Cameron On Follow That Camel 98

Cameron and Sarkozy in Benghazi

Aircraftman Cameron and Sarkozy are in Benghazi taking the applause of cheering tribal warriors. Sarkozy looks a bit nervous, as though scared he might meet the English rugby team at a dwarf hurling evening. Cameron looks a bit dazed, probably not sure what applause is. Aaah, that heady moment of triumph! Just like George Bush and Mission Accomplished!

Now those delightful oil contracts to sort out.

Elsewhere, Libyans who foolishly fail to agree with them are being bombed to pieces by NATO. Presumably, once anyone who might hold a different view is dead, it will be safe to hold a democratic election.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

98 thoughts on “Cameron On Follow That Camel

1 2 3 4
  • Courtenay Barnett

    When I use the word “mad” – I do not exaggerate in asking the question – who really is mad?
    When Sarkozy in Tirpoli said this:-
    “I dream that one day young Syrians will be as lucky as the young Libyans today, that one day they will also be able to say: ‘Democracy and a peaceful revolution are for us,’ ”
    Fully 6 months of bombardment; significant numbers of deaths; on-going struggle even after 6 months of NATO supported bombardment for the “rebels” and yet – ‘Democracy and a peaceful revolution are for us,’
    Is he sane – or – does one say that there is a significant disconnection from the reality which truly sane persons see, having unfolded and still unfolding, on the ground in Libya?

  • Quelcrime

    It’s like Cameron who said “the mercenaries should go home” – the only mercenaries involved in Libya are NATO.

  • anno

    Courtenay Bennett
    Not only is NATO’s political ideology not sane, but also the ideology of the likes of Belhadj the Libyan army commander.
    I suppose it is rational for NATO to oust a dodgy dictator it dislikes and for Belhadj to take his revenge against his regime.
    What is not rational is the underlying plan for the USUKIS machine to spearhead an assault on Africa through oil-rich Libya. That is insanity beyond the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I was reading some neo-con Christian missionary literature about the slave trade, not the most reliable of sources I admit. But the suggestion is made that the Islamic slave trade was larger, more brutal, longer, and less stoppable than the Caribbean slave trade. Women were the principle targets, males were castrated before arriving at their Chaliphate destinations where this sort of mutilation would not have been allowed.
    It was also suggested that the Salafi movement supports the return to the system of slavery , as it existed at the time of the prophet, peace be upon him. We know that in oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, the economic migrants have been enslaved, but I am appalled that the belief system of the likes of Belhadj can justify savagery on the basis of tradition.
    Enough said. Islam does not accept slavery of any kind, except what existed at its inception, where more than 50% of the population and the economy of a country was enslaved.
    The partners in the Libyan disaster are equally and totally bonkers and I don’t like sharp instruments being left around.

  • anno

    The Islamic slave trade justified enslavement for those African captives who refused to come into Islam. But in reality the profits of slavery swept away any considerations of human or Islamic rights, as seen by the fact that the males were castrated which is not permitted in Islam.
    The Muslim mind, especially the Arabic speakers, is highly ingenious at overriding the obvious restrictions of Islam.
    When I went to Hajj, I encountered a Christian convert to Islam who was busy converting immigrants from non-Muslim countries to Islam by the thousands. Having failed to persuade even one member of my family to come into Islam I was suspicious.
    Maybe the same disgusting greed is operating in Mecca today as one thousand years before. Immigrant workers are offered a continuation of nominal freedom if they embrace Islam, and de facto slavery if they refuse.

    If Islam is this perverted, two things follow: firstly that God will keep even the Zionist New World Order NATO etc in power in preference to this medieval barbarity and ignorance of Islam; secondly we have a right to be very scared of Belhadj’s recruitment by NATO in their assault on Africa. This neanderthal Salafi movement is ready to re-open unspeakable tragedy on Africans, with us shite providing them with the arms.

  • mary 354 killed. Not mentioned on ZBC. The Telegraph made a passing comment.
    As Hidari on Medialens says –
    Alleged massacre by US/Al Qaeda forces in occupied Libya
    Posted by Hidari on September 17, 2011, 6:49 pm
    ‘Muammar Gaddafi’s spokesman* told Reuters on Saturday that NATO air strikes on Sirte overnight had hit a residential building and a hotel, killing 354 people.
    His claim could not immediately be verified as Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown**, has been largely cut off from communication since the fall of Tripoli.
    NATO comment was not immediately available.’

    * or, to put it another way, the spokesman for the resistance.

    ** or, to put it another way, Sirte, the last part of Libya that is still unoccupied by the invaders

  • mary

    Apologies to ZBC. They have referred to the bombing and the deaths but in sketchy terms though.
    I also note that they have resurrected the question over who killed Dag Hammarskjold. Wonder why?
    Dag Hammarskjold: Was his death a crash or a conspiracy?
    By Stephanie Hegarty
    BBC World Service

    Exactly 50 years ago, UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold died in a plane crash on a mission to prevent civil war in newly-independent Congo. Suspicions that the plane was shot down, never fully laid to rest, are now again on the rise.

  • Ruth

    Well it seems here most of the commentators are very keen to side with Gaddafi. Of course, Gaddafi wasn’t entirely black