement. Autocue borked, perhaps? ;)
    .
    Proper propaganda is always more subtle than this, in my view.

  25. @Gus

    Gadaffi had been culling the rebels for years and we chose to ignore his activities. In point of fact, we armed him to those ends!
    Unfortunately, he wanted a bigger and bigger slice of the pie from the Oil companies. Big mistake.
    As usual, it’s all about oil and money is and as humanitarian as Ebola.

    “Britain sold weapons to Libya and other dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East just four months before Colonel Gaddafi’s regime slaughtered hundreds of protesters, a damning report reveals today.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373444/Libya-The-dirty-secret-UK-arms-sales-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1W8hozqGc

  26. I totally agree with Craig that NATO intervention is selective and as Exiledlondoner says ‘are acting as the agents of western business interests who want a share of a “liberalised” Libyan economy.’ And again as Exiledlondoner says without outside help Libyans would never have been able to overthrow the petro-dollar funded Gaddafi regime.’

    However,a negotiated deal between the rebels and Gaddafi regime would not ever have been possible except in the most dire circumstances and that’s questionable. The rebels wanted the regime out, Gaddafi would not go. Say if a deal had been reached and the Gaddafi family left with some power, inch by inch with their wealth they would have clawed their way back and resumed brutalising and terrorising the people .

    So maybe after all NATO is compliant with UNSCR 1973 ‘which established the no fly zone and mandate to protect civilians ‘

    Without the Gaddafi regime extinguished the Libyan people will be in danger.

  27. What you are saying is a possiblity Ruth. And Gus I also agree with you.
    For my own part, I would say that many anti-NATO commentators, including the author of the blog, have been badly wrong in their predictions about this Libya issue before – NATO was losing; deals were being cut to keep Gadaffi in power etc. – yet there has not been any admission of previous fault; therefore, how can we tell that the possiblity of error is something that it is acknowledged, and if it is not acknowledged then are we not dealing with fixed beliefs rather than with supple judgements about facts? I think that too often on this blog the cart is put before the horse and really this whole exercise is about ideological affirmation.

    At least Scouse Billy with his references to PRAVDA has not popped up so far on this thread.

  28. Agree with every word, West was baffled with the power of change in Egypt but they made up their minds quickly. It is very sad that Libyan people cannot see what we are able to see. Since when British and French have been that sensitive about humanitarianism and human right abuses? Since Rwanda Genocide Mr Sarkozy? Was Ivory Coast not enough for your greed? Shame!

  29. How astonishing that a former diplomat sounds more like an activist from the Stop the War coalition than an educated, reasonable mind.

    ““Liberal intervention” does not exist. What we have is the opposite; highly selective neo-imperial wars aimed at ensuring politically client control of key physical resources.”

    Really. Sounds like a line from an anti-Iraq protest back in 2003. So we didn’t have access to Lybian oil before the intervention? Tell us, Mr Murray, how does a nation most effectively secure physical resources: by labouriously spending billions and billions of money we will never get back on establishing *actual* material control through our military over the resources – or by sitting down with a dictator who is only too happy to accept greenbacks so he can buid himself lavish palaces and let his family live a life of decadence, and sign a contract with him?

    FYI: the Chinese in Sudan, that’s how you secure resources. Whilst the West has embargoed Sudan out of humanitarian concerns. Your theory is utterly false.

    Your belief that from now on, ‘Lybians will toil to support the bankers like us’ betrays a Marxist logic that is more suited to a Cuban than a former British diplomat.

    Lastly, the irony of reading a blog *opposing* humanitarian intervention – an intervention in support of people who are desperately struggling to free themselves from the cluthes of a ruthless, crazed dictator who has reigned a reign of terror for decades – by a self-declared ‘human rights activist’ is very rich indeed. Yes, war is bloody and cruel, but Sirte is the last bastion of support for Gaddafi’s dictatorship, and has to fall.

    You oppose this. Being a left-wing ‘anti-imperialist’ does not make you humanitarian, it makes you an illiberal proto-Marxist whose ideal of social relations has far more in common with totalitarianism than with liberalism. Which explains the implied defence of Gaddafi’s top-down imposition of socialist policies back in the 80s: ‘There were aspects of his rule in terms of social development which were good.’

    It is shameful that you once had the honour of representing our free nation abroad when you yourself are of a fundamentally anti-democratic inclination.

  30. Syd Walker
    .
    Forgive a personal post on Craig’s blog but I can find no contact facility on your blog.
    .
    With insights like those in your post above, Wikispooks could use your input. Failing that I’d like to put some of your stuff up myself.
    .
    Contact info through my posting link above

  31. @Ruth”Without the Gaddafi regime extinguished the Libyan people will be in danger.”

    Yes, we will see how they get on the rebels, they themselves are being accused of warcrimes. Perhaps it will provide a good excuse to put boots on the ground. Oh no, wait a mo, we are admitting to having trained them.

    @Danj “NATO was losing; deals were being cut to keep Gadaffi in power etc.”

    Uping the ‘ante’: NATO acting as air power and also the training of the rebels (boots on the ground) lost the UN the fig leaf cover of a humanitarian action weeks ago.

    Agree with Craig 110%

  32. Well done Craig! Great writing! It really is shocking how many seemingly ordinary people are involved in these crimes. The banality of evil or is it the evil of the banality of our lives.
    The left has disgraced itself and played a key role for NATO in helping them present the “rebels” as some kind of democratic, popular opposition. They have also pushed the evil dictator line. I haven’t concerned myself much with the merits or demerits of the colonel. It is beside the point. What we do know is that the people rallied round him against NATO. They are defending the sovereignty of their country. They are defending the existence of their country.It’s the arrogance of the western leftist/liberal that gets me: they think they’re fit to stand judgement on everyone. One day we will be judged.
    It’s quite clear the rebels can’t control Libya and so NATO must send in ground troops. They may already have done so. This isn’t just one more war: we must be able to see now that this is part of a drive to global war. We are engaged now in the fight for the survival of some kind of human civilization. NATO must be defeated! Victory to the Libyan people!!

  33. David Cameron backtracks and changes his mind on most things, but mysteriously the one where he remained constant is Libya.. Why ??? It was obviously not his decision.

  34. I don’t think there’s anything any one of us can add to that, Craig.
    Nail. Head. Hit.

  35. Well said, Syd Walker! I completely agree with everything you said.

    Jon, you seem very keen on democracy. But like Christianity and communism, democracy is something that has hardly ever been tried in anything like a pure form – and when it was tried, it has often failed abysmally. In the UK, USA, France, etc. at present we have “democracy” that isn’t.

    As a test case, have you noticed that most of the people in our countries don’t actually want to attack Libya? (Just as they didn’t want to attack Serbia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, and just as they don’t want to attack Iran). Over a million people paraded through central London to tell Tony Blair that the people were dead set against attacking Iraq. What difference did the people’s views and wishes make to our governments’ actions? None whatsoever.

    So the war to impose democracy on the Libyans (whether they want it or not) was waged by our “democractic” governments in spite of the fact that their own people were opposed to it!

  36. Sir,

    The observation you have reluctantly made regarding the one sidedness of the Libyan Contact Group’s acceptance of the arms, navy, air force and mercenaries/contractors is very hollow. Many commentators on all the available comments pages of the mainstream media have pointed this out for months. As you point out to continue this massacre, when calls for ceasefires have gone unheeded, shows the world the corruption of the ideals of the crusader coalition for their own ends – not the Libyan population.

    The preferred military option to ensure regime change is still not complete. The bloodshed of innocent Libyan civilians is being witnessed daily, reported by the media. The leaders of the crusader coalition countries are praising their pilots, special forces (armed boots on the ground) and navy personnel as “heroic”. Heroes do not shoot their guns, fire their missiles or watch the drone generated TV images from 20 miles, 30,000 feet or 6,000 miles respectively.

    The raping of the Libyan people “frozen” assets continues with the recent grab by the unelected TNC terrorists to pay their “masters”. The UNSC appear to have sanctioned this rape with no oversight of the amounts to be release, where it is to be spent, who will decide how it is spent except a passing reference to illegal organisations and illegal, unelected terrorist gangs.

    In the UK the right to protest has disappeared, the right to free speech is being eroded by the day, kettling, police murder, sentences of 4 years imprisonment and the ilk are the outcome of the world in which we are currently living.

  37. Ruth, You are failing to grasp that Gadaffi does not have wealth, gold, silver etc to spend to “create” disruption. He has beliefs, similar to some of the Libyan population.

    The demand of his to be able to put this to the people of Libya, similar to the South African solution. The SAs showed how the people could reconcile their differences and produce a settlement not gained by bloody civil war to it’s n’th degree.

    The crusader coalition have not accepted that any way other than their “democratic” way acceptable and continue in this murderous illegal civil war. All under the bannner of “humanitarian aid” and the “protection of civilians”.

  38. But if NATO is attacking him because he is a dictator, why is it not attacking Dubai, Bahrain, Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, or Uzbekistan, to name a random selection of badly governed countries?

    Cue counter-argument “So you’re saying just because we can’t fix every problem we shouldn’t do anything at all? What kind of moral cretin are you!!?!”, to which the counter-counter-argument may need some elaboration.

  39. Cloud, you are totally ignoring the fact that WE support those dictators, in fact WE supported Gadafi until it did not suit us any more, WE train the secret services of those countries with the most up to date torture methods and WE happily sell them torture equipment.If you think WE are supporting them on moral/humanitarian grounds, then I am afraid You are The moral cretin

  40. What pisses me off about the well meaning Liberals such as Craig, is that they are still in denial about how incredibly evil our “Western” society is.

    Sure, I lived the first 50 years of my life in this Virtual Reality, but then 9/11 happenned, and I knew instinctively that there was something very wrong.

    18 months later, when I was 100% sure, that the Official Story could not possibly be true, because it defied the most fundamental laws of physics, the enormity of it hit me in an instant.

    It was like a Religious Conversion, like St Paul on the Road to Damascus, except it was not God I was Discovering, it was Satan.

    And The Evil is Us.

    Libya is just the latest example, and I have almost given up hope.

    Nothing has improved since then. The human race which is led by complete psychopaths is destroying everything. Nearly everyone is totally brainwashed by the incessant propaganda.

    I don’t even bother anymore trying to tell people how the World really is, because when I do, they think I am insane.

    No one cares.

    Maybe my problem is my strict moral upbringing. My parents tried their hardest to make a Catholic Priest out of me, but I preferred Girls.

    I also studied and was trained in psychological techniques, so I understand the forces in play, and I have no answer to them.

    I gave up all religion at the age of 15.

    Tony

  41. exiledlondoner

    26 Aug, 2011 - 6:16 pm

    Banquo21,
    .
    Ruth, You are failing to grasp that Gadaffi does not have wealth, gold, silver etc to spend to “create” disruption. He has beliefs, similar to some of the Libyan population.
    .
    Most Libyans have never lived under any regime other than Gaddafi’s, have never seen a free press, and have never had any political freedom. There may well be some support for him, but support is meaningless unless it’s informed support. If Gaddafi wanted to claim popular support, he’s had 42 years to demonstrate it through an open political society – instead he has tortured and murdered his opponents, turned Libya into a family kleptocracy, and denied the most basic political rights to Libyans.
    .
    As for Gaddafi not having wealth – you’re deluded. Just read a bit about the lifestyle enjoyed by his sons.
    .
    The demand of his to be able to put this to the people of Libya, similar to the South African solution. The SAs showed how the people could reconcile their differences and produce a settlement not gained by bloody civil war to it’s n’th degree.
    .
    There’s a fundemental difference – De Klerk agreed to step aside and allow free elections – Gaddafi threatened to slaughter his opponents.
    .
    The crusader coalition have not accepted that any way other than their “democratic” way acceptable and continue in this murderous illegal civil war. All under the bannner of “humanitarian aid” and the “protection of civilians”.
    .
    My enemy’s enemy is not my friend. I’m probably as distrusting of the motives of the coalition as you are, but that doesn’t mean I should be supporting a brutal tyrant against his people.
    .
    We can argue about whether the west should be bombing anyone in Libya, but the Libyan people have every right to evict Gaddafi and his thieving brood – even if that means civil war. The right to fight tyranny is universal.

  42. Scouse Billy

    26 Aug, 2011 - 6:39 pm

    Syd Walker – top post: totally agree with everything you say.
    .
    Tony Opmoc, I know what you mean but don’t give up – check out this letter from a physicist to a journalist:
    .
    http://www.rense.com/general73/phy.htm

  43. Scouse Billy,

    I have given up, thinking that the load of complete bollocks I write on various websites across the world, is going to make the slightest difference to anything.

    I haven’t however given up writing a complete load of bollocks in between trying my best to have an incredibly good time with my wife, family and friends.

    I don’t currently understand how the human race can proceed without at least the vast majority going through absolute hell.

    That in itself doesn’t personally bother me. I expect hell. I have already lived longer than most of my brothers and sisters. When you get to my age, you kind of expect that everything is slowly going to get worse as your body and brain degrades and you are eaten up inside by some horrible aweful cancer that causes you unbearable pain, but so far as I know, beyond the muscular disease I inherited and have had to cope with all my life, there is nothing else wrong with me – or my wife and kids. In fact my wife looks almost exactly the same as my daughter, except that we go to even louder parties and gigs.

    Our Children are Incredibly Well Behaved and conservative (notice the little c).

    Our Daughter is going to a Cheese and Wine Party tonight.

    She just wants to go down the Pub (Live Band) and a Club after – but all her friends are trying to be like their Mums.

    Tony

  44. nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/22-Aug-2011/Pakistan-to-send-more-troops-to-Bahrain
    .
    It’s continuing.

  45. According to Reuters there are gold reserves worth $10 billion in Tripoli. I think this is a low estimate.

  46. Lockman,
    You say ‘It is very sad that Libyan people cannot see what we are able to see.’ This to me shows a misunderstanding of the situation. Without the help of NATO the Libyan people could never have got rid of Gaddafi. This is seen as stage one.

    To be quite honest I’ve generally found that people from abroad have a much better grasp of what goes on. In fact it was a Libyan lady from Tripoli who said to me just after Megrahi’s release, ‘Ruth, you’ll see Megrahi walking the streets of Tripoli for many years to come’ I hope now that the political scene’s changed this will remain true. She also said with regard to Megrahi’s release, ‘It isn’t just Libyan intelligence involved but also the British.’

  47. so in order to save benghazi we now have to bomb the civilians, and go house to house in Sirte ..
    .
    makes sense innit.
    .
    any honest media reporting in the west yet ?

  48. Валентин Левин

    26 Aug, 2011 - 7:41 pm

    NATO is the main terrorist in the Peace!
    Muammar Gaddafi is the real hero of our time/
    I wish the Gaddafi win!

  49. Tony, has it right. When the fuckers start killing their own people, as on 9/11, to justify killing some other people, then you know that liberal democracy is a load of toxic lying bollocks. And when people like Craig Murray cannot admit the truth of 9/11 you know he’s unbelievably naive for a highly intelligent person, or he is angling for a job writing editorials for the Gruaniard or some other crap newspaper in cahoots with the murderous, lying liberal ruling elite.

  50. Валентин Левин

    26 Aug, 2011 - 7:53 pm

    Russian rock – for Gaddafi. Listen to a song dedicated to Muammar al-Gaddafi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPx2k9jzqew&feature=related

  51. I agree with you in your assessment of NATO. But every time you call Gaddafy a tyrant, you justify the enemies of the Libyan people. Not only NATO, American government or West Europe governments, but also those same so called “rebels” – killers and thieves in Libya. Whose ultimate goal of establishing democracy further away from the existing situation in Libya than Pluto.

  52. “But every time you call Gaddafy a tyrant, you justify the enemies of the Libyan people.” Zurab.
    .
    So we’re supposed to lie and say that Gaddafi was not a tyrant? Cannot we hold two separate ideas in our minds at the same time?
    .
    Let’s just admit it. The world is at war. “You’re either with us, or against us”. George W. Bush.
    .
    Sorry, Mr Bush, I don’t accept that.

  53. My thoughts exactly about the bombing of Sirte.

    Are there any sceptical journalists attending the NATO briefings, who will laugh with derision at the sophistry and lies coming from the NATO spokespersons?

  54. Return Libya to Africa!

    Great South Africa! God Bless You!

    The World must know that Libya and the whole of North Africa are integral part of Africa.
    The land and the people do not belong to Arabs or Europeans or Islamist rebels and mercenaries or even to Gaddafi.

    It is stolen from Africans and must be liberated and returned to Africans.

    Shame that the indigenous black people of Libya who are the only owners of oil which made Libya to appear on maps are considered as foreigners or at best as a low grade citizens by Arabs, Gaddafi, and Islamist rebels and mercenaries.

    We Africans must reclaim Libya and all North Africa.

  55. Save North Africa from Arab Emirs and NATO

    The Palestinians of Gaza, particularly of Hamas, are the invisible organizers and agitators of unrest and insurgencies against anti-Islamist regimes under the pretense of democracy. This is obvious in the involvements of the Palestinian majority of Staff of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya TV against anti-Islamist regimes. The World is getting more of Iran Islamic “revolutions” and theocracies. Sarkozi; Obama and Cameron are miserably short-sighted and greedy looters.

    Corrupt Arab authoritarian regimes should be toppled by real democratic and friendly popular movements; but not by Sunni global caliphate financed by Gulf States and organized by Hamas and Muslim brotherhoods with other terrorists. Arab Gulf states got too much petro-dollar with too little plans in life; and Gaza is exploiting the glutted and vulnerable Emirs and Sultans.

    They are taking chances against each other only. Arab regimes and League are good for nothing. All of them with no exception are anti-democracy. The funding Gulf States don’t have even elected municipalities. Government and wealth rest exclusively in the hands of unanswerable Emirs dynasties. When the majority of population in the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain protested peacefully against the ruling Arab Sunnite minority the Gulf States crushed them by violent force, and the “democratic” West kept quiet.

    It is time for Africans to support the indigenous peoples and reclaim North Africa from invading and colonizing Arabs and Europeans.

    Gulf States lack the sense of nationhood and nationality. And North African Arabized countries are still avoiding reconciliation with themselves long after Arab invasions and colonization. The term “Arab World” is unrealistic and unfair. And so is the Arab League.

    Muslim brothers in Egypt are pushing hard for fast constitutional amendments and rejecting new constitution because they want Islam and Arabic language as the only main source of legislation and official language; and to keep the mostly Christian Copts in second class carriage, despite they are the most native and biggest indigenous people in Egypt. They want Egypt to remain “Misr Arab Republic” and Islamic.

    Mosques are the basic security; propaganda; and business unit in their system which is exploiting Allah and not serving any genuine faith.

    The threats to democracy in Gulf States and in North Africa states are:
    1- Islamist groups;
    2- Authoritarian ruling families and juntas;
    3- The Arab League;
    4- Pan-Arabism; and
    5- Western and NATO military interventions.

    The problem is that most Africans assume that North Africa belongs to the Arabs and to Europeans; and it is not an integral part of Africa that was lost to invaders and colonizers. The war in Libya is between two evils. The bigger devil is NATO, Islamists, and Gulf Emirs coalition against the lesser devil of the tyrant and colonizer Gaddafi regime. I wish both of them to go to deepest hell. But first let the lesser evil inflict huge damages and humiliation on the bigger devil.

  56. I suppose Craig’s almost childlike innocence about certain aspects of the world, and his disarming honesty, coupled with his obvious humanity and true liberalism, is why we are so fond of him.

    His analysis of the debacle in Libya, yet another gross international warcrime, even though the end apparently justifies the means, where have we heard that before, and it makes up for everything, like leading a dying democracy to war again, so soon after Iraq, on a gigantic raft of lies, distortions, exaggerations, and hysterical war-propaganda. There are a frightening number of people on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ who don’t seem to care about any of this, as long as Gaddafi bites the dust. And they call it democracy?

    It would be interesting to hear Craig’s views on his friend Juan Cole, the expert on the Middle East, who has allowed his obvious and perhaps understandable antipathy towards Gaddafi cloud his judgement to an extraordinary degree. But then all’s fair in love and war, isn’t it?

  57. Osama bin Laden

    26 Aug, 2011 - 10:58 pm

    [Mod/jon: off-topic, deleted]

  58. Canspeccy,

    Thank You, but I think Craig is Innocent, just slightly brain damaged.

    I reckon he will live long enough to make a Full Recoveryand see The Full Picture and see at Least a Bit Of The Justice He is Fighting For.

    He has got many on his side – but we are Few

    But we are all there is

    Tony

  59. @Craig,

    One of your really good posts.

    You call Gadaffi “nuts’ – but he seems to have in a nutty way made some really good social provisions for his people, educated the women, provided health care, supported a number of liberation movements, had a vision for Libya and for Africa – now isn’t that all very nutty? Eccentric – I think would have been a better choice of word. But -as you said – you met the “nut” – so, who am I to speak?

    I think in other regards your post has a finger on the Libyan pulse.

  60. In response to Writeon :-
    “I suppose Craig’s almost childlike innocence about certain aspects of the world, and his disarming honesty, coupled with his obvious humanity and true liberalism, is why we are so fond of him.
    His analysis of the debacle in Libya, yet another gross international warcrime, even though the end apparently justifies the means, where have we heard that before, and it makes up for everything, like leading a dying democracy to war again, so soon after Iraq, on a gigantic raft of lies, distortions, exaggerations, and hysterical war-propaganda. There are a frightening number of people on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ who don’t seem to care about any of this, as long as Gaddafi bites the dust. And they call it democracy?
    It would be interesting to hear Craig’s views on his friend Juan Cole, the expert on the Middle East, who has allowed his obvious and perhaps understandable antipathy towards Gaddafi cloud his judgement to an extraordinary degree. But then all’s fair in love and war, isn’t it?”

    I ask two(2) questions:-

    1. Where have all the journalists gone?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04PyD0mIm0k
    And –
    2. Why does Juan Cole support this imperialist intervention in Libya?
    http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2011/june/30_06_11/End_the_bombing_of_Libya.htm

  61. Alexander Mercouris

    27 Aug, 2011 - 12:50 am

    This is an outstanding post Craig. I agree with everything you say. I have nothing to add to what you have said. I do not know what shocks me more: the murderous cruelty of those who support these wars or the indifference of the peoples of America and Europe who look on when they happen. I remember once sharing in the bafflement at German indifference to Auschwitz. In the light of the general indifference to the horror in Iraq and now in Libya it is no longer so strange to me. Like the American abolitionist I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just.

  62. In response to Writeon :-
    “I suppose Craig’s almost childlike innocence about certain aspects of the world, and his disarming honesty, coupled with his obvious humanity and true liberalism, is why we are so fond of him.
    His analysis of the debacle in Libya, yet another gross international warcrime, even though the end apparently justifies the means, where have we heard that before, and it makes up for everything, like leading a dying democracy to war again, so soon after Iraq, on a gigantic raft of lies, distortions, exaggerations, and hysterical war-propaganda. There are a frightening number of people on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ who don’t seem to care about any of this, as long as Gaddafi bites the dust. And they call it democracy?
    It would be interesting to hear Craig’s views on his friend Juan Cole, the expert on the Middle East, who has allowed his obvious and perhaps understandable antipathy towards Gaddafi cloud his judgement to an extraordinary degree. But then all’s fair in love and war, isn’t it?”

    I ask two(2) questions:-

    1. Where have all the journalists gone?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04PyD0mIm0k
    And –
    2. Why does Juan Cole support this imperialist intervention in Libya?
    http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2011/june/30_06_11/End_the_bombing_of_Libya.htm

  63. Bin Liner, I’n not sure who the “pro-911 conspiracy nuts” are that you refer to.
    #
    But, I assume you mean the idiots who think 9/11 was planned by bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by 19 non-pilots armed only with box cutters, who entirely outwitted the trillion-dollar Norad air defense system.

    Tony, I agree that whatever of Craig’s brain remains undamaged can certainly be a great asset to whatever cause it is committed.

  64. Why does Juan Cole support this imperialist intervention in Libya?
    http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2011/june/30_06_11/End_the_bombing_of_Libya.htm

  65. Where have all the journalists gone?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04PyD0mIm0k

  66. Kevin Barrington

    27 Aug, 2011 - 3:00 am

    The BBC footage is obviously a mistake. If intentional, apart from giving the game away with the flags, it is lousy propaganda. It does not look like a historic scene of liberation, looks more like a crowd in line for a national sport event.

    The supposedly nefarious plan exposed by the Australian shows at least that the attempts are being make to avoid the arrogance and criminal negligence of the Iraq folly.

    The quote about NATO strikes becoming “unbearable” is of concern.

    However, it is a truncated quote…which makes a suggestive highlight of the word ‘unbearable” but does not give us the context.

    I am sceptical, but open to correction, that this is some Karadvic like pledge of bombing Sarajevo the edge of insanity.

    I thought the paper offered some minor consolation.

    We’ll see.

  67. “I had hoped that the general population in Europe is so educated now that obvious outright lies would be rejected. I even hoped some journalists would seek to expose lies.

    I was wrong, wrong, wrong.”

    An excellent post. I have been discussing this issue along with others on a vaguely left-leaning Guardian-related talkboard. The nature of the discussion shouldn’t surprise me, but it does. What happens is that pro-war posters – and clearly, I don’t know who they are – just refuse to engage in any analysis. They repeat the mantras, and immediately indulge in sly mockery of the ‘pro-Gaddafi’ types. When faced with essential facts – that these rebels are dubious, and often CIA backed – they choose to ignore the essential facts, or actively refute them, without bothering to check. It’s a deeply curious mindset, an almost, dare I say it, dialectic mindset.

    This indeed is linked to the laughable reportage of much of the visual-media. I’m not sure it’s all that much better in the written media, though I concede that there is some difference in quality. In all the time since we invaded, I have read, or viewed, almost nothing about the rebels, not beyond ‘they are the rebels, and Star Wars teaches us that Rebels Are Good.’ Star Wars is responsible for a lot, I’m sure. And the pertinent question – since when do we take part in a civil war – is simply not asked: do we – i.e, NATO – now legally take part in civil wars? It seems we do, and I missed a memo.

    I don’t even reckon myself all that clever, just reasonably educated, and with an honorable skepticism about military propaganda. I’m sure the media, and the talkboards, are not representative, mind, and others are as skeptical as I.

  68. Writeon, Courtenay:
    .
    I too have found Juan Cole’s blogging on Libya to be very surprising. I get the feeling that Juan has a big blind spot when it comes to Obama, he seems to take Obama’s words at face value and applies none of the same scepticism as when Bush was in office. I don’t expect people to all have the same views as me, but I have been very disappointed with the limited range of views he allows in his comments section. The lack of free discussion has caused me to lose a lot of respect for his work. Over the space of 2 weeks, I tried 3 times to post a link to Craig’s Bahrain post (US green light to Saudi invasion), each time it was denied. Numerous other comments I have tried to post have been denied and all were polite, on topic and even limited to the mainstream framework of political discussion. Juan has also repeatedly said that those against the NATO bombing are pro Gaddafi, despite the fact he used to rail against being called pro Saddam when he was against the Iraq war. It’s sad, it used to be one of my favourite blogs, but now I see little reason to visit.

  69. miketherevelator

    27 Aug, 2011 - 6:29 am

    Excellent post, although I do agree with Syd Walker 100%. I’m not sure you were saying they all deserved a NATO attack, but still it was written in a way that that could be perceived. All enemies of the west need to be demonized and once you’ve demonized the religion of an entire vast area, it’s very simple to get the people to believe any leader must by definition be a despot of some kind.
    Of course the truth is that nobody has given NATO, the UN or the USA the job of deciding what regimes need to be changed and then invading those countries and seeing that it happens. Forced regime change for oil is an arogant, evil business, made easier when the leader is ”brutal” and the people begging us for help. But empires always end up on the dark side, natural resources always end up taking priority over human beings, especially when you can BS the population that it’s all humanitarian and will be of great help to the ‘real’ people of that country. If any are left by the time NATO and/or the US get done establishing NO LIVE ZONES with Obama’s beloved drones. People believe what they choose to believe. Juan Cole has bitten so deeply into the Obama apple, his posts anymore are little more than drivel. To still be thinking this is some kind of noble humanitarian operation defies credulity but he is by no means the only “liberal” who sees this as some kind of victory for our side.
    Any reasonable look at what is going on already in Libya that does not take the violence and chaos that most likely lies ahead into account is dishonest. And that more than the drivel is what bothers me about ‘experts’ like Cole.

  70. It’s not good enough to say being a liberal is not easy, etc.

    For those who supported humanitarian intervention by NATO to prevent a massacre of his own citizens by Gaddafi, we now have an endgame that looks like

    a) collective punishment via aerial bombardment by NATO forces
    to be followed by b) ‘rebels’ massacring fellow Libyans

    In other words, rather similar, or worse, than what the original intervention was supposed to prevent.

    It’s clear. NATO should not be believed. The use of humanitarian intervention to justify this was simply a neat way of either forcing those predisposed to dissent to come onside, or to place them in the awkward position of arguing (supposedly) for a massacre of the innocents by a bloodthirsty dictator.

  71. FunkyMonkeyAC

    27 Aug, 2011 - 7:19 am

    The tragedy is that Libya is only the latest country targeted for regime change. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, the U.S./NATO/Israel alliance has other countries selected for regime change including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, Algeria, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Belarus and even Russia (through covert support of opposition groups), being countries that are not aligned with the strategic interests of this alliance. Unfortunately, this globally expanding aggressive militarism is far from over. Just as the militarism of former military powers ended in a world war, similarly it is likely that this globally expanding militarism (which is occurring in conjunction with the U.S./NATO pursuit of nuclear primacy through multi-layered missile architecture and the build-up / expansion of military alliances) will likely result in a conflict that will have profound implications for humanity.

  72. ‘Gaddafi is no saint’ – ‘Oh yes he is’ (July 10th)
    .
    In 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi was demonised more than ever, many people around the world felt an urge to remind the rest of us that “Gaddafi is no saint.”
    Google reported the phrase “Gaddafi is no saint” about 1,580 times. This figure doesn’t encompass the many other spellings of Gaddafi’s name.
    This attempt to bring us to sobriety didn’t quite work for me – in fact it looked ridiculously out of place.
    While there are people who view Gaddafi as a saint, they didn’t participate in the online discussions; they were mostly in Libya, bombed.
    Sainthood is culture dependent. The people who said “Gaddafi is no saint” never indicated their criteria for sainthood: Sunni, Sufi, Christian, or perhaps altogether secular ones? Was anyone a saint in their view?
    And since when did these pundits become interested in sainthood in the first place?
    And if they know a lot, how much they know of Gaddafi in order to judge him? Have they studied his life, or informed themselves from popular journals and TV shows?
    If they were suddenly transported to Tripoli, would they tell the people that their worship of Gaddafi (which is a segment of the Libyan culture) is “wrong”?
    And one more point. In this age, many have forgotten a simple truth:
    Sainthood isn’t about being perfect. It’s about striving for perfection. In other words, you don’t have to be an angel in order to be a saint.*
    .
    If you ask me, I think Gaddafi will be celebrated like a saint for millenia to come. You see, it’s due to the national transformation he led. It’s like the transformations in the film 2001: Space Odyssey. Too powerful, miraculous and positive, not to be retold as a legend.
    .
    (* I borrowed this phrase from another great fighter for Africa, Albert Schweitzer)

    http://out-of-beirut.livejournal.com/3121.html

  73. NATO is frantically ratcheting up the violence, because it is rapidly running out of time. In a fortnight, it runs smack into the tenth anniversary of 9/11. And it’s hand-in-glove with al-Qa’eda! What’s more, the relationship is very well documented, and widely known. Ditto Malcolm Rifkind’s support for al-Qa’eda’s 1996 coup attempt. Not a good place to be.

    There’s also an irony attached to UNSCR 1973. In the year 1973, on 21st February, Israel shot down Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114. This Boeing 727 had gone off course in a sandstorm. When Israeli fighters intercepted it over Sinai, the pilot realised his error, and headed west, away from Israel. But they shot him down, and 108 people died. No action was ever taken against Israel, and the incident is seldom remembered. As British lawyers are currently demanding ten million dollars for each Lockerbie victim, on the basis of a shonky prosecution with bribed witnesses, we can conclude one Libyan life is worth one ten-millionth of an English or American life. Which also explains NATO’s violence.

  74. “If you ask me, I think Gaddafi will be celebrated like a saint for millenia to come. You see, it’s due to the national transformation he led. It’s like the transformations in the film 2001: Space Odyssey. Too powerful, miraculous and positive, not to be retold as a legend.” Levantine.
    .
    A Gaddafi Romance Cycle, possibly. Or ‘Muammar Gaddafi: The Space Opera’?
    .
    On another note, those people who seem incapable of comprehending that Craig Murray was being sarcastic as a means of highlighting NATO/Western hypocrisy (and that it is deeply silly for anyone to read his post as advocating NATO bombing of Bahrain et al) themselves probably need a dose of ‘Space Opera’.
    .
    To reiterate, NATO is engaged in (another) criminal, imperialist war of aggression on behalf its fat-cat elites. Gaddafi is just another ‘Third World’ potentate who has outlived his managerial usefulness to those elites. Oil and Africa: It is a C21st re-make of 1880-90. No need to beatify him, or them, no need for theology. This is politics. Better to quote Machiavelli, rather than Aquinas.

  75. “one Libyan life is worth one ten-millionth of an English or American life.” Bob Jackson.
    .
    Of course. Black, brown and yellow people (unless they’re in the White House or its equivalents; you see, as before, there is a difference the ‘house’ and the ‘field’) are viewed largely as vermin. Nothing new.

  76. See the destruction and mayhem here. The Russian reporter pronounces rebels as rabbles! They have not even the decency to bury the bloated rotting bodies.
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/6/4viPcBmqV00

  77. BBC: ‘Huge problem of public health – with no water or proper sanitation’
    Posted by The Editors on August 27, 2011, 10:54 am

    The West’s Midas touch in reverse, again. Almost beyond belief (and no doubt this is only a tiny, partial glimpse of the reality).

    ‘Most of the fighting in the capital appears to be over. The bigger problem here now is a humanitarian one.

    ‘++This is a city of two million people with no effective political direction or leadership++. The real political leadership and the people who need to take control of the situation are not here and ++practically what that means is that when it comes to resources like water there is none, and there’s hardly any electricity++ – there was a blackout across Tripoli last night and only those hotels or buildings with generators had any power.

    ‘There’s also a huge problem of public health – with ++no water or proper sanitation++ there’s a very difficult issue developing in many parts of the city.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14690119

  78. Well now they own Libya.. even if there is no foreign forces left in Libya, the policies are going to be dictated from afar..Did Libyan think that after letting NATO in they will be allowed to determine their own future? I hope and pray Syria will not go the the same way.

    http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/middle-east/understanding-clinton%E2%80%99s-statement-on-libya-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cwe-own-you%E2%80%9D

  79. For anyone still harbouring the delusion of some kind of popular uprising in Libya look at these scenes of jubilation in “rebel” controlled areas in Tripoli:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/6/4viPcBmqV00

  80. So maybe now Bob Geldof will ‘sing a song for Libya’. Africa is for charity, after all. “Don’t they know it’s Christmastime at all…” Crap.

  81. @Tom Welsh: on the existence of democracy – a very good point. I agree there is no widespread support for the bombing, though I am not sure why there has not been a highly visible British opposition to it. Perhaps most activists inclined against war have been demoralised by – as you say – the 2003 marches being ignored? There are lots of little propaganda lies, of course, but perhaps the Big Lie is missing this time around? Or maybe people feel that the situation under Gaddafi might be worse than Iraq under Hussein? I don’t know – and there are too many opposing arguments about how much support Gaddafi has, or does not have, to make an informed decision.
    .
    In terms of a pure democracy generally, Evgueni and I had a great discussion about this recently, which weaved back and forth between that topic and a fairer economic system. I am fully in favour of more democracy, and generally believe that an improvement in the quality/independence of our media system would go hand-in-hand with improving our democratic enfranchisement.
    .
    > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/why-die-with-money/

  82. Tarig, you give an interesting angle but, I think, to some extent it is misplaced. The Pan Africanism of Nkrumah and Lumumba et al was and is laudable. Africa should unite as a single economic trading block (not a single state) with tariffs, etc., just like the EU has done. But your seeming insistence on alluding to essentialist concepts which seem very close to those of ‘race’ detracts from your argument and almost puts your basic premise in the same bracket as that of White Supremacists in Europe. This type of ideation was used for heinous purposes by bloody dictators like Mobutu and Amin.
    .
    The peoples in Africa are – and always have been – hugely mixed. This applies also to the northern parts of Africa. Goths, Vandals, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Jews… all have been there for hundreds, or even thousands of years and have mixed with Berbers and other groups. What are you going to do, using ‘mitochondria’ or other such nonsense, sort out who is a ‘real’ African down to the fourth generation and boot out all the others? And in any case, what was the ‘original population-type’ of Africa (or Europe, or Asia)? It’s a fool’s errand and will not help the peoples of Africa achieve true self-determination.
    .
    I agree completely about Arab (and Turkish) imperialism, the part played by Arabs and Turks in the slave trade and continuing Arab chauvinism and discrimination. I also agree with you about the malign role played by Islamic Fundamentalism in Africa, including wrt the Copts in Egypt, the attacks on whom are utterly shameful and must be opposed. But the answer to such belligerent tribalism is not to sow yet more tribalism.
    .
    The real enemies of the peoples of Africa are those who wield power in the current criminal global economic system and it is towards the systems developed by these elites – whatever the colour of their skin, whatever their supposed creed, whatever their language or location – that the struggle ought to be directed.

  83. Colin, it is a very good link, and an indication of things to come! Libya and Iraq both have many tribes and as many as 2000 Sub tribes (clans) each, how to unite them and bring them together?? that is not going to be easy!the only difference is that Muslims in Libya are almost all Sunni, therefore no rivalry there. One can only hope.

  84. Furthermore, Tarig, what have got against Palestinians? They are a forced diaspora, many of whom swelter in camps but some of whom have done very well (and good on them). So some of them will work for Western, or pro-Western news outlets. And some will not. Some will be doctors, nurses, teachers, bus drivers. Is there something that irritates you about Palestinians? Do you think that they are going to take over the world? Do they think they ought to continue to be oppressed by Israel?

  85. I think, for the most part, the ‘quality’ of jounalism in the overwhelming number of reports and articles relating to this latest western ‘intervention’ or ‘crusade for freedom’, has been appalling bad. But is that really surprising, we are, after all, fighting abroad against an unpopular tyrant and the political class are, judging from the parliamentary debates, 100% behind this ‘war.’

    It’s perhaps natural that the jounalsists follow the political lead, that is, their role in most situations, isn’t it?

    What’s more troubling is the wretched discontinuity between the level of public scepticism and outright opposition to yet another costly overseas adventure/war, and how little of this opposition is honestly reflected in our media and by our politicians. For example, most, if not all, our newspapers, television stations, and radio programmes, support the aims of the war, virtually without scrutiny or criticism, and supposedly we have a ‘free’ press and a broad spectrum of views are expressed across the political spectrum. But, given the numbers who are against the latest war, for a variety of reasons, where is the TV, newspaper, radio station, that’s on their side?

    Our media give a grossly distorted picture of what’s going on. The impression that the entire world backs the attack on Libya and is cheering from the sidelines. This is the exact opposite of the truth, yet from the UK media, we’d never know this.

    I think our journalists should be honest and wear military uniforms so that everyone can make their own judgements about where they stand and what their role is in wartime, though I suppose this might be giving the game away.

  86. Suhyal, the treatment of Copts in Egypt and attacks.. I have a well informed Coptic friend who is a Journalist , she and many other Copts firmly believe that it is not the Islamist who are attacking the Copts, but the secret police in Egypt, who want to cause problems and divide Muslim and Copts .Apparently when the secret service head office was broken into they found documents regarding the previous attacks on Copts during Hosni’s rule relating to this kind of tactics. To me it sounds quite feasible. Same tactics as in Vietnam! As you said they are shameful and they should be stopped, but stopped by who??

  87. Juan Cole, maybe sincere, but I somehow doubt it. He’s seen how priciples have damaged the careers of other leading academics, and understandably he doesn’t want to become tainted as well.

    In the strange sectarian world of US politics, which reminds one of the serious schism between City and United, being a Democrat or a Republican means a lot, despite the obvious similarities between the two ruling parties, often to the point of them becoming indistinguishable from each other on most substantive issues, when in power. The brazen rhetoric of the campaign trail is only for public consumption and is not to be taken for more than it really is, glossy marketing to create a profile signifying nothing.

    Of course if Obama is virtually identical to Bush, if not worse, then the two-party system breaks down, and a one-party democratic state begins to seem like a puzzling paradox.

  88. Azra, thanks. Very interesting and not surprising – same dynamic in Pakistan and Alegria wrt attacks on civilians. It is usually the work of the security forces.

  89. Algeria, not Alegria!

  90. If Tripoli is under rebel & al Qaeda[1] control for four days already, and NTC is effective (says John Simpson [2]), why is Tripoli still without water & electricity [3]?

    This is the likely answer to my question -

    LibyanLiberal [4] tired and the supplies are cut, we will die all here.we are surrounded and ready to face martyrdom. nato will not get us. nor the rebels.

    LibyanLiberal NATO is planning to exterminate every resist in Tripoli by cutting the water and forcing us to starve and die. if we go out rebels snipes us. [4]

    In reaction, the UN is doing – what?

    Today, 27 August, UN say “reports suggest… the water supply may be in danger.” [5]

    Reports SUGGEST?! most of Tripoli is already without water for days!

    A major genocide of the people of Tripoli is prepared with a cooperation of UN organs.

    [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/26/libya.militants.analysis/index.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgBzZtzqQ_M&feature=feedu

    [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14683319

    [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14691755

    [4] https://twitter.com/#!/LibyanLiberal

    [5]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39396&Cr=Libya&Cr1=

  91. Interesting article by an Indian professor on excellent site, Wikispooks.
    .
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:NATO_destroys_yet_another_country
    .

  92. Oh please.

    We lie to ourselves to reconcile our conscious.

    There were many, seemingly, well reasoned arguments to justify the enslavement of fellow human beings and every other atrocity committed through out history.

    We are committing armed robbery and using mass murder to do it.

    End of.

    “You are either with us or agin us”

    God will judge our silence and self denial, as surely God he will judge those that orchestrate these nefarious and deadly wars that wreck havoc, devastation, death and bereavement against fellow men, women and children.

    The really stupid thing is that the cowardly mases that sell their souls by indulging in the lie, will reap no material benefit from these atrocities only the material costs and who knows, maybe even the wrath of revenge.

  93. I wonder, is the western/nato grand strategy, not so much incompetent, wrong-headed, and counter-productive, in other words – mistaken, but something far, far, worse?

    That the mass destruction, collosal loss of life, and apparent chaos, are, in fact, the aim of the strategy, to destroy as much as possible, kill as many as possible, and effectively ‘Balkanize’ the countries and engtire regions we are attacking, undermining, and occupying?

    Are the Americans and their allies really as stupid as they seem, or are they much worse, deliberately smashing that which they desire to control? Look at Pakistan, for example, here the Americans are adopting a policy which is seemingly designed to tear the coutnry apart or lead to a war with India, which might involve China, and destroy all of them. Is this just a coincidence, or part of a truly vile and criminally insane longterm strategy?

  94. FunkyMonkeyAC

    27 Aug, 2011 - 3:23 pm

    Besides the phenomenon of militarism associated with successive political engineering efforts (regime change), there are also strong parallels with events that led not only to the great depression but more significantly to the last world war. A global economic crisis, significant military build-ups, the expansion and militarisation of opposing (now nuclear armed) alliances, aggressive militarism and gradually globally expanding conflicts. Despite the fact that history seems to be largely repeating, there is little recognition of this situation. The militarism of a different military power is now globally expanding as is the parallel military encirclement of Russia and China with military bases, multi-layered missile architecture, naval forces, militarisation of strategic alliances and the concurrent escalation of tensions over global energy resources and strategic pipeline routes. The dangerous pursuit of nuclear primacy ( the ability to launch a first strike in the event of war and destroy any surviving retaliatory missiles) risks triggering a conflict as Russia and China have stated they will not allow other powers to attain nuclear primacy capabilities.

    “They tell us their missile shield is not aimed against us, but we tell them our calculations show it is aimed against us.” (Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov)

    “This is a decision that has been made. We will not change it.” (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on the alliance’s decision to build multi-layered missile architecture)

    “If they (NATO) do not by the end of the year tell us exactly what they’re planning … we will respond.” (Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin)

    “We are starting to build a deterrent construct that will be better than mutual assured destruction” (U.S. General James E. Cartwright)

    “We will never give any one control over our red button, never……. a NATO decision to go ahead with the missile defence system in its present form, without consulting Moscow, would have serious consequences” (Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin)

    With the parallel expanding efforts to achieve numerous regime changes, targeting successive strategic opponents through military interventions, the expansion of U.S./NATO military bases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the significant U.S. armament of Taiwan, escalating tension in the South China Sea, the impending conflict with Iran (and possibly a regional Middle Eastern war), the probability of eventual conflict with North Korea, the militarisation of energy resource conflicts, and the military encirclement of Russia and China with military bases and multi-layered missile architecture, there is a bigger picture many people do not see yet. If we do not recognise the likely result of current developments, it is unfortunate that within a few years, we probably will.

  95. kevin michael

    27 Aug, 2011 - 4:41 pm

    Funkeymonkey, the concept of history repeating itself, most likely, is true, the same decisions are made, the same inflexible people are in the decision making loop. Yet, i would look further back when the land between the Tigris an Euphrates was in strife, due to it’s soil. i could be wrong, yet the papyrus headlines, (joke), would have been extremely similar to today’s. This seems like a, “no brainer”, to me.
    Today i ran into a concrete wall, it hurt, i will not do it again. This somewhat simplistic, yet running into that wall until some magical new reaction from said wall would be considered…what, courageous, or insane?
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

    please excuse the commas i think i am addicted to them.

  96. kevin michael

    27 Aug, 2011 - 4:45 pm

    me again, i left out an is, must have been knocked out of me when i hit the wall.

    Funkeymonkey, the concept of history repeating itself, most likely, is true, the same decisions are made, the same inflexible people are in the decision making loop. Yet, i would look further back when the land between the Tigris an Euphrates was in strife, due to it’s soil. i could be wrong, yet the papyrus headlines, (joke), would have been extremely similar to today’s. This seems like a, “no brainer”, to me.
    Today i ran into a concrete wall, it hurt, i will not do it again. This (IS) somewhat simplistic, yet running into that wall until some magical new reaction from said wall would be considered…what, courageous, or insane?
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

    please excuse the commas i think i am addicted to them.

  97. exiledlondoner

    27 Aug, 2011 - 5:46 pm

    Kingfelix,
    .
    I assume you were replying to my earlier post…
    .
    It’s not good enough to say being a liberal is not easy, etc.
    .
    I know it isn’t – problem is, I don’t know what would be good enough. If anyone can tell me the good enough liberal position, I’d be delighted to hear it.
    .
    For those who supported humanitarian intervention by NATO to prevent a massacre of his own citizens by Gaddafi, we now have an endgame that looks like
    .
    a) collective punishment via aerial bombardment by NATO forces to be followed by b) ‘rebels’ massacring fellow Libyans
    .
    In other words, rather similar, or worse, than what the original intervention was supposed to prevent.
    .
    I’m not going to oppose your counter-factual assertions with some of my own – I don’t know what would have happened if there had been no intervention, other than it’s pretty certain Gaddafi would still be there.
    .
    I, and many like me, didn’t support NATO intervention, and don’t support much of what has been done, but if you turn the debate on its head and ask me if I think Gaddafi should have been left to do his worst, then the answer is still no….

  98. Suhayl Saadi, “same dynamic in Pakistan and Algeria wrt attacks on civilians. It is usually the work of the security forces.”

    Indeed, see here for details of Algerian state infiltration/utilisation of the GIA ‘terrorist’ group

  99. booneavenueboy

    27 Aug, 2011 - 6:26 pm

    You say, “I have met Gaddafi. He really is nuts and dangerous.” What evidence do you have for this diagnosis? I have run into a number of similar allegations on the Web in regard to Gaddafi’s “psychosis” but no one is able to back up these claims. Where is your evidence?

  100. @Writeon, Cheebacow,

    It was posted:-

    “I have been very disappointed with the limited range of views he allows in his comments section. The lack of free discussion has caused me to lose a lot of respect for his work”

    Juan Cole posted ten points against Gadaffi and this prompted me to respond to him. The first post was accepted. He gave a riposte and thereafter I set out to identify his errors in what he posted. I tried some 4 or 5 times to post but was blocked.

    I then published my views elsewhere and a US Professor picked up on what I said, posted elsewhere and gave my post a little mileage.

    So far as Cole and his blog and ideas are concerned, I can safely say this:-

    1. He does not permit fair and honest exchanges ( as does Craig Murray).
    2. He seems to fit within the camp of “liberal interventionists” – and in that camp there is no compunction about breach of sovereignty – - and like many on the right the “humanitarian”, “democracy” and “freedom” arguments are relied on to justify the illegality under international law violations. I believe I am fair and accurate in saying that Cole is within this camp.
    My views on him have changed and I must now question his political ( if not academic) bona fides.

  101. After Iraq, I’ll admit it, I’m extremely unwilling to believe a word from the mouths of our politicians about foreign affairs, and that goes double for our supposedly independent and free media. So, my mode is sceptism from the very beginning. I’m not prepared to believe anything without some kind of independent, neutral, evidence, especially connected with regime change.

    If one looks at the language surrounding the attack on Libya, it stinks of classic war hysteria and propaganda, rumours, accusations, bias, exaggerations, and hypocracy.

    Knowing, as Gaddafi did, that the west wanted to overturn his regime, and almost any excuse was enough, the idea that he’d commit ‘genocide’ in Benghazi, giving his enemies precisely the ammunition they needed to topple him from power, is highly unlikely. Gaddafi may have been a lot of things, but he wasn’t stupid, he didn’t survive for so long by being a fool.

    The hard evidence that Gaddafi was contemplating genocide in Benghazi is virtually non-existant, though their is a lot of wild speculation about what he might have done at some point in the future, exactly like Iraq and their WMDs.

    As far as I can assertain the stories about; mass rape, massacres, bombing civilians, exections, genocide… are all sourced from either the rebels or those nations directly involved in the plan to change the regime in Libya. That is the belligerents themselves, would that alone cause one to pause and reflect and wonder about their veracity, especially after Iraq?

    What also disturbs me, and I do consider myself a conservative, is that so many on what is termed the ‘left’ and ‘liberals’ don’t seem to mind that we’ve been led to war on raft of lies, as long as the result is right. The end justifying the means. How moral is that?

    And what about our democratic institutions? They’ve failed yet again to hold our political leaders up to robust scrutiny and accountability. Aren’t these seemingly endless wars undermining our democracy from within?

    As a conservative I also no longer recognise the party my family helped to build. It seems like a cult, a war cult, is inside it. Brutal, jovial brownshirts, who normally have no time for foreigners and overseas aide, yet suddenly they are roaring democrats, willing to use hundreds of millions fighting wars for Arabs, and sending our soldiers into harms way. It seems profoundly contradictory, confused, and frankly non-sensical. But war, any war, seems to get them off. Narrow-minded Tories, nationalists, suddenly become champions of internationalism and radical opponents of foreign tyrants.

    But their oppositon to tyranny is so selective. What about the foreign tyrannies we are allied with?

    And it isn’t just these very perculiar Tories, it’s vast swathes of ‘liberal’ opinion as well, and even sections of the mainsstream ‘left’ supports these wars, trashing international law in the process, and they don’t seem to mind, as long as the result is right, never mind the means employed. It’s disturbing.

    It’s as if one is watching the evolution of a new variant of fascism that everyone can support, or at least some part of it, but where does it all end?

  102. I hope people will take an active interest in the current plight of independent journalists, still stranded in Tripoli. They have been incarcerated in a rebel-controlled Hotel in Tripoli since leaving the Hotel Rixos with other (mainstream) journalists a few days ago. Their version of events in Libya is markedly different from the mainstream consensus. Before incarceration, they reported on death threats from some of the mainstream journos.

    Public pressure might get them out – and their voice is bad needed now. Needless to say, it’s not a cause that’s been taken up by mainstream media.

    See

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinhOEkOB84
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26164
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26205
    http://www.voltairenet.org/Voltaire-Network-denounces-attempt

  103. @Clark (26 August 2011)

    Remember the 2009 disturbances in Iran when the BBC used footage from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally claiming the participants were pro-Mousavi supporters?
    .
    It did later admit to the error, but after others pointed it out – see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/what_really_happened.html

  104. SJB, thanks for the link. Any idea when the video from India was made? If they’ve shown archive footage instead of the latest video from Libya, that’s harder to pass off as a mistake.

  105. Woyzeck on the Island

    27 Aug, 2011 - 10:34 pm

    Sir:
    ‘There is no cause to doubt that, for whatever reason, the support of the people of Sirte for Gadaffi is genuine.’

    ‘No cause’ at all?

    For how long did Tripolitanians tell telephone callers that ‘everything is fine, the situation is normal’?

    Would it not be reasonable at this stage for Sirte loyalists to surrender?

  106. Booneavenueboy: “I have run into a number of similar allegations on the Web in regard to Gaddafi’s “psychosis” but no one is able to back up these claims. Where is your evidence?”
    .
    From what I gather, it seems to be a very common impression amongst people who’ve met him. In the absence of an independent psychiatric report, anecdotes are all we have (e.g., this from John Simpson – http://tinyurl.com/46sx6bd ). There are numerous reports that Ghaddafi cycles between moments of lucidity and periods of schizophrenic irrationality, sometimes drug-assisted.
    .
    The impression seems virtually unanimous, even amongst people who worked for him. Of course it’s all anecdotal. Ghadaffi apologists can rationalise any example away as a product of concerted propaganda, or catching him on an off-day, or it all being a clever ruse, or whatever. Fair enough. But you demand only absolute proof will do, don’t forget it cuts both ways. Arguing that Ghadaffi must be sane because his government did some sensible things amongst the brutality doesn’t clear the evidence bar either: many alternative explanations are just as plausible. In the end your opinion will probably be derived from your wider political sympathies. The matter is well worth debating, as long as we don’t spit contempt at people with a different personal view (that cuts both ways, too!).

  107. To balance that up: the flipside of ‘Ghaddafi apologist’ is ‘NATO apologist’. Most people are neither, just sceptical of reports that don’t fit their world-view.

  108. Woyzeck on the Island

    27 Aug, 2011 - 11:17 pm

    @Writeon:

    Why would Gaddafi have refrained from razing Benghazi after having done precisely that to Az-Zawiyah?

  109. First of all, Nextus, just about every enemy of the UK and USA at one time or another has been called ‘insane’. Most of the time, they were unlikely to have been clinically insane. Secondly, even if we accept for a moment the claims about Gaddafi, even the ex-senior CIA psychologist interviewed recently on BBC Radio 4 said he thought that Gaddafi was not psychotic but that he had bordeline personality disorder, something which many people in society have, including some in high positions in the UK. Thirdly, your use of the term “schizophrenic” is not clinically accurate. Schizophrenia has a very specific set of diagnostic criteria. It would be extremely difficult, in my experience, to see how a person with the disease, schizophrenia (a very disabling illness) would be capable of leading a country outside of, say, a hereditary monarchy (sort of Caligula-style, or Ottoman Emperor-style) – and Gaddafi did not inherit his power or his regime. It may well be that some of our senior politiians – Tony Blair, for example – have ‘borderline personality disorder’. I’d say it’s likely that Blair is a psychopath. Many in senior positions are clever psychopaths – that is how they get there.
    .
    Gaddafi was a dictator and was clearly very clever and ruthless and also somewhat eccentric. The eccentricity may have been possibly partly an aspect of his personality, partly for performative reasons, partly because absolute power corrupts absolutely and partly because that was how he developed his cult of personality.
    .
    Of course, if organisations can be said to have psychologies (a dubious proposition), then NATO is a ranking psychopath. Id NATO were a person, it would be in Broadmoor or Carstairs, sharing a cell with Ian Brady.

  110. It is a tragedy of many on the so-called liberal left that so preoccupied are they with their stuggle against the evils of the capitalist west / globalisation / bourgeois democracy, that they cannot bring themselves to care in the slightest for the basic human rights of the Libyan people.

  111. @ Nick,

    You say:-
    “It is a tragedy of many on the so-called liberal left that so preoccupied are they with their stuggle against the evils of the capitalist west / globalisation / bourgeois democracy, that they cannot bring themselves to care in the slightest for the basic human rights of the Libyan people.”
    So, with Gadaffi, there was peace , prosperity, a considerable measure of progress from the coup in 1969 when King Idris was overthrown, and the accomplishment of the highest standard of living on the African continent and in the Arab world ( check the CIA factbook and UN stats on this). All this I state as fact, and would not seek to deny any similarly facts stated about Gadaffi’s failings. However, the operative word is “fact” and not “fabrications”.
    So – “It is a tragedy of many on the so-called liberal left that so preoccupied are they with their stuggle against the evils of the capitalist west / globalisation / bourgeois democracy,…”
    And where does the support for regime change come from to access the oil, water resources and gold bullion and banked money of Libya?
    Surely – by focusing on the prime movers of the US and NATO staged “rebellion” and “humanitarian bombing” it is a very short step to viewing the consequences of the consequential human tragedy that is unfolding and will continue to unfold.

  112. FunkyMonkeyAC

    28 Aug, 2011 - 1:57 am

    @Nick Reeves.
    The intervention in Libya has very little to do with human rights. If this was the case why are Saudi Arabia and Bahrain not subject to military intervention to achieve regime change? The intervention in Libya is and was always about regime change to remove yet another political opponent of western powers and pursue strategic objectives and commercial interests in Libya. This military interventionism will not stop with Libya. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya are only parts of a far larger picture. Unfortunately, many do not recognise the implications of regime change efforts particularly targeting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Korea or the parallel military encirclement of Russia and China and preparations for war with these nations……

    “US State Department cables released by WikiLeaks have unveiled secret NATO plans for a US-led war against Russia over the Baltic states.” (WikiLeaks Cable Exposes NATO War Plan Against Russia, by Bill Van Auken, December 9, 2010) [and]

    “Attempts to expand the military infrastructure of NATO near the borders of our country are continuing.” (Russia orders large-scale rearmament, ABC News, 17/03/2009) [and]

    “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” [Vladimir Putin]
    (US- NATO Missile Deployments directed against Russia: Putin Prepares For War, by Mike Whitney, January 5, 2011) [and]

    “According to the defense trade press, Pentagon officials are seeking ways to adapt a concept known as AirSea Battle specifically for China, debunking rote claims from Washington that it has no plans to thwart its emerging Asian rival. A recent article in Inside the Pentagon reported that a small group of U.S. Navy officers known as the China Integration Team is hard at work applying the lessons of [AirSea Battle] to a potential conflict with China.” (The Pentagon’s new China war plan
    Despite budget woes, the military is preparing for a conflict with our biggest rival — and we should be worried, By Stephen Glain, Saturday, Aug 13, 2011)…..

    The pursuit of global strategic enhancement, nuclear primacy and hegemony through aggressive and expanding militarism has a largely predictable outcome. Do you know what it is? As Albert Einstein ominously warned, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

  113. @ FunkyMonkey,

    You say:-

    “Unfortunately, many do not recognise the implications of regime change efforts particularly targeting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Korea or the parallel military encirclement of Russia and China and preparations for war with these nations……”

    I agree, and this man seems to connect some dots from the domestic US political landscape, which one can see leads into the global landscape as you have correctly stated.

    http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/196100.html

    What is interesing here is that those who like to label and disregard by resort to the phrase ” conspiracy theory” will forever have difficulty with accurate facts and logically presented analysis.

  114. @FunkyMonkeyAC

    You say:
    “If this was the case why are Saudi Arabia and Bahrain not subject to military intervention to achieve regime change?”

    Your obvious preoccupation with conspiracy theories leads you to ignore history.

    In Saudi Arabia and Bahrain the Arab League has not requested UN intervention. This was the final pre-requisite for the UN/NATO intervention in Libya. Without it – no intervention was ever going to happen. Don’t make the common mistake that Libya is Iraq is Afghanistan. Not true when you look at it even a little closely.

  115. @Courtenay

    You make the mistake of comparing the Gaddafi economy of Libya to the pitiful economies of African states when you should be comparing it to other Arab states. When you do that you’ll quickly see that the Gaddafis have stolen the birthright of the Libyan people and used it to foment terrorism and revolt in Africa Europe and the World and to buy the African Union for his megalomaniacal desire to be Africa’s “King of Kings”

    The standard of living in Libya could easily be equal to that of other oil-rich Arab states. Ask yourself why there are billions in frozen assets stashed all over the world when education is limited to the basics of the Green Book – please read it if you can – and where if the prisons are filled with political protesters they are massacred to make way for more as in 1997 in Abu Salim.

    By taking this stance you also make the delightful Mathaba your bedfellow. Enjoy !! :

    http://mathaba.net/

  116. Nick Reeves, absolutely agreed. Not once have these “liberals” thought about the people themselves…

    It’s interesting to read all these “anti-imperialist” vs “neo-imperialist” comments, all this spin about “liberal intervention” and whatnot…when I seriously doubt that any of you have ever actually spoken to a significant enough number of Libyans, nor have lived in Libya long enough to make a sound, reliable judgement on what life is really like there.

    Yes, NATO– or some other Satanic force in the background, whom we are probably subconsciously very aware of– have ulterior motives behind this intervention. What they’re after, I’m not quite sure to be honest– because if it’s oil, they already had a significant number of deals in Libya from before, many of which were very successful deals too.

    Yet, despite whatever dark forces may be pulling the strings on this intervention, you cannot deny the fact that the Libyan people NEEDED it, and ASKED for it. Without any outside help, the population of Libya would probably exist no more. Gaddafi is a ruthless, bloodthirsty despot; once the people turned against him, there was no turning back at all.

    Hmmm I also completely disagree about the suggestion that Gaddafi brought good things to Libya in the form of education and healthcare etc. The education system is a shambles– changes are made to the curriculum literally every 6 months, and never bearing successful results! Healthcare is also poorly managed and of dubious quality, with relatively decent healthcare provided at ridiculously high costs. As a result, many Libyans prefer to travel abroad to Tunisia or Jordan for a lot of their health-related issues, evidence of the lack of reliability in the Libyan system and the lack of trust in it.

    Yes these services were provided by him– but all these values provided by WHO/WDB about Libya having high levels of this and that are merely statistics. Not once do they mention the actual quality of such services provided. It’s one thing to say that healthcare is free– but another thing to say that it’s decent and doesn’t pose a risk to your own welfare!

    I feel like I’ve already rambled on too much, but I’d like to go back to the first point: about what Libyans feel. For 42 years Libyans have had their human rights suppressed, their political freedom strangled, and the expression of their liberal thoughts denied.

    Under the Gaddafi rule, only one thing goes: and that’s Gaddafi himself.

    These “rebels” which a lot of people speak ill of are not terrorists or “NATO mercenaries”. They’re normal, educated civilians…your average Joe; men and women, young and old, who are desperately fighting for their freedom.

    The rebels are not idiots– they know who they’re dealing with. They know how much they’ll have to owe NATO, and that this “contract” is a long-binding one. All these “services” are not being provided for free– the money spent on sorties and other various missions will be repaid. Although Sirte is primarily pro-Gaddafi, it is an essential political goal– yet you cannot claim that NATO is bombing the city indiscriminately, as pro-G forces are retaliating with both Grad and SCUD missiles. Furthermore, the majority of the city is composed of Gaddafi’s lackeys, without find of a better word; people who are financially motivated by his existence. How the normal citizens feel, we don’t know– under his presence, they’ve not been able to freely express their own thoughts without influence.

    Thus the liberation of Sirte from the Gaddafi regime is absolutely pivotal. Otherwise, the entire revolution will be invalidated, and the seeds of Gaddafi will spread once again.

    Despite, whatever misgivings you may have about NATO, globalisation, neo-imperialism etc, and the ominous undertones that they give this revolution, I implore on you: could you not think, at least for a moment, about the people themselves? About how they truly feel?

    Because for the people of Libya, it is not simply a matter of protesting or not. It is truly a matter of life and death. And if they do not fight, they WILL die.

  117. On a quick note about the media:

    Though I may be classed as biased, I can assure you, that despite the media washing over the news with their own tones of prejudice, the majority of the information being conveyed out of Libya are verified facts…there are a few discrepancies here and there, but that’s only natural in an environment of war.

    Events conveyed by Western media so far have matched the witness reports of reliable sources from within the country. Remember: what the people see, is what is actually happening to them! Not what the media wants you to believe is happening…

  118. I’m getting to the point where I suspect Craig of being torn with undoubted sympathy for the oppressed against a yearning for things to be different….and confidence it won’t happen.
    But we do seem to have escaped the worst of ‘echo chamber’ responses with a varied number of citations which seem worth exploring….which is what a political blog is about.
    My latest foray : http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/08/26-august-reviewing-narrative.html

  119. FunkyMonkeyAC

    28 Aug, 2011 - 4:03 am

    @OzNeil
    You have little understanding of geo-strategic realities but please feel free to dismiss this assessment as you almost certainly will. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong and it is likely that we won’t have to wait too long. In the meantime, feel free to believe whatever makes you feel better.

  120. The feisty zionist neocon double-speakers look like Gollum every time someone turn in the light on the room. Please bring more light.
    .
    Their main media psyop, CNN, is running a global campaign against Slavery in the breaks of “reporting” from Libya.
    .
    Freedom is slavery.

  121. FreeLibyan, thanks for providing that important – crucial – perspective. As I’ve said before, I think a lot of concern centres around precisely how the Libyan people will free themselves from the likely new yoke of Western capital, backed by NATO’s military presence. The West will not just walk away and allow the Libyan people to get on with it. If one set of rebel leaders subsequently opposes NATO/the West, might NATO not then destroy them so as to have a puppet in place? We shall see. I realise the Libyan people know what they want. But so do the Bahraini people, etc. and Western-backed monarchies, aided by Pakistani troops, crushed them with extreme violence. How, precisely, do Libyans think they can avoid de facto recolonisation/neocolonisation? This is crucial, because one or both of these represent the likely tactical aims of the West. The West (meaning, those who run the West) never wants anything good for Africa or the ‘Middle East’. I wish the Libyan people all the very best for the future. Gaddafi was a violent, oppressive dictator and getting rid of his regime is a good thing. But what will the price be? Apart from the vast quantities of blood shed by Libyans, which I hope will not be in vain. Let us hope they gain true independence, freedom of thought and action and self-determination.
    .
    Incidentally, re. the education system’s constant changes, this reminds me a little of what’s happened to the education system in the UK over the past several decades.

  122. This is from the website of a pal of mine, Raza Rumi, journalist and editor based in Pakistan:
    .

    http://criticalppp.com/archives/42347
    .
    The Fauji Foundation is the Pakistani military’s economic nexus – a great force for evil.
    .
    There is also a copied-and-pasted piece by Robert Fisk in the ‘Comments’ section and copies of adverts (in Urdu) for mercenaries. There are some links to other articles as well.
    .
    All of this activity has the blessing and support of the West (ignore the lip-service). Where now are Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama? Where now are ‘human rights’. Human bullshit.

  123. Syd Walker, independent journalists were deliberately targeted and murdered by US forces in Iraq. No surprise, then, that their lives are being threatened again. Thanks for the links. This should be a major media story. That it is not, says it all.

  124. Well said. This current affair reminds me of the level of depravity recently shown by France in Haiti; just because the Hatians were demanding reparations France plots a coup against Aristide. I wonder how quickly and in what form we are all going to feel the fallout from the trashing of international and domestic law?

  125. NO Legitimacy For Foreign Regime Change

    I strongly believe that NO honorable country should recognized the rebels at all now or ever.

    The NTC is a puppet of the looting West who are scrambling for oil and “humanitarian” and “rebuilding” contracts.

    Although all people must reject tyranny; but bringing credible change to Libya or anywhere cannot be done under the leadership of wicked NATO, Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron, Gulf Emirs, and Islamist and terrorist mercenaries.

    The so-called Arab Spring is a naked and ugly illegitimate regime change against carefully selected corrupt regimes in the Arabia and in North Africa regions.

    If any state recognizes and legitimizes such take over then that is a universal approval of foreign intervention and unlawful use of force to install whoever in power.

    The war in Libya is between two evils. The bigger devil is NATO, Islamists, and Gulf Emirs coalition against the lesser devil of the tyrant and colonizer Gaddafi regime. I wish both of them to go to deepest hell. But first let the lesser evil inflict huge damages and humiliation on the bigger devil.

  126. Suhayl: “… your use of the term “schizophrenic” is not clinically accurate.” Actually I wasn’t intending to imply a formal diagnosis with that word; I was using it informally as an adjective — like using the word “manic” to describe somebody who’s merely excited (or excitable). I was tempted to use the term “schizoid” (which some people construe as “like a schizophrenic”) but as you know schizoid p.d. has very different characteristics — which Gaddafi definitely doesn’t exhibit.)
    .
    By coincidence, I’ve been writing about the schizophrenia controversy this week. Since you raised the question, I’d chip in that it’s quite not as clear cut as you imply, and I would cautioning against stigmatising it so. Many people diagnosed as schizophrenic are holding down jobs (even as mental health workers), studying postgrad degrees etc. — mostly with the assistance of antipsychotics. I’ve found such people difficult to handle in counselling sessions because of their unpredictability and variable hostility to scepticism. Their akathisia can also be very distracting, even disconcerting. I note similar traits in descriptions of Gaddafi’s demeanour—but, like you, I would caution against diagnosing remotely on anecdotal evidence.
    .
    As I’m sure you’re well aware, if you read the BMJ, there are plenty of senior psychiatrists and clinical psychologists who deny the validity of the schizophrenia construct altogether, and thus are reluctant to diagnose it.

    While it’s possible that Gaddifi might meet the minimal criteria for schizophrenia, I prefer to reserve the diagnosis for severe cases with a suspected neurogenic etiology; I think that’s unlikely to apply in Gaddafi’s case. I reckon the power concentration has exaggerated his eccentricities, because they are not subject to normalising constraints (who would have the courage?). He seems significantly further down the line than Mugabe. (I’d question b.p.d., though — it’s associated with lack of validation.) However, I’m still fine with using the adjective “schizophrenic” informally as a descriptor rather than a diagnosis. Even that infamous weegie antipsychiatrist R.D. Laing allowed for an adjectival use of the term — definitely without diagnosing an illness.

  127. Saurette de Montrond

    28 Aug, 2011 - 12:37 pm

    Getting back to the original line of commentary – the acceptance by an educated populace of wars of conquest, under the guise of humanitarian support for “democracies”. First, it should be understood that the Western Democracies (USA, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc., etc., etc.) are “democracies” in name only. Where you have news media conglomerates whose internal culture stifles accurate journalism, there is no “fourth estate” to inform voters of sufficient facts to enable them to then become: “informed voters”. Hence, corruption explodes exponentially, in the courts at home, as well as in foreign affairs abroad. Secondly, voting results are fraudulently tabulated. Those who are not aware of the techniques utilized have been successfully deluded. So, to echo the brilliant comment posted by Syd Wall, but now in the context of “NATO is promoting democracy in Libya,” let me say as he does: “If I hear this argument put one more time I think I may scream.” But regarding the ease with which almost everyone rationalizes the necessity for ‘destroying the village in order to save it’…. I see at the root a moral vacuum, which is actually less a vacuum than a festering, deep and maggot-filled sore, taking the place in our consciences where our collective soul once lived. Blow up another child.

  128. Suhayl; thanks for noticing my view of the matter.

    Pointing to the invading and colonizing Arabs and Europeans to North Africa is not tribalism. It is a simple nationalism. All imperial nations hypocritically portray nationalism as xenophobic, leftish, racist and many other fabricated accusations. They do so while they are really sick at their homes. I am not a Pan Africanist and I oppose any mega state; I would rather say “Small Is Beautiful” and fair unity of the willing is helpful. Having said so, I am still an Africanist.

    Tiny corrupt and criminal leaders in Africa are almost all the make Western rotten banks and corporations. The list is just too long to write here.

    The presence of foreigners in any country and any continent is very acceptable, most welcome and naturally helpful. Any individual regardless of any of his/her attributes or origin might become a citizen once he/she integrates his/her heart; mind and interest with any indigenous/native group. This applies only to individuals and not to groups who try to create foreign ghettos. If an individual is unwilling to integrate sincerely it is very ok; but he/she will remain a refugee; a contract worker; or a residing alien indefinitely. This is the problem of the USA; Canada; Australia; North Africa; and all other old colonies.

    Citizenship and nationality are not inherited but acquired. They are legal contracts with duties and rights. Even if a person is from pure native origin, which is impossible, he/she must maintain the qualifying heart; mind and interests.

    Thanks for agreeing on imperialism; slavery; and globalism. I add to this list the Federal Reserve System/Banks of the USA.
    Once again, tribalism is not evil at all unless it is misused like any other matter.

    I always find parallels and similarities between the common Israelis with the common Palestinians, and I have no problems with both; I even consider them one nation. But I have a lot of authentic information to condemn both Jewish Zionists and Islamist Hamas; and I consider them dangers to Africa and to World peace and development. Al-Jazeera TV is one of their joint enterprises.

  129. @ OZneil,

    You say:-

    “@Courtenay

    You make the mistake of comparing the Gaddafi economy of Libya to the pitiful economies of African states when you should be comparing it to other Arab states. When you do that you’ll quickly see that the Gaddafis have stolen the birthright of the Libyan people and used it to foment terrorism and revolt in Africa Europe and the World and to buy the African Union for his megalomaniacal desire to be Africa’s “King of Kings” ”

    The stats that I referenced on hte standard of living in Libya under Gadaffi are not mine. One source was the CIA Factbook. The other was the United Nations.

    Further, it is one thing to take gross numbers and then ignore skewed distribution. Where the general average is of a high standard, such as access to health care, education and housing, then you have a better comparative measure. Check what you posted in comparistion to the Gulf States and Arab world in general.

    The billions in banks do not automatically equate to what you imply. Where is a nation to keep funds – if not as soverign savings. The issue here is:-

    i) A peace-keeping force of NATO actively supporting, bombing and then advancing the cause of regime change.

    ii) Overninght finding a so-called National Transitional council to support – then freezn gLibya’s national funds to disburse to the appointed group.

    These are the types of factors I see operating in this NATO advanced coup.

  130. Suhayl; off course it quite clear to nay body that Spaniard and the Basques are not natives to Argentina and Mozambique!
    It is very ease to know who are the indigenous peoples in any country; but is very hard to admit that they are the legitimate custodians of the land.

  131. A friend of mine has relatives in Libya, relatives who up until January this year had happy lives, were being educated, well fed and were living side by side with many racial and religious groups in as much harmony as one can expect these days in any country. Libya had its social problems and a “strange” leadership, but people were happy, non violent and certainly not starving or being subjected to brutality. One thing I do find very sad is out of perhaps 40 people I know in London. I am the only one who ever starts a conversation about us as a war mongering Nation and that is it us the public, who actually support and pay for NATO to break other human lives, whilst we sip our beers and watch our SKY 3D. I am talking about musicians, artists, dancers, teachers, scientists, you could say a cross section of what most people would describe as “free thinkers” but they are not. I feel there is no hope of real questions being raised here in the UK about our part in not just this, but our total lack of empathy as a nation, for any human outside of our borders being subjected to daily and nightly bombings, security checks and fear. I’d probably go to prison for saying this and too be honest I could probably do more good “inside” with a captive audience, many of whom have been incarcerated due to their lack of education and knowledge of the law but…. If London were bombed from the night sky for 12 hours, just once, it would actually do some good for the other people of the world, as empathy can spread as quickly as flu. Imagine writing that the only way you could see a public outcry as to our actions and that of our Government and NATO who we pay for, would be to know whats it’s like to be on the receiving end of a night of real terror. So come on the Rothschilds, come on the Israeli’s, come on NATO, come on Obama, come on Blair, Cameron, come on the UN, I dare you to actually bomb people who would fight back, who would hunt you down and who still have enough personal wealth left to mobilize, react and start the process of change we all need. Apart from a false flag terroist attack coming, we will never feel the fear we subject others too, I am disgusted with my fellow Brit, American, German, French and Italian (Have I missed anyone?) sleeping fat ignorant, mind controlled, drug addled, drunk, ill educated worker drones and “takers”. But I have it on very good faith that there will be only 1 in 20 of us left by 2016, let’s hope that 1 in 20 can sew, farm, fish, hunt or that 1 in 20 will be held in a slavery by those who hold the food reserves, medicine and power. An uprising ? No chance. throw a few toys out of your pram, get drunk and go back to work on Monday and talk about X factor and Eastenders, because that’s all that is understood. Pathetic Human bacteria, where’s the dettol ???

  132. Oil wealth kept Moammar in power, but Big Oil could not allow it to be not under their control. After successful liberation of oil in Iraq it was time to turn attention to Libya. Not impossible that it was agreed to divvy up Iraq goes to Americans, if Europe (UK, Fr & Italy) will get Libya its yours.
    The danger of success is that there is more oil in desperate need to be liberated, watch out Venezuela.
    Never thought that I will be looking forward to China’s becoming powerful. Lets hope that before embarking on the next adventure US and vassals will have to ask for permission in Beijing.

  133. @ Gilgamesh,

    In addition to what you observe, if one were to modify Ron Paul’s speech, then there are lessons here to be learned by the UK:-

    http://mathaba.net/news/?x=628367

  134. Thanks, Tarig, for taking the time to reply so constructively. I see where you’re coming from now, argument-wise, I mean.
    .
    Incidentally, just to clarify, my mention of ‘Spanish’ in the context of Africa referred not to modern C19th/C20th colonists, but largely to the ‘Andalusians’ (probably mixed Berber-Arab-Vandal-Visigoth, etc.) who have lived in northern Africa since the so-called ‘Reconquista’ came to a conclusion during the period, 1492-1614.
    .
    Of course, who could say that Che Guevara (say) was not fully South American? And of course, you’ve answered that in the excellent quote below:
    .
    “Citizenship and nationality are not inherited but acquired. They are legal contracts with duties and rights”, and “Even if a person is from pure native origin, which is impossible, he/she must maintain the qualifying heart; mind and interests.” Tarig.
    .
    I agree completely.
    .
    To take one other example, the tension b/w those of South Asian origin and Africans in East Africa during the post-colonial period was far from one-sided. South Asians often had – and still have – a disgraceful attitude towards black Africans/African Caribbeans, which is unreconstructedly racist (the average attitude being far worse than the attitudes of most contemporary whites). They were put there in late C19th/early C20th by the Imperial British, as ‘middlemen’ in the idiotic caste system/social class/’race’ system used by various rulers in various places to control populations. Now, what Idi Amin (for example) did was completely wrong and also was damaging to Uganda; and of course, we know that Amin, as well as being a bloody dictator who killed enormous numbers of African people, was also (yet another) British stooge. But, as people like (the originally Ugandan) Yamsin Alibhai-Brown have written (and performed on-stage in her excellent one-woman show), we must accept that what happened in Kenya (not ‘Keeenya’, as most South Asians irritatingly still insist on calling it, as though it were still the 1950s) and Uganda didn’t come from nowhere.

  135. Courtenay, I will surely look at the video, thanks for the link. I can’t at the moment because I am using an internet connection that doesnt allow youtube vids, yes you read that right in the UK I can’t access a youtube vid. I am however sitting here watching sky sports 1 free, via my x-box using a t-mobile dongle.. you may ask what’s the relevance to this. I shall explain. T mobile provide 2gb month for £15, when you have used your 2gb (1 gb from April 2011 but I have an older SIM card) you can access emails, posts etc but can stream or download. So you may ask how can I watch Sky Sports 1, a paid for subscribed channel that you need streaming internet to watch. I have noticed that certain “entertainment” can still be watched whether you have credit or not, in fact, all sky sports, all Sky films, the BBC and Fox news, the main protaginists for global propoganda. So I can sit and watch drivel and sports for free, but not watch possibly the most important opposition in modern times share his thoughts with us. I stopped watching TV and hollywood films a while ago, last night I sat down and decided to watch X factor then big brother. I am a self educated, free thinking person who made a choice to watch these 2 terrible broadcasts, however within minutes I felt lethargic, slow, and they held my concentration… amazing ! Much like the football I’m watching is now (I like football, the actual game that is…) but the content I could have written for you in both shows, having studied a bit of NLP and having previously worked in sales, finance, media and tourism in my life, I recognise the same repetitive tactics, the same Subliminal content and indeed the same processess I used to employ, as a “successfull” magician capable of talking you out of your savings. I don’t need to fill in the dots here. If we truly want change then the network of media and telecomms needs to be dismantled. The only way I can put my feelings on this into words is this.

    Imagine you are an over weight, slightly below average intelligence, 9 yr old girl. Sitting in front of the TV in the UK, looking at the amazing “creatures” with their slim bodies, lovely clothes, smiling faces and seemingly untold riches, you look around your home, at your Mother who is probably the spitting image of you, you look around and then at yourself, then back to the TV. Would you still feel human? Your brain being hit constantly by images and messages that make you feel fat, stupid and alienated. There is only one possible outcome to this situation and we all know what it is. That 9 yr old girl is already dead. It makes me very very sad.

  136. Mextus, yes of course psychiatry is a hocus-pocus art (not a science) and there is much controversy over the whole of it, including over ‘schizophrenia’. I’m certainly not impuning people with the condition. But I didn’t use the word, you did, in relation to Gaddafi. So if it’s a debunked concept, why use it at all? If you just want to say that he is ‘eccentric’ or ‘bizarre’ or ‘unpredictable’ or ‘like a stoned rock star’, then maybe it’s better to use these sorts of descriptive terms rather than medical ones (which imply a presumptive diagnosis). Whether or not R.D Laing “allowed” (how good of him) for its use “adjectively” is another matter. R. D. Laing himself is an interesting subject for study, esp. wrt his professed beliefs versus his treatment of his own family. If you want to call someone ‘schizophrenic’ in the context of them being a national leader, then really you ought to be able to back it up with symptoms, etc.
    .
    Another of my points was that ascribing mental illness to ‘enemy leaders’ is a common propaganda pastime of elites in the UK, USA, etc., the subtext being that ‘to oppose us is madness’. In that regard, if even the senior psychologist with the CIA (retired) states on the MSM, when asked, in a leading way, by the BBC’s Eddie Mair whether he though that Gaddafi was “deluded”, can reply that no, he did not think that and that (he thought) that “he is rational more often than not” but that he may well have a “borderline personality disorder” (admittedly another contemporary hocus-pocus term to medicalise those who seem ‘difficult to handle and antisocial’ or whatever), then maybe we ought to take note. Politically, Gaddafi may be everything people say he is, but he is unlikely to be ‘mad’ (to use a non-medical term adjectivally in the British English sense) and I think that it is not useful to position his actions within the realm of psychiatry.

  137. thankyou Craig and thankyou Syd Walker and Tony_opmoc you guys said it all !

  138. And whilst I applaud the efforts here of highly intelligent people educating and providing information. We are sat looking at a screen waiting to see what will happen, as is the rest of the world, and we seemingly have intelligence? I suggest we all go for a walk, talk to our neighbours, help someone in need in the physical sense. But we won’t, we’ll discuss, debate, quote, argue about who should do this and who should do that. I’m afraid the days of the pen being mightier than the sword have now surpassed us. I tried running an advert across 5 of the top UK newspapers recently. None would take an ad from me that simply read. “Love is all you need” Seriously. One tiny message that scared the foundations of our media. I would have paid the going page rate too but each sales person had to check with their line manager if they could take the ad, none could, would or would take my money. So come on guys, go sit on roundabouts near oil refineries, stop food supplies going down the M4 corridor, stop actors from going to work, stop trade for 2 days in London ar any city of the world, by using your brains for simple action. Violence isnt needed, a mongoose does not eventually attack a cobra face on, it goes around the back….

  139. “Love is all you need”. Gilgamesh.
    .
    Of course they fear love.
    .
    Those ads would have cost you a lot of money, Gilgamesh. But good on you!
    .
    Wrt action…
    .

    ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’.

  140. booneavenueboy

    28 Aug, 2011 - 5:31 pm

    Suhayl Saadi: You are, of course, correct in ascribing mental illness to the alleged “enemy” as common propaganda. It certainly degrades the political discourse to the level of psycho-babble. It sidetracks discussing anything worthwhile into a stupid argument about “schizophrenia” and other assorted mumbo-jumbo from the psychiatry crowd. When people don’t have anything constructive to say they often resort to insults. Pathetic.

  141. “There is something so shocking in the Orwellian doublespeak of NATO on this point that I am severely dismayed. ”

    Your old diplomatic days are still with you, eh?

    This is NOT the time for nicety. NOT for a “severe dismay’, but for SEETHING ANGER!

  142. I could never have paid the £80,000 needed unless I sold myh other working kidney or the spare cornea I keep in my left eye. Point was even if I could they would not take the ad from me. I knew that, I hopefully gained some listeners in the form of the ad sales people who were mortified their commission wasn’t earnt on such an easy sale. I wonder how they approached their line manager on this and whether any of them actually gave it thought for more than 27 minutes and 2 ad breaks as to the reasons why. Next week I intend to try and get an advert I made, run on independant TV. We all know what will happen there too. Call it a hobby but knowing that if any ad sales people raise objections with their bosses they will be silenced, or replaced with cheap labour from afar somehow doesnt make it worthwhile, but we do what we think is right, hence the worlds problems ;)

  143. “NOT for a “severe dismay’, but for SEETHING ANGER!” Bonnie.
    .
    Bonnie, as he illustrated in the ‘ “You look quite beautiful, my dear” (“What do you mean, ‘quite’?!!!”) ‘ post of some time ago, Craig is the master of the English art of understatement, in the right hands a veritable epee. Capitalisation will not bring down the warlords. On a serious note, though, you’re quite correct, Bonnie, anger is demanded.
    .
    “I could never have paid the £80,000 needed unless I sold my other working kidney or the spare cornea I keep in my left eye.” Gilgamesh.
    .
    Oh God, Gilgamesh (as the ancient Assyrians used to intone), please don’t do it! The kidney and eye, I mean. But yes, we’re right behind you, go on irritating the buggers in that almost ‘Yippie’ way by ‘cascading’ them with subversive adverts and jingles, it’s all they deserve!

  144. Yes, a lot of psychiatric terms are mumbo jumbo (which was kind of my point), but there is a residual substantive issue: whether we are being lied to or not. According to widespread personal reports, Gaddafi bears certain non-trivial behavioural similarities to people who are actually diagnosed with a mental disorder, wrt sub-diagnostic symptomatic traits. The question of whether he shares the other associated psychological characteristics is well worth posing, because he is (was) was a very powerful figure. There are a lot of accusations being flung at the media and others on this issue. Are the people who perceive Gaddafi as a bit ‘mad’ really trying to hoodwink us with propaganda? If so, that’s a pretty significant conspiracy.
    .
    I know it’s well within the interests of politicians to smear their opponents as ‘mentally ill’ – indeed, that tactic was deployed against Craig Murray; we should always be suspicious of the “official” story. But likewise, acknowledgement of this common propaganda tool doesn’t somehow inoculate its targets against psychological maladies. If independent (non-MSM) accounts point to a systematic mental weakness in a political leader, that’s worth taking seriously, by all accounts. Saying “he is unlikely to be ‘mad’” even in a colloquial sense, is an estimate of plausibility with implications for the reliability of the people who report otherwise. Based on the accounts of people who have met him, including Craig (who is well tuned to that propaganda tool), my estimate of plausibility would be considerably higher – despite my political sympathies with maligned leaders who stand up to the international military-industrial complex.
    .
    Politically, Gaddafi should be judged by his actions, not by psychological constructs, and none of it gives a foreign power the right to depose him. But it is relevant to assessing the extent of the propaganda machine: i.e. whether to the people who say he is a bit ‘mad’ are pedalling smears with political intent. It’s worth being wary of reverse propaganda.

  145. NATO ‘s bombing also poison the area like radio activity.
    “From now on, Libyans like us will be toiling to enrich western bankers….”
    Why don’t we have learned from such sad story which was repeated again and again…

  146. pablo lanther

    28 Aug, 2011 - 7:52 pm

    Long live Gaddafi , thank-you for your tents, aviator glasses, pork pie hats, and your most excellent female body guards, you are my hero ,my wife’s hero and my children’s hero…….we love you so much…..

    we will if necessary avenge NATO on your behalf……you have our promise

  147. I applaud Gilgamesh’s comment earlier commencing ….
    A friend of mine has relatives in Libya…. It is the most accurate summary of our present condition that I have read and ‘chimes’ with my hidden despair at the actions of our deeply flawed species. Everyone is going about their trivial business and seem to be indifferent. Only a tragic incident close to home might get them thinking about others.

  148. Suhayl; thanks. I fully support the Europeans, and all nations, if they choose a policy of voluntarily prerequisite integration; together with tolerant accommodation for those immigrants who are still hanging to their ethnicity. I just cannot accept why a Turk, for example, would insist to remain Turkish in Germany while holding citizenship documents at the same time.

    I think I am taking the blog away from the theme; or abusing hospitality; let us stick to the illegitimacy of regime change by NATO.
    Thank

  149. Free Libyan,
    I feel exactly as you do. I’ve been really quite shocked by people who supposedly profess to respect the rights and freedoms of the individual are so against the revolution in Libya.

    One particular aspect I find astonishing is the stance that Gaddafi would not have brought about a massacre in Benghazi, which has been a thorn in his side for a very long time. When I lived there I remember demonstrating students being shot by soldiers dressed as civilians and thereafter gallows being constructed in the city centre to deal with the others. Many of the 1700 political prisoners massacred in Abu Salim prison came from Benghazi. This year Gaddafi used heavy artillery on mourners in a funeral procession.

    The argument that he wouldn’t have crushed Benghazi because of the fear of a Western invasion doesn’t hold water. He most probably would’ve isolated the city, burnt the bodies, altered records and intimidated the citizens left from speaking out by threatening to torture or kill relatives in held in prison.

    I think there are thousands of Libyans unaccounted for in Tripoli.

  150. I might say that invading Libya within the “Arab Spring” program is just a “Democracy Bubble”
    .
    First the World had Asian Financial Bubble (1997)
    .
    Then The Dot-com bubble (1995–2000)
    .
    Then The Real estate Bubble
    .
    Thanks for the Federal Reserve System and its super-banks of the USA and EU

  151. I feel the problem lies with us all, I left school at 15 and started to work as man to pay my way. I see the benefits of technology, of the internet, I love it !! But… I spend too much of my time looking into a screen….. and so do you…. I neglect my Grandmother (wisdom and reason) my friends that really need me (charity and love), my community, I live in a bubble of words and screens, recognise yourself, up the revolution…. lol. (embarrassed to be a “wealthy, western demi god” yes) lol come on guys, man up…. I can type it’s easy, spread some love through positive human interaction, or your words are futile. Sorry, I love you all.

  152. You will be hearing a lot about Al Megrahi from the corporate hacks today, inc from the likes of the shills Wyre Davies and Jon Leyne, but you will not be hearing any of this below. The media speculation as to how Mr Al Megrahi is to a ‘near death condition’ is revolting. There is also talk of his cancer drugs having been stolen. ‘They’ would not want him to spill the beans now would they?
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/pers-a29.shtml

  153. A quick survey of the left’s response to last weeks events in Libya:

    http://inthesenewtimes.com/2011/08/28/the-left-spreads-misinformation-about-libya/

  154. Just one of the things I have against this ‘intervention’ in Libya, is the presumption that whilst killing civilians is wrong, killing Gaddafi’s soldiers is somehow acceptable and right. Clearly we are dealing with two different catagories here, but both of them are human beings as well, as is the pantomime villain, Gaddafi, himself.

    I often wonder is Gaddafi more mad and really more ridiculous, or even bloodthirsty than Cameron, Sarkozy, or even the sainted Obama? I wonder, do the civilians dying in the wars we’ve initiated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, or now Libya, care very much about the motives, humane or not, of the leaders who give the orders to bomb them?

  155. I often think that we’ve evolved a new variant of fascism, (contained in these illegal, dubious, and aggressive, neo-colonial wars), that even those who regard themselves as ‘leftwing’ can support, though regretfully.

    I’ve been criticised for not recognising a ‘genuine, people’s, socialist, revolution’ in Libya, when I see one. Which I find hard to take seriously. Criticism by leftwing academics with all the correct credentials and attitudes, people who regard Nato as an openly imperialist tool, but who think, in these special circumstances, Nato is temporarily on the side of the angels, the masses in Libya rising up for freedom against tyranny.

    I’ve got difficulty with this analysis. I find it hard to accept that Nato and the Gulf States, would really support a genuine, socialist, people’s revolution. Especially Saudi Arabia, that luminous, paragon, of democracy and human rights.

    Many on the ledt kid themselves that they are, in fact, deeply bourgeois. It’s fine to be bourgeois in my book. I’m a priviliged member of old, aristocrtic family, and profit substantially from capitalism, and before that we profitted from fuedalism, before some of us joined the French revolution, but at least I don’t delude myself that I’m leftwing and anti-bourgeois, when I’m not, like many on the left.

    It’s also true that many on the left don’t understand that one can be a leftwinger, and, at the same time totalitarian and reactionary, and indeed support fascism, red fascism, also known as Stalinism and Maoism.

    I don’t belive we are witnessing the triumph of the ‘socialist masses’ in Libya, that is a leftwing fantasy and illusion. The fact that the rebels are flying the old Libyan flag, the one the monarchy used before Gaddafi’s coup, symbolizes this for me.

  156. @ Ruth,

    A blogger by the name, nick Turner, says far more eloquentlya nd imaginativley why any decent person simply cannot support this NATO war inflicted on Libya:-

    “Nick Tucker · 2 hours ago

    Berlin Conference 2011 – Insidious Plunger – What Else Can It Be

    In 1884 the von Bismarck gathering had as its prime directive, “stamp out slavery” – read – “humanitarian intervention”, while the real agenda was the allotment of vast parcels of resource rich land to Caucasian Imperial Wizards.
    In 2011 the Ban Ki-moon gathering had as its prime directive, “humanitarian intervention”, which is no different from the von Bismarck Principle – the re-allotment of vast parcels of resource rich land to Caucasian Imperial Wizards.
    The ‘First Scramble’ resulted in – 127 years of abject misery and bone grinding poverty for the people of Africa, with a few brief years in-between where we the noble savages, struggled and challenged their hegemony over our very lives, but to no avail, and now the time has come for us to renew the original contract with Elijah Muhammad’s ‘Devil’. Thus, the 21st Century contract negotiations began in the same manner with which the 18th 19th and 20th Century negotiations were performed – the culling of Africans.

    If I were tasked to create a stage performance of events in North Africa, I would use the 407 year old fantasy piece, “The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus” as a guide and select my key actors in the following order:
    •Dr. Faustus
    Gadhafi (or almost any other African Union Leader) – all who have attempted to consort with The Devil at some time or the other.
    •Faustus’ Soul
    Libya – 41.5 Billion Barrels of Oil and 144 Tonnes of Gold (or for that matter the population and the resources of almost any other African Country – except those that produce only cabbages and sugar cane – like Swaziland – these we get to keep as a reminder of Caucasian generosity )
    •Mephistopheles
    Ban Ki-moon (this one is definitely Stockholmed)
    •Understudy For Mephistopheles
    Obama (same as Ban Ki), Sarkozy (grand dragon) or Merkel (übermensch) or Berlusconi (brown shirt) – a rather long list
    •The Contract
    (Actually Contractors) NATO, Insurgents, BP, ENI, Total…
    •The Devil (Mephistopheles Boss)
    Global Finance and Military Industrial Complex
    •Score & Sub-Titles
    Written and conducted by Main Stream Media
    •Gretchen
    The Emasculated Left suffering from Stockholm Syndrome much like the Mephistopheles caste members

    A rather ugly and predictable piece of real life theatre – for we know how this story starts and we definitely know how it ends the Devil eventually owns us all, body and soul so to speak. The very fires of hell have been ignited in Libya by Imperial interests and through the very gates of hell stream the salivating demons in the form of NATO and their genocidal insurgents, to commit a Rwanda type massacre of all who stand in the way of the United Nations humanitarian intervention and IMF/World Bank economic progress. What is currently happening in Libya is no fantasy story. It is a situation that ultimately speaks to the fate of all of Africa, for if Libya falls the rest of Africa will soon follow.”

  157. Angela Barton

    30 Aug, 2011 - 1:54 am

    This is and was a carbon copy of the US/NATO bombing and killing in Kosovo.

    No one complains about Camp Bondsteel, hardly anyone knows of it.

    And Kosovo was a pnac plan: http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

    Besides the great article above, here is 10 year old research that does a pretty good job of nailing the NATO aggression thing.

    “The Real Reasons for War In Yugoslavia: Backing up Globalization with Military Might” -Karen Talbot

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_4_27/ai_n28813234/

  158. “I have no time for Gadaffi. I have actually met him, and he really is nuts, and dangerous.”

    Craig,
    I wish you would qualify or expand on this – what do you mean by nuts; dangerous to whom?

    I’m reminded of a recent NYT article attempting to show that Gadaffi had enjoyed an opulent lifestyle but failing to do so (the pictures from his residences show clearly that he lived modestly for a head of state – furnishings much closer to my parents’ bungalow than to Buckingham Palace or the White House) and in the end falling back on that old staple, his physical appearance. They tried to argue that he lived opulently because, when meeting foreign leaders, he dressed flamboyantly.

    The impression I have had (without having met him) is that he cultivates an image of eccentricity. He’s obviously a very intelligent and cunning man. There’s a danger when saying he’s nuts of playing into the hands of those who, like the NYT, will glibly dismiss a man on spurious grounds.

  159. Quelcrime, my point exactly. Now it may well be that he and his family sequestered billions in whatever bank accounts, gold stashes in caves, who knows? He was certainly a cunning and brutal dictator. But the pics of his home show a family-sized swimming-pool, “widescreen TVs and plush settees of which the average Libyan could only dream” – eh? – gosh, sounds like an estate agent’s brochure for a suburban home.
    .
    He was a postmodern, late C20th leader – he comported himself like a stoned rock star. Sort of Jimi-Hendrix-meets-Bono-in-a-kaftan. It was all part of his cult of the personality.
    .
    Personally, I prefer the African psychedelia of Nelson Mandela’s shirts.
    .
    “Oil concessions” is the key phrase in the article below:
    .
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029831/Libya–1m-bounty-Gaddafi-MI6-agents-join-hunt.html
    .
    Do they mean ‘agents’ or ‘officers’? And then they refer to the SAS (which is not the SIS, though the two work together). The odious Liam Fox pops up again.
    .
    The lead picture is surreal: ‘Jesus with Kalashnikov and Footie’.
    .
    NATO didn’t do it for the freedom of the Libyan people, for Gaddafi’s ‘Carnaby Street’ wardrobe or to get rid of a brutal dictator. They did it for de facto control over the oil and the geostrategic advantage over China in Africa. Even if ‘Gaddafi’ had been, say, Craig Murray and had been a political paragon (which of course Gaddafi was not), they’d have done the same. And they’d have called him mad, just the same.
    .
    “…the Gaddafi family could use a submarine to travel around the Africa.” [sic] The Daily Mail.
    .
    What is this, “Yellow Submarine”?

  160. @Suhayl: the ex-CIA psychiatrist you mentioned is Jerrold M. Post.
    .
    Jerrold M. Post is professor of psychiatry, political psychology, and international affairs and director of the political psychology program at George Washington University. Before assuming his position at GWU, he had a 21-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, where he was the founding director of the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. He is the author of Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World.
    .
    Here is a link to his detailed analysis of Gaddifi’s mental state, and its significance, in his own words. Well worth a read:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/15/qaddafi_under_seige

  161. “Well worth a read:” Psychiatry from a distance, be it about GWBush or Gaddafi, is always a pseudoscience, and probably a well-paid one. “The psychiatrist who takes upon himself to attempt a character study of an individual whom he has never met is engaged upon a project full of risk….. The disastrous study of Woodrow Wilson by Freud and Bullitt is a case in point.”(Anthony Storr, 1965)
    Furthermore, the Rosenhan study from 1973 concluded, “It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
    However, I’m sure people will read that FP article and feel intellectually empowered by it.

  162. A very good article by John Galtung in FPJ, titled ” We have been here before”, re Libya and Nato. well worth reading

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/08/30/libya-we-have-been-here-before/

  163. Nextus

    I’m afraid that Foreign Policy article is shallow propaganda and nonsense. He’s taken a brief biography, some Western propaganda, and a few brief quotations from interviews and spun them together to make something which frankly is not worth reading. From your description I had hoped for something which at least attempted to be serious.

    “as a man grows older, he becomes more like himself” I see. Right.

  164. Juan Cole seems to give a rather different perspective on events in Libya, saying that the uprising is still driven by the Libyan people and that NATO’s part is less important (and apparently, primarily defensive).
    .
    http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/lockerbie-bomber-in-coma-in-tripoli-as-retreating-qaddafi-troops-use-human-shields.html
    .
    [I have no idea who is more nearly right; wish I did. I'd like to now what is really going on.]

  165. Indeed, Nextus. And Jerrold M. Post states (again): “While this is not a definitive clinical diagnosis, Qaddafi can best be characterized as having a borderline personality.”
    .
    So Post, the longime (now retired) CIA senior psychiatrist (in general hardly likely to be a supporter of Gaddafi) is consistent on his (albeit at-a-distance) view of Gaddafi. That’s exactly what I said Post had said to Eddie Mair on BBC Radio Four. Not “schizophrenic”, not psychotic at all, then.

  166. I found the demand of the NTC made to the authoritis in Algeria to return members of Gaddafi’s family somewhat at odds with firstly their earlier offer to Gaddfi himself to simply get out of Libya and secondly their avowed humanitarian stance. As I understand it, none of these specific people – the wife, daughter and two youngst sons of Gaddafi – have been accused by anyone of committing human rights abuses. It is incumbent, is it not, upon UN member states, to consider providing asylum to people escaping war-zones? If they have cases to answer, then the ICC can still file those cases. The aggressive terminology used by the NTC that Algeria is committing “an act of agrression” by allowing these memebers of Gaddafi’s family to cross the border is completely inappropriate. One suspects that the NTC may be conveying a message from their de facto masters (NATO) to the regime in Algeria, which may be next for the NATO chop. However, one suspects that France and the USA may be somewhat at odds over Algeria. Also, Algeria lacks massive oil reserves.

  167. “Well worth a read.” Yes, to determine what Post’s view actually is when he is cited as an authority for Gaddafi’s mental state (which he was – by Suhayl); yes, to get an insight into the reasons why people who’ve met him get the impression he‘s a bit ‘mad’; no for inferring a conclusive clinical diagnosis.

    @Suhayl: I never suggested that Post diagnosed Gadaffi as schizophrenic. You cited him as an authority the diagnosis, so I thought it’s worth checking out his real evaluation. I note he also says:
    .
    “His reality testing is episodically faulty. While most of the time Qaddafi is “above the border” and in touch with reality, when under stress he can dip below it and his perceptions can be distorted and his judgment faulty.”
    .
    Which suffices for the point I was making (if you trust Post’s assessment – which you seem to, but others don’t).
    .
    Incidentally, my original comment, which sparked this debate, was “There are numerous reports that Ghaddafi cycles between moments of lucidity and periods of schizophrenic irrationality, sometimes drug-assisted.” That was a comment about the reports, in particular the description of his irrationality in the reports. Examples like the following warrant my statement about those reports (even if the reports themselves are construed as pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo):
    http://news.scotsman.com/libya/Gaddafi–39He39s-psychotic-maybe.6726935.jp
    .
    To offset such strong opinion, I also cautioned about the perils of remote diagnosis and pointed out that schizophrenia is widely regarded as an unscientific construct. I’m not aware that anyone else here has a contrary view. (Suhayl, you probably came the closest by both citing Post’s clinical judgement, and arguing that schizophrenia is a very disabling illness with a very specific set of diagnostic criteria – but other point you made seem somewhat contradictory.) There are bullets flying in all directions, and I’m no longer sure who the target is.
    .
    @Levantine: Thanks for that Storr quote. The Wilson controversy and others prompted the American Psychiatric Association to introduce the ‘Goldwater Rule’ in 1971, which prohibits practicing psychiatrists from offering remote diagnoses via the media. I’m not sure how Post thinks he evades this (maybe he’s classified as a political commentator in media terms).
    .
    The incompetence of psychiatrists in distinguishing people who are insane from people who have been pretending to be insane during clinical consultations (as in the Rosenhan study), does not mean there is no such thing as insanity (so it is still possible that some people are genuinely ‘mad’, to use a colloquial term). Specifically, nothing about Gaddafi’s mental capability can be inferred from it. For that reasons, from our perspective, Gadaffi’s mental state or cognitive coherence is still a matter of opinion. And the uncertainty cuts both ways. Nobody here is in a position to refute the numerous reports of the people who met him and worked with him that he is sometimes ‘incoherent’, a bit ‘nuts’, or ‘mad’ (or whatever) by armchair reasoning alone. Likewise those reports don’t prove anything – they need to be evaluated critically in context – and it’s up to all of us to work out whether to trust them or not. Political sympathies are likely to play a significant role in the evaluation, particularly for those inclined to extend media conspiracy theories to include independent activists like Craig.

  168. Paul, thanks for that link. Cole’s viewpoint and argumentation is important, as are the views we’ve seen expressed on this website by Ruth and ‘FreeLibyan’. You see, I suspect it’s a very complex picture on the ground. I think that the next struggle the Libyan people will have is likely to centre of just how much influence and control NATO/ the West will have over their country. I don’t think it’s necessarily ‘Orientalist’, though, to suggest that it is likely that NATO forces have been in direct combat on the ground – even the Daily Mail, possibly from jingoistic motivation, accepts that they have been – and that they have played a very significant role. Not to say that the Libyan people have not played the major role, of course. But they’d have had no chance without NATO – that was obvious from the start. So, Cole’s portrayal may be part of the ‘truth’, but seems likely to be somewhat skewed to justify his views throughout this crisis/war. So, in essence, as I’ve said before, it ought to be possible for us to hold two thoughts in our minds simultaneously, namely that:
    .
    1) The Libyan people are freeing themselves from a brutal regime.
    .
    and
    .
    2) That NATO/the West is attempting to make strategic inroads in Libya wrt resources and geostrategic power-play and that they are using and fuelling the Libyan uprising as a vehicle for those ends.
    .
    These are not even contradictory ideas. So we don’t need to be geniuses.

  169. @Suhayl Saadi
    .
    Just found this – might be of interest (not watched it yet):
    .
    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/24/the_1_billion_dollar_question_who

  170. Nextus, I did not cite Post as an “authority” on Gaddafi’s mental state. That is a misrepresentation of my position. I was arguing, in response to your suggestion that Gaddafi was “schizophremic”, that if even the most truculent enemies of Gaddafi, the CIA, in whose interests it would be maximally to smear him and his mental state, think and state that in their view he is NOT clinically insane, then why has the MSM been arguing constantly, for years, that he is?

  171. “Specifically, nothing about Gaddafi’s mental capability can be inferred from it. For that reasons, from our perspective, Gadaffi’s mental state or cognitive coherence is still a matter of opinion. And the uncertainty cuts both ways. Nobody here is in a position to refute the numerous reports of the people who met him and worked with him that he is sometimes ‘incoherent’, a bit ‘nuts’, or ‘mad’ (or whatever) by armchair reasoning alone. Likewise those reports don’t prove anything – they need to be evaluated critically in context – and it’s up to all of us to work out whether to trust them or not. Political sympathies are likely to play a significant role in the evaluation, particularly for those inclined to extend media conspiracy theories to include independent activists like Craig.” Nextus.
    .
    Yes, this is precisely what I was arguing. You, Nextus, were the one who used the term, “schizophrenic” in relation to Gaddafi. That is why I took issue with you on this matter.
    .
    So, it may be best, perhaps, that we simply accept that Gaddafi’s mental state is unknowable by us and that really, views on it are likely to be instrumentalised by the greater politial diorama.

  172. Anyway, Nextus, it is always a great pleasure to debate with you on matters narrow and broad. Sometimes, it can become debating for the joy of it – a wonderful aerobic pursuit – and for me, it is akin to being granted a fencing bout with a master.
    .
    I don’t think we’re really in serious disagreement here, to be honest. Perhaps now, we ought to leave Muammar Gaddafi’s brain to history. The state of his cerebration was of some importance when he was in power, but since his fall, it is likely to be of peripheral relevance to the problems – and, I hope, opportunities – which Libyans will face.

  173. Paul, thanks for the link. I do hope that what the Prof. is saying will come true and that the new Libyan regime will be independent of NATO/ the West, that there will be no NATO bases on Libyan soil, etc. We shall have to wait and see.

  174. Suhayl,
    I think what you said is almost right:
    1) The Libyan people are freeing themselves from a brutal regime.
    .
    and
    .
    2) That NATO/the West is attempting to make strategic inroads in Libya wrt resources and geostrategic power-play and that they are using and fuelling the Libyan uprising as a vehicle for those ends.

    But I don’t think ‘fuelling the Libyan uprising’ is quite right. The majority of Libyans didn’t/don’t need any encouragement to revolt against Gaddafi – they absolutely loathe him. There’ve been many unsuccessful attempts to get rid of him but because the West had armed him up to the teeth it was impossible.

    The UK had huge investments in Libya and no real need to change things. France, which I believe is the main instigator of the uprising, didn’t and seems to be economically vulnerable. The oil blocks of the US were producing very little. So no doubt France and the US hope to gain much better contracts at the expense of other countries such as Russia and China.

  175. Ruth, you are very perceptive: Re. “fuelling the Libyan uprising”, you know, I added that phrase after second thoughts/editing. Well, maybe I meant literally supplying materiel, rather than supplying the will an energy.

  176. @ Ruth,
    As regards who is sane and who is not – I have this to say:-
    http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=95:libya-a-question-of-sanity
    As regards the support or lack thereof for Gadaffi, there seem to be 3 fair steps that could have been taken:-
    i) Accept the African Union roadmap to avoid civil war and bloodshed.
    ii) Accept that Gadaffi was willing to have an election – then see who would be elected in a monitored election ( see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uajy3tW1HuU) . How does NATO claim he has lost all support when it took NATO 6 months of bombing to drive Gadaffi out of Tripoli, but on the streets the mass marches were in support and not against his rule?
    iii) Accept that with a Western style election with say , someone such as the respected Jimmy Carter having a track record and participation n such exercise – the result would be certified and the Libyan people would get on with their lives in peace post-election.
    If there was any genuine concern from the US and NATO about, peace and “democracy” as it is defined Western style then the three (3) steps above surely would have yielded a just and fair result. Instead, the leader who has mass support is excluded, Libya is relentlessly bombed, NATO drives the war mission and takes side with a faction in Libya while professing – “his people don’t want him” and off stealing Libyan wealth right, left and centre. What kind of nonsense is this that has led to so much bloodshed? But, aren’t Iraq and Afghanistan just wonderful models to follow?

    So, ” Suhayl,
    I think what you said is almost right:
    1) The Libyan people are freeing themselves from a brutal regime.”

    And who will free the Libyans from what the US and NATO have already done, and shall continue to do?

    In essence – is a nationalist leader who raises the livng standards a better bet than Western colonial occupation. Those – truth be told – are the options facing Libya.

  177. “So, it may be best, perhaps, that we simply accept that Gaddafi’s mental state is unknowable by us”.
    - Yes. There is an important corollary. If we accept that, then we can’t cite our personal conviction about Gadaffi’s mental state as evidence of deceit by the media or anyone else. (We would only be cashing out our own prior assumptions, as if that could confirm anything.) In other words, we can’t conclude that Craig and other witnesses are lying or mistaken simply because we think the MSM is lying or mistaken and they are reporting the same thing. The inference is valid in classical logic, but not in probability calculus, due to the element of uncertainty. Uncertainty in conclusions can’t be reflected back to reduce the plausibility of the hypothetical premises. The more reliable witness dominates. I’ll spare you all the Bayesian proof.
    .
    I do enjoy these mental workouts, provided they don’t lapse into petty point-scoring. They help to refine my opinions on important issues. I only yield by logical persuasion, so personal slights or insinuations (which can crop up occasionally but thankfully didn’t happen here) are water off a duck’s back.
    .
    Ruth, thanks so much for your valuable insights, particularly the explanation of how the UK switched sides when Saif threatened to crush the resistance in Benghazi. When I tell people what it’s happening in Libya, it’s generally your account that I’m reporting,

  178. “I only yield by logical persuasion… the more reliable witness dominates.” Nextus.
    .
    Well, I didn’t think you’d be into dominatrices, but whatever turns you on, man.

    (!)
    .
    Remember too that propaganda and many other forms of human communication do not necessarily conform to classical logic and that actually they tend to play largely on emotions such as fear, i.e. on irrationality.
    .
    The end result being that we can have opinions on such matters but cannot reach definitive conclusions.

  179. Completely right Craig. NATO have pretended that overthrowing Gaddafi = protecting civilians, so that when Gaddafi’s forces shell towns with tanks and artillery to kill rebels and kill civilians in the process they are killing civilians, but when the rebels do the same they are ‘protecting civilians’.

    Gaddafi’s dictatorship was pretty ruthless and brutal – and if the CNN interview with Hannibal Gaddafi’s maid is genuine i wouldn’t have been sorry to see the rebels hang him or his wife (the maid showed recent and older burns across her body from Hannibal’s wife pouring boiling water over her and refusing to let her go to a hospital for treatment), but a long civil war as in Somalia or Afghanistan would be even worse – and we’ve seen from Afghanistan and Iraq what US led ‘democratisation’ looks like – massive corruption, more people going hungry than under sanctions, civil war and US trained police and ‘counter-terrorism’ units torturing and murdering critics and opponents of the new government the same way the dictatorships did before them (with the torturers and killers often including the ones who did the same job for the dictator)

  180. To go back to the article cited earlier. I do think people here are giving it too much credence. For example, this:

    “His reality testing is episodically faulty. While most of the time Qaddafi is “above the border” and in touch with reality, when under stress he can dip below it and his perceptions can be distorted and his judgment faulty.”

    Seems to be based on taking literally Gadaffi’s assertion that his people love him. Well, consider the following:

    1. Many of them do – he may be exaggerating but there is some basis for what he says.
    2. He is justifying his position in an interview, not speaking to his psychiatrist about his mental state. Is it so uncommon for politicians to tell journalists things which they know are not entirely true? Yet the writer assumes he means it literally.
    3. If he truly believed that every single Libyan without exception supported him, he wouldn’t have stayed in power very long, would he? Of course he knows some of them don’t like him.

    So, it seems to me that article was written for political effect, not as a serious analysis. This is pretty elementary stuff.

  181. On the Juan Cole article cited:
    Again, it seems to me the bias here is quite blatant. He uses phrases like ‘duly constituted authorities’ (to pick just one example). Well, this is ridiculous. There is as yet no procedure in post-Gadaffi Libya for duly constituting authorities. There are a lot of groups, some working together, some not, some of whom have declared themselves to have some sort of authority. Cole is using this sort of phraseology to give a rather heavy and rather false veneer of legitimacy to one side, and using other terms and phrases to imply illegitimacy of the other side. His writing does not read persuasively.

    To turn to the substantive content of what he writes; his notion that, in effect, the rebels did it all and NATO were just backing them up is a distortion which simply doesn’t fit reality. The rebels were on the point of annihilation in March. since then NATO has flown thousands of sorties and dropped tens of thousands of bombs. Although of course there are are no definitive figures available I’ve seen estimates that NATO bombs and missiles have annihilated around half the personnel of the Libyan armed forces (pre-conflict total approx 120,000). Then there are the government ministries, police stations, TV stations – my point is that what NATO have done is effectively to destroy the security apparatus of the state. When that is destroyed, anyone can march in and take over. If it’s destroyed thoroughly enough one man with a big stick could take over. If anyone supporting the government is destroyed, it can only be the other side that takes over.

    When Cole writes, for example,
    “the people threw off Qaddafi in key cities like Zintan and Yefren, and, again, NATO raids just stopped the tanks and artillery from crushing them”
    what he’s saying is quite clear. There were rebel forces (‘the people’) and government forces (‘the tanks and artillery’). NATO destroyed the government forces, so the rebel forces were able to take over. Casting the rebels as ‘the people’ and applying the word ‘just’ to NATO’s destruction of the other side doesn’t change the fact – there were two sides; Nato destroyed one; the other prevailed. How is this not NATO’s doing?

    Of course, in some towns (or perhaps it’s more accurate to say, in some tribal regions) there will be clear popular opposition to the government; in others clear support. Elsewhere it may be mixed. So in some areas it may be correct to describe the anti-government forces as ‘the people’; not everywhere though. The fact is, if you love Gadaffi and take up a gun and go to fight, NATO are likely to drop something heavy on you. If you hate him and take up a gun and go to fight, they probably won’t.

    The outcome in Libya is NATO’s doing, and NATO (for which, read the USA) will call the shots in post-Gadaffi Libya. Look at them already bullying South Africa and Algeria for not falling into line.

  182. I left a comment on the Cole site querying his terminology. Surprise, surprise, it didn’t make it past the moderation.

    Incidentally, I don’t recall seeing other professional, employed academics soliciting donations on their blogs. I notice he also carries ads for bankruptcy lawyers.

  183. Suhayl Saadi

    31 Aug, 2011 - 7:30 am

    Quelcrime, absolutely. When politicians in the UK are asked whether they think they will win an election, they hardly ever say, “Uhm. I don’t thunk so.” They say, “We are fighting this election to win. Polls are a lot of rubbish. People love us and we need to communicate our policies effectively. We know that. On the day, they will vote for us.” That does not make them delusional. It’s makes them acolytes of the Religion of PR. Tony Blair, for example, would make an interesting character study. As would Margaret Thatcher.
    .
    Just about everything that is said about the supposed mental states of enemy leaders proceeds through a not dissimilar instrumental propaganda rubric. This does not necessarily make the purveyors of that propaganda delusional, nor the content necessarily incorrect, but it ought to make us exceedingly wary of accepting such ‘analyses’.

  184. Missile hits on Sirte? No reports of casualtiesw, because the whole town is surrounded. If NATO does not put their oar in and stops the all out assault at the end of the week, appatrently they are trying to get cuivilians out, we will witness one unholy massaker ala Fallujah, with the difference being that NATO is pounding from the air and our ground troops helping those hapless rebells.

    The west has grudgingly released a billion, they are realising that Tripoli’s population has nothing for Eid, their banks are empty and they will blame the rebells and gaddafi for that.

    Libya does not want so called peace keepers, just help with a police force and elections, which will in turn stop the money they will receive, thats my guess. Until the US is guaranteed a base in Libya, they will procrastinate the moneyflow and use it as a lever.
    The value of the petro-dollar does not represent its real value and countries asking to be paid in a basket of currencies for their goods and resources, rather than chocolate money, run the risk of having their economy interfered with.
    Libya can survive by selling its oil to Europe, it does not need to sell it for dollars and why should it be forced to? their needs are far more important now than that of fat cats.

  185. QuelCrime: “Seems to be based on taking literally Gadaffi’s assertion that his people love him.” I don’t think his assessment of Gaddafi’s psychology is based on one pronouncement, one broadcast, one trait, or even one phase of leadership. The evaluation is complex, and so it should be. The example is cited as an illustration, not as a complete roundup of all the available evidence. Of course it doesn’t prove the point on its own. There are a lot of other factors relevant to the evaluation: the rambling, incoherent nature of Gaddafi’s video broadcasts, the testimonies to his extreme behaviour from his commanders, the odd tics and eccentric demeanour reported by people who have met him, the idiosyncratic and brutal decisions that have come to define his leadership – which all have to be judged together. I think the article shows that Post has considered these in his analysis too.

    I agree that the article can be given too much credence; for the reasons stated above. It’s a remote diagnosis, from arguably the least reliable witness who is flouting the Goldwater Rule. I think more emphasis should be placed on direct observation and the testimony of credible eye witnesses.

  186. I see that Gaddafi’s daughter had a baby immediately after crossing into Algeria. Just as well, then, that she wasn’t locked-up. I see that the ‘papers are reporting that the rebels have found (shock, horror!) “children’s books in the library” of her house, as well as “children’s toys”. Crumbs. She is a lawyer, so I guess there must be a few law books too. And a kettle and some cups, perhaps.
    .
    This attempt by the MSM to portray Gaddafi and his family as ‘golden taps’ Milton Obote or ‘Jimmy Choo’ Marcos is backfiring, as it becomes evident that, whatever else they might have been, the Gaddafis do not seem to have lived particularly lavishly (by Head of State standards and certainly by Middle Eastern potentate or even oil executive standards; many of the guys ‘n’ gals kicking around Knightsbridge seem to live far more opulently, it seems to me). The Gaddafis may well have a mountain of solid gold stashed away somewhere, who knows, and bank accounts in various on-and-offshore sites – no doubt, we shall see.

    Look. General Zia ul Haq, the brutal military dictator of Pakistan from 1977-88, lived relatively frugally and as with, say, the (for many Iranians, deeply embarrassing) Ahmedinejad (Hey! I sleep in my socks on the floor!), this became part of his PR.
    .
    That the Gaddafi regime was brutal in its oppression is not in doubt; the MSM does not need to make him conform to their off-the-shelf stereotype of ‘Third World Dictator, Mark 3′. Their seeming need to do so illustrates firstly, their lack of hard journalistic analysis, secondly their profound lack of imagination and thirdly lends credence to the criticisms of those who assert that in the USA and UK, most of the MSM has become simply a propaganda mouthpiece for the MI Complex.

  187. ”Aisha, a lawyer in her mid-30s, ran a charitable foundation in Libya but also worked on the legal team defending former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
    Before fleeing to Algeria, she lived in Tripoli in a two-storey mansion with an indoor pool and sauna.
    DVDs found at her home included action and mystery films and one on getting back in shape after childbirth.
    A playroom was strewn with toys and party hats and streamers were piled up in an entrance hall.
    Her library contained a number of children’s books.”

    .
    - How many rooms in this “two-storey mansion with an indoor pool and sauna”? It’s probably not a standard 2-up 2-down, but I wonder if it warrants the title “mansion”. Anyone got more specific information?

  188. So far I’ve only encountered reports to the Gaddafi’s lavish “champagne lifestyle, e.g.
    http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE77U06I20110831
    .
    I’d be interested to read more reliableaccounts of their relative modesty, to judge the extent of this MSM spin.

  189. Yes, Nextus, that was the one I read, too. They tone of the piece is not neutral – the quote you’ve pasted here seems neutral, but remember it was lifted from a longer article and indeed a series of articles – the tone (and the pics) are very much along the lines of ‘Look at this opulent lifestyle! Isn’t it a scandal?! We were right to take him down!’ I thought the same about their use of the word, ‘mansion’. But it seems that even with this spin, the pics, etc. do not seem to match-up. We have a little bathroom of the sort one might find in any decent hotel. Even Gaddafi’s jet was pretty functional – grey in colour, a couple of comfortable seats, two tables. And so on. I think the news reports of all this are being hoist on their own petard. If they could’ve found something, they would have, one would have thought?

  190. I found photos of Aisha’s mansion. OMG! It’s pretty grand by any standards:
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10137645-photos-aisha-gaddafi-mansion-marbles-pools-and-all-sorts-of-luxuries
    .
    I’d think I’d call that a mansion! Is it really hers? The larger than life golden mermaid certainly seems to be in her image…

  191. Oh yes, it is indeed a mansion: Beverley Hills or the UAE, with the grossness to match.

  192. Somebody sent me this. For general interest, not really directly to do with this thread, Libya, Gaddafi, etc. but refers in a more general sense to much media discourse, etc.: ’25 Rules of Disinformation’:
    .
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
    .
    Most of these will ring bells with most of us, I think.

  193. Like Iraq, like Afghanistan, Libya and its ‘liberated’ people have already paid the highest of all prices for their ‘deliverance’ from Gaddafi. Now, as a broken, indentured, client state, beholden to their political-military-corporate masters, they are about to feel the harsh effects of what our media dutifully call ‘Western-led reconstruction’.
    .
    As with all the other neutralised language of Western aggression and exploitation, such jargon hides a multitude of ‘liberal interventionist’ sins. Which, as ever, proves the vital role of our default-line media, particularly its liberal variant, in conditioning the public for more ‘necessary’ wars and ‘humanitarian’ regime change.
    ~~~~~
    These are the concluding paragraphs of John Hilley’s blog. His words are wise as usual.
    .
    http://johnhilley.blogspot.com/2011/08/libyas-deliverance.html
    .
    Craig is quoted.

  194. One thing the media are doing is using the houses and transgressions of some of the children to create an impression, and then slyly allow the reader to apply it to Colonel G himself. It’s a bit like blaming the Queen for Prince Andrew’s inappropriate friendships. It’s really not surprising (or unreasonable) that Gadaffi’s children had nice houses, but even though their houses are a bit more luxurious than the father’s residences, they don’t seem all that remarkable to me.

    As for Gadaffi himself, there were pictures early on in the conflict of a residence outside Benghazi, and more pictures recently from his place in Tripoli. In each case, some unimpressive rooms with cheapish-looking armchairs, and a fairly ordinary swimming pool. There were some amusement-park type things in the grounds in Tripoli. He has lots of grandchildren, though less now, of course.

    The New York Times has a few articles and slideshows. Even though it’s fully in on the US/NATO agenda, its journalists are professional enough to allow occasional glimpses of the truth.

  195. when tens of millions marched against the illegal attack on iraq, it did not mean the protesters supported saddam.

    so where are the antiwar protests against the illegal NATO war on libya? what NATO is doing is not within the remit of the UN resolution, yet there is no public outrage. the US “progressive left” is not concerned at all (juan cole, democracy now, etc). they have no problem with democrat wars of aggression, even if the allies (sarkozy, cameron) are rightwing governments!

    thank you craig murray, for your consistency.

  196. mahdi nazemroaya of centre for research on globalization is now out of libya. has quite a bit of new information:

    Mahdi Nazemroaya in Malta After Libya
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDR_NBUK8jk

  197. Oddie,

    “where are the antiwar protests against the illegal NATO war on libya?”

    That’s what I was wondering. It looks like there’s something on Oct 8, but Libya only gets a passing mention in the blurb:

    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/action-a-events/national-events/585-anti-war-mass-assembly-2011

    I know the warmongers are getting better at propaganda, but it’s still pretty transparent.

  198. Thanks for that 8th. October date, Quelcrime, once again, in easy to police and hard to get to London, not in many british City’s. By then we might be well into another flagration.

    remind us what was jemima Khan’s role in all this? what is her claim to fame apart from being rich, sexy and marrying a cricketer with political ambitions?

  199. Excellent, powerful link, Oddie. Everyone should check out Oddie’s link to this interview the independent journalist, Mahdi Nazemroaya. Watch it all, right to the end.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos