Why We Must Leave NATO

by craig on August 24, 2011 9:10 am in Uncategorized

The Guardian had a major feature last week on the 20th anniversary of the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. Contrary to the intention of the coup leaders, it was the catalyst for the end of the Soviet Union and, in a sense, the ultimate victory of NATO.

As NATO bombing this week achieves the loss of power of Gadaffi in Tripoli, a look back at that 1991 Soviet coup highlights the stunning hypocrisy of NATO and the danger to world peace which it has become.

One of the leaders of the coup against Gorbachev was a dedicated Stalinist Politburo member named Islam Karimov, who was President of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. After the failure of the coup, he embraced the idea of Uzbek independence in order both to escape retribution for his part in the coup and to maintain Stalinism in his little part of the Soviet Empire.

(A digression, but one of Karimov’s first acts in independent Uzbekistan was to order the Uzbek Supreme Court to pardon Alisher Usmanov, a notorious gangster jailed by the Soviet Union. He is now the third richest man in Britain).

Karimov has to this day maintained the Soviet institutions in Uzbekistan and even increased the levels of repression, with absolutely no civil or political liberty, and commercial freedoms restricted to his immediate family and friends.

So Karimov, the world’s most notorious torturer, must be NATO’s number 1 remaining enemy, right?

No, actually. He is NATO’s best friend.

Karimov is the major conduit for land supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan, is host to Germany’s forward airbase, is a most valued member of NATO’s “Partnership for Peace”, is a recipient of NATO military training and equipment.

Because NATO does not care in the least about dictators. It likes them if they forward NATO’s interest in Central Asian or Middle Eastern oil and gas, and if they host NATO military logistics. Karimov can murder hundreds, keep 10,000 political prisoners in desert gulags. Bahrain can become a torture camp. NATO really does not care. Every time you hear a NATO spokesman telling lies about their mission to protect civilians, remember the tortured of Uzbekistan.

I used to be neutral about whether or not an independent Scotland should remain in NATO. I now view leaving NATO as the number one foregin policy priority.

Tweet this post


  1. Paul Johnston

    24 Aug, 2011 - 9:18 am

    Hard to argue against that one Craig although disbanding it seems more logical rather than leaving it!

  2. JimmyGiro’s Law of Bureaucracy #1: “Any system funded to counter a ‘problem’, has a vested interest in maintaining that problem.”

  3. There is a lot of internet chatter at the moment concerning civilian deaths in Libya — mainly as a result of NATO bombing and strafing of civilian areas. However, there’s no sign of this on Al Jazeera, usually so reliable when it comes to showing the sordid reality behind the “humanitarian intervention” bullshit.

    Could the reason be that Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari state, and Qatar sent its jets to help NATO flatten a few warehouses?

  4. brian armitage

    24 Aug, 2011 - 10:10 am

    If Scotland were to become independent and leave NATO I would definitely consider applying for citizenship!

  5. Mike


  6. I should have added to the above that, of course, you won’t see any mention of civilian deaths on the BBC, so closely is it aligned with UK foreign policy.

    Last week on BBC News 24 (10.55pm on Thursday 18th August) we saw a perfect example of that when the anchor shot down the concerns of a 5live journalist who was reviewing the next days papers.

    5live man: “I wonder if our alliance with the rebels won’t come back to haunt us.”

    Anchor (interrupting): Well, of course we are there to help protect civilians so we’re not going to go into that.”

    Soft power, indeed.

  7. Agree with that about the BBC, and Sky too Mike. I cannot bear to watch or listen to any of it.

    I thought that Saban had bought into Al Jazeera.

  8. John Hilley’s e-mail to the BBC ref Newsnight.

  9. Dunno about Saban, Mary. All the references seem to be that he was “mulling” a 50 per cent stake. That was in 2009.
    Perhaps we’ll see a different view of illegal settlements if Saban takes that big a stake…

  10. “When Obama kills people, or Sarkozy, or Cameron, they say it’s NATO. They won’t be held accountable, there’s no constituency that can stop them. They’ll just say it’s NATO. NATO did this.”
    Mahdi Nazemroaya Reports from Tripoli

  11. USSR, Milosevic, Mladic, Hussein, Gadaffi. Whose next? Shouldn’t someone be warning Ahmadinijad and Bashir not to talk on the telephone? This organisation is out of control. A threat to what is left for world peace.

  12. This hard faced hard eyed NATO PR woman http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/photos_69767.htm
    has just given out the latest propaganda followed by the boy Hague from his den in King Charles Street who assures us that his aim is to protect civilians in Libya.
    The Sky banner is saying that Sarkozy is drafting a new UN resolution. What is it going to be next sayanim Sarko? Boots on the ground? Where? When?
    I see that Anna Botting (remember George Galloway demolishing her?) has joined all the other harpies in Tripoli. Olga Guerin, Lyse Doucet, Alex Crawford, Lindsey Hilsum etc. What is the matter with these women? Are they getting a buzz from the blood letting? Perhaps they are missing a normal chromosome or two.

  13. I see that separately these NATO tentacles are spread widely in addition to the Partner countries and Members.
    Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC),
    The Mediterranean Dialogue
    Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI)

  14. Mike, Al Jazeera is a pro-Western station. It was physically attacked and some of its staff killed in various places by the Bush regime because it stepped out of line, in order firmly to establish its oppositional credentials and because the Bush regime was rhetorically and in reality fundamentalist and inflexible (as opposed to the Obama regime, which is in reality (yet not rhetorically) fundamentalist and flexible enough to know how best to exert news management techniques. Al Jazeera does a lot of good reportage, but when it comes down to it, it is not truly oppositional vis a vis capitalist imperialism. And, as you correctly state, Mike, they do not criticise their host, the regime of Qatar. Al Jazeera – like, say, the Guardian – in essence reflects power struggles within imperialist elites, wherever they happen to be domiciled. As with liberal foundations, their function is to help to manage the discourse. This should not be mistaken for genuine oppositional or revolutionary analysis.

  15. Concerning Karimov: I think it was Roosevelt who said about some dictator or another “He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”. So There is nothing new about Karimov.

    It wasn’t new when Roosevelt said it either. I suppose this sordid sphere of influence game has gone on since the days of Sargon.

  16. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 1:18 pm

    Suhayl, quite correct re. Al Jazeera. I should add that it is just a re-brand of the BBC’s Anglo-Arab radio network.
    Mary, I share your revulsion for the butch Romanian NATO PR bitch and the assorted BBC/Sky harpies.
    I spend my time flipping between RT and Press TV to get a handle on what appears to be going down – Craig, Webster Tarpley was on Press TV last night (what a hero) 😉
    Meanwhile good piece from Pravda re. Western media whores:

  17. I’m not sure how firm the SNP commitment is to remaining outside of NATO. There are voices in and around the party advocating some relaxation of this position, probably in response to unremittingly hostile media reporting of this stance. Salmond is still occasionally upbraided by the BBC for his description of the ‘humanitarian bombing’ of Serbia as illegal and ‘an act of unpardonable folly’, in spite of being one of the few who had the right way of it (it was alo condemned by Amnesty International and the Red Cross). NATO is a criminal gang, just a very well equipped and funded one, so it it is ever astonishing to see moral inversions like this twat:
    I hope the party’s attitude remains that expressed (mildly) by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn and quote in the blog.

  18. It is hard to listen to western media when they tell so many lies about geopolitics. It would be better if the bbc and mainstream media were turned off and news about the real criminals were streamed live from the Kremlin.

  19. Indeed, suhayl: the mainstream media is there to expose MANAGERIAL incompetence within the state and its various incarnations, but nothing more than that.

    In its defence, I would point out that Al Jazeera has done some great work within the last few weeks on the ONGOING disasters of Fukushima and the Deepwater Horizon gusher, while “our” media has stayed virtually silent on both subjects.

  20. Craig

    I think you need to worry about the company you keep. The scouse billy, is that a young picture of Hitler, quoting approvingly from pravda, the same newspaper who could write this:

    I tend to side with Allah and the good Moslems trying to celebrate Ramadan as cowardly Christian crusaders try to kill them, destroy their civilian structures and impose foreign values on their society with a top-down approach. I only hope and pray that the clique of nations involved in this outrage reap what they have sown, tenfold.

    By this, I mean that I hope that what they have wished and meted out to others comes back to them multiplied by ten. After all, they claim they are acting in goodwill. So…Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar!

    Really, has it come to that?

  21. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 2:00 pm

    danj – top marks for recognition, bottom of the class for comprehension (seems the irony went over your head).
    Please judge an article on its merits rather than its provenance – your attempted conflation of separate articles is intellectually dishonest at best.

  22. O/T but Hurray for Jody. Perhaps Ben Brown of the BBC would like to issue an apology to him for his aggressive interview.

  23. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 2:24 pm

    “The war propaganda has entered a new phase, involving the coordinated action of satellite TV stations. CNN, France24, the BBC and Al Jazeera have become instruments of disinformation used to demonize governments and justify armed aggressions. These practices are illegal under international law and the impunity of the perpetrators must be stopped.”
    “(UN) Resolution 110 of 3 November 1947 regarding “measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war,” condemns “propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”

  24. Have great wealth, did kill.

  25. yeah right: I just wonder why you call the bbc whores etc and then seem so pleased with, wait for it, RT, Press TV and Pravda. You couldn’t make it up. I wouldn’t quote those guys even I thought they were trustworthy; which I don’t. You give publicity to Pravda, that is insane. Is the irony in the fact that you do use a picture of the young Hitler. You know; I am all ironied out.

  26. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 3:20 pm

    We were all young and innocent once – then what happens to us (?) is the point – who on earth do you think funded and promoted Hitler?
    As regards alternative perspectives within the media/info. war, you might care to take a close look at this article and comments. It should be of interest (remember the “firework” display at the close of the Beijing olympics – the lingering images left in the sky could not be seen in and around the stadium itself, only on TV – think about it):

  27. “It is hard to listen to western media when they tell so many lies about geopolitics. It would be better if the bbc and mainstream media were turned off and news about the real criminals were streamed live from the Kremlin.” Yvgeny.
    Do you mean to put up a webcam in Putin’s office; that way, we’d all be able to watch some other “real criminals” at work? I agree about disinfo., etc. that emanates from the MSM in the West and the systemic instrumentalisation and suppression of information. But they’re all at it – The Guardian, Pravda, Press TV, Fox, the BBC, etc., of course they are, that is what propaganda and news management is; that is why states and corporate organisations that are the pillars of economic/military systems have news agencies and media corporations. To state the obvious, the game is power, the prize, wealth. Now, of course, the USA has an enormous amount of military and media power and (at least here in the UK) we are in the US ‘sphere of influence’ (to be polite, for a moment, to the British Government and other elites; there are other ways might depict the ‘Special Relationship’) and so we will be exposed to their lies more than to those of others. But at base, they are all liars. Take everything with a mountain of salt.

  28. Keep your friends close and enemies closer as they say.

  29. http://wikileaks.org/origin/41_0.html

    Fresh batch of diplomatic cables from Tashkent, that could do with some expert analysis.

  30. “Why We Must Leave NATO”
    It would not be allowed, remember, who said…”You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
    As for NATO, it is paid for by the tax payers of many nations, and owned/control by the few. NATO in reality is a mercenary force there to serve the interest of a few people who are on their way to owning the whole planet and all of humanity.

  31. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 3:47 pm

    Correction – I should have said the “opening” ceremony in Beijing.
    Anyhow, just google/search: beijing firework display cgi

  32. So, in one, somewhat depressing, analysis, the question might be: Which specific set of gangsters will rule us/you/them? The local hood, or the empire?
    That’s not the whole truth, though. The world is complex, untidy, difficult wholly to control – and in relation to this matter, that is a good thing.

  33. I agree with you Craig. I used to think in my naivety that NATO was the last line of defence and without it we would all go down. I’ve watched NATO perform now through the years as a belligerent tool of the US and a method of going to war without actually declaring it. Humanitarian mission,my sweet bippy it is…
    They don’t even count the civilians they kill because its an embarrassment !! The propaganda that their spokesmen spout would make wee Goebbels jump for joy and rub his hands… Success at last. We have a NAZI Europe !! And lucky us didn’t even have to vote for it.

  34. yeah I enjoyed that one too. This one is good, in an article from Gadaffi’s friend Chavez from your refernce..

    ‘Libyan citizens enjoyed perks which are the dream of those in the west: free unlimited health and dental care, free unlimited funding for education anywhere in the world, rent-free house, $60,000 to couples upon getting married. This was carried out in line with the “Third Universal Theory” as explained in The Green Book which Colonel Muammar Qaddafi authored after leaving government in 1979.’

    I love that, ‘after leaving govt. in 1979.’ Sorry you will have to do better than that with your ‘alternative’ sources of information. This is just the mirror image of what you say you hate. And as for Pravda, that is a joke. It is insane to bleat about propaganda and then cite what for years and years has been a by-word for propaganda of the worst sort. Oh, I still don’t think you little Hitler photo is cute.

  35. Donny- I don’t know how old you are but support for UK membership of NATO until around 1990 was a perfectly reasonable stance, given the alternatives.

    The collapse of the USSR & Warsaw Pact changed the game massively. Thereafter NATO essentially became another meal ticket for those at the top of the political/ military hierarchy, and a meal ticket for the MIC to ‘open new markets’ in Eastern Europe, as the countries there queued up to join, and thus had to re-equip their forces onto NATO compatible kit.

  36. Sarko is quicker off the mark than the others. I also read that the UK is joint funding £2.8 billion. The mugs as usual picking up the bill.
    Libya crisis: Doha meeting seeks to raise $2.5bn aid Libya’s oil exports have been badly hit by the fighting Continue reading the main story
    A donors’ meeting is being held in Doha, capital of Qatar, to raise funds for Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).
    The target is to raise $2.5bn (£1.5bn) to pay the salaries of government workers as well as funding treatment for people injured in the fighting.
    Countries represented are expected to include the US, the UK, Turkey, France, Italy and Qatar.
    The meeting is due to start at about 1900 local time (1700 BST).

    BBC live blog
    1756: Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the executive committee of Libya’s National Transitional Council is in Paris with Mr Sarkozy. The biggest battle, he says, is for reconstruction, while the battle on the ground continues.
    1752: A conference to discuss the future of Libya will be held on 1 September, says Mr Sarkozy. “We will invite all our allies and will go beyond that to show that the period of the Contact Group and the military coalition is coming to an end and we are embarking on a period of free Libya.”
    1751: Mr Sarkozy says the time has come to look to the future in Libya. “We are coming out of the period of military co-operation and into civilian co-operation, to establish the Libya of tomorrow which has many needs, especially reconstruction.”
    1749: French President Nicolas Sarkozy is speaking in Paris about Libya. He says France will continue its Nato involvement “as long as our Libyan friends need us”.

  37. “The world is complex, untidy, difficult wholly to control – and in relation to this matter, that is a good thing.”
    An emerging theory seems to be that anything complex will disappear quickly – social complexity of any sort is unsustainable. I’ve seen plenty of argument in this direction in books and around the web. I recollect you mentioning (perhaps a related heresy) that the idea of ecological stability was a fallacy. Here’s a system dynamics attempt to explain the fall of the Roman Empire – perhaps it’s informative even if you don’t believe it.

  38. Strategically the role of NATO has morphed into an instrument that can be used implement the hegemony of the West in the covert intention of regime change and using preemptive strikes.
    Russia of course is a key player in this game. The plan now is to appease Russia by temporary halting the zero-sum game of posing our principal goals in opposition to Russia’s and seek more creative ways to partner with Moscow. In that way UNSC resolutions without veto will allow NATO to strike Syria and then Iran. That means of course a partnership on missile defence will be sought by America and its allies with Russia while continuing to create unrest in Syria and terrorist attacks within Iran’s borders so that tighter security controls within Iran irritate the population and stir discord and agitation amongst the Iranian population.
    Russia is key and the proposed Russian responsibility for missile defence systems in Ukraine will allow it to bolster its relative influence in part of the post-Soviet space while Western states won’t have to fully sacrifice their interests in the same region as they will continue to hold sway in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia. In essence, this strategy will allow for Western states to advance their missile defense interests while working with Russia on issues relevant to the Kremlin.
    In addition by increasing Russia’s clout in the post-Soviet space with the consent of Western states might be an effective way of containing China militarily. China’s strategic military options can very well be limited if it has to deal with a more powerful Russia to its north that is more inclined to cooperate with the West on issues of international security following the NATO-Russia cooperation outlined above.
    Iran is fully aware of this plan and hopefully the Bushehr cooperation with Russia and serious energy deals. Iran must work with Moscow to promote itself as a force for checking the influence of both Turkey and the United States in the Middle East and in the Black Sea/Caspian region while acting as a counterbalance to Sunni extremists in Central Asia and the North Caucasus that threaten to further destabilize former Soviet republics.

  39. Continuing the Scottish interest, I wonder who is the most wanted man in Libya – perhaps the one who didn’t die on schedule? From the august and unimpeachable Glasgow Herald:

  40. Donny, we do not have a Nazi Europe. If we had a Nazi Europe, then millions of us would be dying in death camps. I realise you were referring to the propaganda tactics and general mendacity of the MSM and that you were using the emotive word, ‘Nazi’ in rhetorical fashion. But just to point it out. The tactics of control nowadays in liberal capitalist countries are far more subtle than those of mid-C20th totalitarian regimes and it is partly for this reason that liberal capitalist entities have survived far longer than most totalitarian regimes (whether of Left or Right).
    Look, everyone, Qaddafi was a totalitarian despot who for decades tortured and murdered people with impunity; this is not propaganda, this is simple fact. His regime, esp. early on, did do some important beneficial things – healthcare, education, public services, all crucial to a functioning modern state. But such regimes, regardless of the good they may have done in some managerial aspects of life, are centred around one man, one family, the Cult of Personality, and are unsustainable in the long term – whether or not they are supported by a major power (think of “our bastard”, Nicaragua’s Somoza, for example). Now, it’s clear that NATO are in it for the oil and the dosh and for military geostrategic reasons. That is how imperial military alliances function, one should be udner no illusions. But there should be no need for us to try to paint Qaddafi (or Assad, or King Abdullah, or the Sultan of Bahrain) in a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ light (and they are all ‘bad’, I would argue) just because NATO’s motives are pecuniary and imperialist. Qaddafi’s regime had already bought into the regime of transnational capital. The struggle for the Libyan people henceforth will be to ensure that the resources of their country are not plundered, that no US/NATO military bases are allowed inside their country and that they remain independent. One fears that this will be a difficult struggle.

  41. The only place the “aid money” is coming from is the “frozen” assets belonging to the Libyan people.

    The “aid” will be going to the Libyan Contact Group, whose membership is yet to be disclosed, for all the “humanitarian aid” dispensed from the aircraft, submarines, naval warships and Qatar’s mercenaries.

    The “government employees are, and have been for some years, based in Italy under a US established/paid proxy government.

    The US has already asked the UN committee responsible for controlling the Libyan “frozen” assets held in US banks for $2.5 billion which I believe has been refused.

    Now that we have a “legitimate” Libyan Government beholden to the Libyan Contact group for their survival they of course will hand out the monies as they desire.

    Who is liable for scrutiny, what are the repercussions if the money is not spent on the Libyan people but pays for the “aid” already “delivered” from the NATO etc forces?

  42. The Libyan people have to pay for the humanitarian bombing.
    “Who suffered most? Iraq to pay $400 mln to US victims of Saddam regime”…

  43. Ruth, since, as you said on an earlier thread, you have Libyan family, might you share with us any pertinent information from the ground (as it were) – bypassing all the news outlets, etc.?
    How do people in Libya, in your perception, feel about these last six months? Do you/ they have any concerns for the future? What is their view of NATO’s actions, of the Transitional Council and so on? I’m sure many of us would very much like to hear this sort of almost first-hand account.

    Many of us have grave concerns about NATO’s actions in general, globally, and also have concerns when various warmongers in the USA and UK, France, etc. are singing (as though from the same hymn-sheet) the praises of the Transitional Council, the uprising, etc. People know that Qaddafi was a murderous shit and that his family rule was a typical form of cronyism. What they are concerned about, I think, is that the imperialists simply want to recolonise and/or neocolonise Libya and there is the concern that the blood of the Libyan people may have been shed simply to facilitate this process of neoliberal capitalism ‘by other means’, rather than to liberate the people from an oppressor. The concern, one senses, is that the imperium has hijacked some of the Arab revolts, and cooperated with the suppression of others, all predictably to their own ends; as we know, Arab blood, to the bastards who run imperium, is dirt-cheap.
    Please do feel free to share your views with us. Hope all is okay. Thanks.

  44. The latest is something reminiscent of a 50s Western. Revulsion at max.

  45. “But there should be no need for us to try to paint Qaddafi (or Assad, or King Abdullah, or the Sultan of Bahrain) in a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ light (and they are all ‘bad’, I would argue) just because NATO’s motives are pecuniary and imperialist.”

    There is no need. And not much point either.
    The real question is whether Qaddafi was attempting to overturn the governments of other countries. Or, rather, whether he had the capacity to do so. Clearly he did not. So he was not a threat to international peace. Nor is Assad.

    NATO, on the other hand, is either directly or through the offices of its leading members, involved now ,or has been recently, in attempts to overturn governments in Asia, Africa, America and Europe. It has attacked several countries, killed millions of people and underwrites terrorist campaigns in several countries as well as assisting governments, such as Colombia’s, Honduras’s and Haiti’s, in terror campaigns against political opponents (generally unarmed).

    NATO in other words is not a beast worthy of our support or taxes, both of which it, in effect, enjoys.

    Qaddafi, in sharp contradistinction, never has had our support and certainly not our material support.

    The point is that there is no justification for our supporting NATO’s actions which were illegal, as well as being dishonest and immoral. As to their motivation: clearly the Organisation is aimed at world domination, which is to say the substitution of a single dictatorship over the whole world.

    Qaddafi’s sins, which are best considered in the Libyan context, are, by comparison unimportant. And to citizens of the NATO countries they are not simply unimportant but beyond our capacity to review: the great bulk of information that we receive from or about Libya is filtered through media which grinds axes for pay.

    Given that most people have no direct experience of and no reasonably reliable way of discovering the situation in Libya or Syria, for that matter, their judgments and the judgments of their governments are unlikely to be wise. And very likely to be guided by amoral considerations: Sarkozy’s electoral calculations, the cardinal principle of modern British Foreign Policy which is to do what Washington wants, and other similarly sordid reasoning.

    All things for which in Lloyd George’s phrase, “You wouldn’t hang a dog” in good conscience. And yet NATO, in our name has killed hundreds in Libya, probably thousands and the bloodshed, I suspect, is only beginning, and will not get under properly weigh again until the cameras have departed and the notebooks have been snapped shut and the world is as complacent against the new tyranny as it was about the old, when Sheikh al Libi was being cut to pieces on orders from…NATO’s leading member.

    For months it has been very clear that a peaceful alternative, not only to the killing but to the use of violence to solve political problems, was very likely to have proved successful in getting any changes anyone in Libya desired. NATO’s role has been to make sure that no such peaceful process was embarked upon.

    It not only makes war for fun, but, sadistically, insists on preferring war to civilised compromise. It is a force in the world for barbarism, an evil much greater and more dangerous, because less challenged and less controllable, than any that there has previously been. And it is ours. It acts in our name and with our pretended “interests” on its lips.

    Britain should have left it in the 1950s when it became clear to all disinterested observers that the USSR had not the tiniest intention of using military force against any of the NATO members. And that, to the contrary, NATO existed to threaten the USSR and to enforce a crippling arms race upon the people’s of eastern Europe and the USSR.

  46. Leaving NATO isn’t good enough- we have to stop them. If there was any real will to live, any real belief in the possibility of a future for human civilization we’d be out in the streets because we would know that ultimately the bell tolls for us. Of course, the left and the intelligentsia in general, have shown once again their treacherous little souls, finding a slave’s consolation in the overthrow of someone who was bugging their masters. What can I say but that it’s your future as well as mine which is going up in smoke as we stand ourselves down in the face of monstrous criminality. Stand and fight now or forever hold your peace!

  47. Now, for example, wrt an earlier discussion about Al Jazeera, these two articles on their site are stunning in their avoidance of even questioning whether, in the long-run, the role of NATO in north Africa will prove a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of, freedom. There is no questioning of why, all of a sudden, Westren powers who, for 150+ years, have oppressed the peoples of the Middle East, in the cases of only Syria and Libya now, have backed the uprisings – actively, militarily, both covertly and overtly in the case of Libya. The humanitarian threat to Benghazi from Qaddafi’s forces, back in the Spring, was very real (we see what the Assad regime currently is doing in Syria and what the Bahrain regime and Saudi Arabia did in Bahrain), but everyone knows, surely, that this was not the real reason for NATO intervention in Libya. Why are these two respected, intelligent and informed Arab journalists not asking these and other, very obvious and necessary questions right now wrt Libya?
    I mean, here, in the second piece, above, Bishara is going on about “smug smiles” and so on – this is not political analysis. Why is he avoiding the obvious subjects of resources, colonialism, neocolonialism, etc.?

  48. “They will take away your petroleum and destroy Libya.”

  49. Scouse Billy

    24 Aug, 2011 - 9:58 pm

    Chris2 (and all),
    Ellen Brown wrote a very well informed piece on the reasons behind the Libyan “adventure” back in April:
    Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?
    “Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. “I don’t know!” was the response. “I guess they don’t know what else to do!” Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
    “What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.”

  50. Don DeBar about the real on-the-ground situation in Tripoli

  51. Suhayl, here’s Al-Jazeera using a film set that looks almost but not quite like Tripoli – note from my earlier link that the real main arch has detailing above it. Also as comments note at 1’30” the street through the leftmost arch is faked:

  52. Nazi-ism is when Govt and Business become one !!! I think that the conflict in Libya says it all. Death camps ?… who needs them when you are killing people from the air ? Have you seen NATO’s symbol in Brussels ? Democracy is missing as is humanitarian help. I actually felt sorry for these so called rebels on tv coverage. They don’t know how to attach magazines to their machine guns.They are seriously terrified and seriously getting wounded and its looting I see on TV, not real fighting.Now they are saying they must send NATO troops in to secure the WMD that Ghadafi has, so Al Quaeda dont get them !! The rebels are rabble… and I’ve got a feeling the toerags might just win the day.

  53. Libyans now feel they have a future. Without Gaddafi’s oppression there’s a sense of absolute relief. In Benghazi people have a sense of purpose working together to keep the city functioning. They’re very grateful indeed to France, UK and the US. Over many years they’ve asked for help to remove Gaddafi but instead Western countries just sold him more and more weapons making a successful rebellion alone impossible. People are very aware of what they want and if they don’t get it they’ll fight for it again. Commentators have mentioned the US setting up a base. If the US does that then they’ll run the risk of producing a new Gaddafi. The Libyan people won’t tolerate foreigners on their soil.

    Under Gaddafi the UK had huge interests and were I believe encouraging the Gaddafi regime to bring in reforms to stabilise the country to protect their investments. Saif Gaddafi had brought in some changes such as the freeing of some political prisoners and was about to bring in more to stem corruption but the Old Guard wanted to maintain the status quo. In November last year Nouri Masmari, head of protocol,left Libya for France and I believe with the help of French intelligence and Sarkozy set in motion plans for the rebellion with the help of anti-Gaddafi organisations in the US. The east of Libya was at boiling point and ripe for revolution. I think the British thought the protests in Benghazi would be put down quickly but when they weren’t and Saif threatened to crush Benghazi they changed sides. Obviously France jumped at the opportunity to increase its investments to improve its ailing economy.

    The next stage will be extremely difficult but if the NTC can make the improvements it’s promised then there’s hope.

  54. “Under Gaddafi the UK had huge interests and were I believe encouraging the Gaddafi regime to bring in reforms to stabilise the country to protect their investments.”

  55. Craig, as someone who watched the events unfold, in some considerable detail, in Uzbekistan during 1990-91, I beg to differ about the coup. There was no coup nor any initiation of the idea of independence on his part. There was a separate political party, which post 1991 announced itself as the opposition, which vouched for independence and therefore was very popular amongst the majority of politically active population in Uzbekistan. The current president, much like a proven politician, watched quietly, and secretly, i.e. this was unknown to many in Tashkent, sent letters of support to Moscow only days before Gorbachev left.

  56. Donny, yes, I know what you mean. There is most certainly an argument that a sort of creeping Fascism – the unity of what Ayesha Siddiqa has termed, ‘Milbus’ (Military Business) – is encroaching on the world. When exactly does ‘authoritarian capitalism’ turn into ‘fascism’? Think, say, of Singapore (a great success story in many ways, yet the politics of the regime has been termed, ‘benevolent fascism’). I think possibly when the facades of ‘democracy’ and individual freedom are stripped away and social modes of control give way to overtly militaristic modes within the domestic sphere. It’s a very different beast, though, from the strutting, totalitarian Fascism of the mid-C20th. More difficult to recognise, more adaptable. This is, arguably, capitalism’s natural evolution, increasing monopolisation and concentration of wealth and the systemic and rapacious acquisition of ever more wealth through war and ‘war-by-other-means’.

    Looking at it from another point-of-view, the world – including also now the mass of the populace in the ‘1st World’ – is being subjected to a process of ongoing and expanding necolonialism. Yet of course, the imperialist powers have been imperialist for several hundred years. They were imperialist right through their own bourgeois revolutions – indeed, these revolutions often became the catalyst for the rise of the capitalist classes who needed to maximise profits by expanding into empires. So, in some ways, this is nothing new. We are witnessing Lord Palmerston, C21st-style.

  57. Thanks, Ruth, much appreciated. As I said earlier, I wish the Libyan people success, peace, prosperity, freedom, independence. I think it likely that if their new leaders do seem to be selling them down the river, the Libyan people will rise up again. In Egypt, since the beginning of the protests that brought the Mubarak regime down, there have been continuous protests and ongoing pressure on the new authorities – the military – to not sell out the Egyptian people. This process will take years, as these things always do. Let us see where it leads.

  58. “If the US does that then they’ll run the risk of producing a new Gaddafi. The Libyan people won’t tolerate foreigners on their soil.” Ruth

    “The next stage will be extremely difficult but if the NTC can make the improvements it’s promised then there’s hope.” Ruth.
    Key phrases.

  59. I have to say it hasn’t been a good week for you, Murray. First, your silly conspiracy theory about DSK (to which you attached conspiracy claims about your own treatment) fell apart through the withdrawal of charges against DSK. Second, NATO successfully contributed to the downfall of a dictator.

    I do hope that the week gets rounded off nicely through the capture by real prosecutors of that terrorist Megrahi.

    This must be humiliating!

  60. “If the US does that then they’ll run the risk of producing a new Gaddafi. The Libyan people won’t tolerate foreigners on their soil.” Ruth
    Nat0’s vvav.

  61. The renowned, for propaganda, programme Newsnight has just broadcast an “interview” with an unknown TNC terrorist. During the Interview the terrorist spokesman declared that the 2 million inhabitants of Tripoli are suffering from acute shortage of food, water, fuel and medical facilities. If this fact is true why did not NATO and it’s cohort allow supplied through to alleviate these shortages as they allowed fuel, food arms and mercenaries through to the TNC terrorist army.

    Mr Paxman in all his unbiased way, totally failed to see the inconsistency.

    Mr Paxman went on to interview another failed politician from the UK who is still trumpeting the view that the NATO aggressors had full legal backing for regime change from the UNSC, again with no questioning from Mr Paxman.

  62. The telegraph is leading in tomorrows paper that the SAS are in Libya, hunting for the Libyan Government leader. They also state that contrary to UNSC resolutions they have been there for weeks.

  63. “Nat0’s vvav.” Courtenay.
    Please could you explain what that means, Courtenay. Thanks.

  64. SAS have been in Tripoli for weeks dressed as Arabs (Telegraph) – well I’ll be damned – well done agent Cameron UNSC Res. 1973 is worthless:
    ..while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory…
    So why bother with a resolution – Oh! I know – to avoid another Iraq genocide?

  65. Some comments from Medialens
    “WE’RE HERE TO GET YOU FRIZZHEAD” says the Daily Mirror p2 “Libya on the Brink” 23rd August 2011
    Posted by jo abbess on August 24, 2011, 10:30 pm

    That’s “REAL News.. REAL ENTERTAINMENT” right there, that is.

    US outsourcing regime change: Nato partnership with Libyan rebels as a model
    Posted by margo on August 24, 2011, 8:53 pm
    US Outsourcing Regime Change:
    NATO Partnership in Libya Serves as Model, Panetta Says
    By American Forces Press Service
    MONTEREY, Calif., Aug. 23, 2011 – Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today called U.S. support for the NATO mission that’s helping opposition forces make progress against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime Libya an example of the international cooperation that will be critical in the future.
    “It is a good indication of the kind of partnership and alliances that we need to have for the future if we are going to deal with the threats that we confront in today’s world,” Panetta told students during addresses at both the Naval Postgraduate School and Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center.
    Panetta said he is particularly proud of the mission the United States performed as a NATO partner in Libya, including the establishment of a no-fly zone to help protect the Libyan people.
    “It is a credit to the great job of nations working together on a common mission – something that is absolutely essential if we are to provide security in the future,” he said.
    This support and assistance, he said, has been “part of the key in being able to help the opposition forces there ultimately be able to succeed.”
    Panetta expressed hope that the opposition will succeed and NATO will have completed its mission. “It’s clear that the opposition has made significant gains. It’s clear that the regime forces are collapsing and that Gadhafi’s days are numbered,” he said.
    The United States continues to monitor events, but the situation remains dangerous and “very fluid,” he said.
    “In many ways, the future of Libya is in the hands of the Libyans,” Panetta told the assemblies, echoing President Barack Obama. “We hope that they will decide that it is important to establish stability and important political reforms for the future after 40 years of Gadhafi.”
    The Arab Spring, the name given to recent revolutions for democracy throughout the Middle East, is bringing change and in many cases, turmoil to the region, Panetta said. But it also offers “a chance to make that part of the world a better region, one that enjoys some of the values and some of the reforms and some of the political opportunities that we have in this country,” he said.
    “Proud” ? Bombing a capital city and you feel “proud” ?
    Posted by jo abbess on August 24, 2011, 10:47 pm,
    Let’s just consider some other capital city and reflect on what that would feel like…say…Jerusalem ? How would Leon E. Panetta feel if he was having to report that NATO had bombed Jerusalem in support of an uprising in Israel ?
    Re: “Proud” ? Bombing a capital city and you feel “proud” ?
    Posted by margo on August 25, 2011, 7:25 am,
    Let’s also reflect on how it would be if some of the other world powers decide to take a leaf out of the proudly flaunted USNATO handbook – you know, set up ‘no fly zones’ to ‘protect civilians’ on ‘humanitarian grounds’ in sovereign countries experiencing civil unrest. So you could have Russian jets pounding Tbilisi in support an uprising in Georgia and China deciding to enforce a ‘no fly zone’ over Taiwan and ‘being forced’ to bomb buildings in Taipei to get rid of ‘a mad dicator’, etc.
    I guess the world’s policeman would be all over them, though.

  66. Of course the SAS are in Tripoli..who the hell do you think are calling in the air strikes..

  67. Yugostiglitz,

    You have repetaedly failed to produce the “conspiracy theory” you claim I posted about DSK. It exists entirely in your own, rather warped mind. Where is it, precisely? And no, I have not deleted anything.

  68. The article by Dr Paul Craig Robert in FPJ today should keep Yugo going on for a while..maybe he could come up with all the answers. (sorry Moderator.too good an article to miss)

  69. ‘… if the NTC can make the improvements it’s promised then there’s hope.’ This is
    a response to the situation that should be taken more seriously on this blog. First, you suggested, Craig, that NATO’s mission to remove Gadaffi would fail and that they were working on a deal to keep him, Gadaffi, in power. Then when this preciction turned out to be false you shifted the goal posts and said ‘what about Bahrain?’, as if to suggest that they, NATO, can’t take any credit for assisting in the removal of a mad, bad dictator in one place because of a lack of action in another place. The same with central Asia. I am sure you are right about Bahrain etc but your reaction to events Libya is telling. It is almost as if you don’t want to admit that any good could have been done with the removal of Gaddafi. Logically, there is no inconsistency with believing x about Bahrain and y about Libya. Also your position confuses intention with circumstance. The claim is made: it is all about geopolitics and oil, about their, NATO’s, intentions. This may be true, but the circumstances surrounding the actions that result from those intentions could also involve something else, which may actually turn out to be a good thing. There was a genuine rebellion; Gadaffi was a tyrant, executioner etc., there were good moral reasons to support a movement whose intention was to overthrow him and give Libya hope for a better form of government. All this is compatible with NATO also having its own interests.
    One does not cancel out the other.

    And as for the Scottish angle, which I believe you introduce to cause argument, the SE role in Libyan politics is as murky as the rest. I do recall the Scottish flag being flown as the Lockerbie bomber’s plane landed on Libyan soil. Now, everyone, especially the young Hitler, don’t all rush at once with your ‘deep’ theories about that.

  70. Googling for images of authentic Libyan rebels –

  71. If you are looking for deleted pages to become a have ago hero, Yugostiglitz, you have to log on to Pamela Gellers site, we will see how she will answer to the questions of the Norwegian police currently interviewing the EDL deputy for being quoted.

    Pam Geller did more that just quote Breivig on her blog, she conspired to hide his moniker and encouraged his behaviour by speaking for the bombing of Palestinians in Gaza in 2009. She is a raving fascists/zionist, she should be deported to Bagram C, just to go by the ‘Diallo standard’ set here.

    Thanks Ruth for your insight into what must be very tense times. The messages of ‘security first’ and the focus on a single man who is in hiding, looks like it is a distraction. All NATO helpers are falling over themselves to be nice to the TNC, but when asked about releasing Libya’s funds, fancy words are banded about.

    No assets returned will mean no oil for your addicted economies, pals! that would be my response.

    How many Libyans do not want to see a US base in Libya and what would be the justification for it? Libya is not Iraq and Iraq can hardly be described as a positive example. All the plans made by western stooges on how to govern Libya will be pushed now, ensuring that we are somehow involved there, when this is a purely Libyan affair, gerrymandering of the worst kind.

    Off course the SAS has been there, I reckon they were in that country from the start of hostilities and have trained many of the rebells, not just placed laser responders round millitary facillities.

    NATO has lost its aim and objectives when the berlin wall fell, its set up, despite the nice words, was as a bullwark against the warsaw pact. Today its a whore that likes to dipslay nice and shiny new weapons in conflicts. By its inception NATO was never designed as a full blown global empirical enforcer, but its surely is going that way.

    Karimov is the new Saddam/Gadaffi the future fall guy. Thing is, he already accepted US bases and hence has nothing to fear as long as he directs his violence towards Muslims. But his time will come soon, because he must have ammassed quite some serious billions over the years, just as with Gadaffi’s billions, so safe in Goldmann schmucks hands, his riches will be a target for these financial schmutzfinks,(direct tranlates into ‘dirtfinches’.

    Lets hope Gulnara cannot persuade the US that she is the new improved democratic woman for Uzbekistan, together with a thirty year plan to democratise the country, her style.

    Thaks for all the links, it will take me half a day reading up and I got my bathroom to paint, does that mean domestic chores are a form fo dumbing down (:-)?

  72. Not entirely off topic – here is a powerful clip of the thoughts of the widow of an American Army Ranger who committed suicide as the result of his experiences. http://afghancentral.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-soldier-film-clip.html

  73. Frazer, ?!

  74. I agree with Ingo…various units of UK Special Forces have been in Libya since the commencement of hostilities..I know quite a few people over there whom are working for INGO’s and they have seen them, especially in the port city of Misrata..if you know what to look for they are hard to miss, however well they blend in.

  75. Frazer, if they would be working for INGO’s, (you meant NGO’s) I would not be dreaming of owning a motorcycle again, but be lounging it on a Harley ;)or an old Ducati.

  76. Craig,

    You are so, so right. NATO is indubitably the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation and all decent Scots must demand our withdrawal from this despicable body.

    A few years ago I was staying in an Edinburgh hotel where I had a chat with an American. tourist. We discussed the Iraq invasion amicably and he said (smirk) but we are not comparable to the nazi’s.[At the time I was staying in my old home town having just spent time in the USA on my way back to my new home in Australia.] I stated that in my opinion – in agreement with Bennet – that they were much, much worse and pointed to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Serbia as examples.

    He didn’t like that and we didn’t speak again. But now, the sheer, utter aggression of NATO has only become more and more apparent and all decent people – not just Scots – must surely shun this organisation and speak out against it. It is utterly evil. Hopefully, at least, Scots can lead the way.

  77. Azra,
    Activism in schools is important to me. I tell children that greedy adults are destroying their future and children must learn to fight for their future by making speeches. Free from the baggage of social conditioning children are an important part of change in these final months of retribution.
    I tell children who they can trust to help them. Dr Paul Craig Roberts is one such person. Paul, a contributor to OpEdNews voted against the Iraq war and has called for Bush’s impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war. Paul has said that the ‘war on terror’ will conjure one more attempt at ‘corrupt change’ which, ‘will be orchestrated’ by the ‘Sturmabteilung’ priests of the Bush dynasty who are striving for a powerful governing body to head up NATO nations as a step towards a centrally governed world.
    Senator Max Cleland is the man who said, I cannot look any American in the eye.. after he resigned from the commission. I use this brave veteran of the Vietnam war man as an example to the children I speak with, as a victim of social conditioning, succumbing to peer pressure to conform. Cleland was one of the 29 Senate Democrats who backed the authorization to go to war in Iraq although he had reservations. Obama gave him the job as Secretary of the ‘American Battle Monuments Commission, a strong reminder of his transgression and ‘treachery’ to the cause.
    Yet Cleland is typical of many Americans content to stay inside their bubble while America cannot look the world in the eye. After ten years 72% of Americans have realised they have been lied to; their liberties destroyed, their country a puppet for Israel. American children must now speak out and and I look to those here in the UK to lead this fight.

  78. Mark_Golding : Amen to that. We need more people like you. We are all guilty of being content to stay in our buble and just bitch about all the wrongs on blogs such as this one, yet how many of us will go out and take the message to people specially young ones??

  79. Ingo..I stand corrected..if it turns out to be true, enjoy the Harley 😉

  80. NATO: “starting fights in the name of democracy since 1953”

  81. Well we know what Craig thinks about St Andrews – “St Andrews is in Scotland, but is no longer of Scotland.”


  83. My understanding is that the MO for the SAS in this type of situation is that suitable SAS members are allowed to resign their commission, do their dirty work in Libya (for example) as private individuals, then unresign back into the SAS as though they had never left. This gives the government ‘plausible deniablity’ – no SAS in Libya – whilst advancing the government’s intentions.

  84. Yonatan

    Not true..this a fallacy cooked up by fiction writers…how do I know ? I asked a mate of mine who was part of the Bravo Two Zero team…he said that was b******s.

  85. Craig…I also have a Blog if anyone is interested…obviously will not put the address on here without your ok…

  86. Strange – A report suggests ‘mad dog’ Gaddafi and family are in an unassuming private house in central Tripoli being watched by French & British special forces? Perhaps it takes a while to develop the plot and film a remarkable and awe inspiring capture?

  87. @Mark

    Shades of Saddam’s siblings methinks ?

  88. Who is that Frazer – Andy McNab?

  89. Nope…guy I went to school with and he eventually ended up in the Australian SAS..runs his own security company now, so I checked with him….

  90. @Mark
    Nice website by the way..brings reality home..

  91. First NATO and then – the Japanese have a word for it – dango.


  92. I entirely agree. We must leave NATO at the soonest convenience!

  93. According to Fuckwit, CM thinks “That the west’s attempt at getting rid of ‘a bad government’ is somehow ok”

    FW seems to be right. Forget the rape of Libya. Forget NATO’s role in the subjugation of Iraq. Forget NATO’s role in Afghanistan. That’s all OK. It’s just their failure to recognize Karimov as the most evil man in the world that matters.


    Murray, you’re a New World Order puppet.

  94. Anon…You just do not get Craig’s view do you..

  95. Zoe Williams reports riot cases before the courts in today’s Guardian:

    ‘The second case was sadder still. It featured Michael Alvin Watson, whose face was undulated with tumours. His body and feet were in the same condition. “But I won’t ask him to remove his clothes,” his counsel sensitively declared. His alleged crime – to which he pleaded not guilty – was riot-related: he was accused of poking his hand through a broken window and stealing cigarettes of “unknown value”, but there was no suggestion he’d broken the window, or been part of the crowd that had looted the shop. His tumours were undiagnosed. He was in the middle of a course of drugs to gird his strength, at the end of which doctors would be able to do more exploratory work. He was homeless. I’m not sure what the medical term is: the layman’s term is “completely fucked’. He was refused bail.’

  96. Oh what the hell..with apologies…



  97. NATO forces, a combination of special forces, mercenaries leading the Benghazi rabble, have not achieved their goal in Tripoli. The idea is to install the TNC there as the new government, which can then “invite” NATO forces to enter the country as a stabilisation force. But Tripoli is not under their control even in the center, witness reports by Rolando Segura on TeleSur. This has been a bad day for the NATO terrorists and their myriad leftist cheerleaders- always good to see that sort with egg on their mouth. NATO will not accept defeat though and will find a way in, so we are heading for another long and ultimately futile war for the western terror masters

  98. A ‘rebel’ drone (UAV) coming to your neighbourhood soon…

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud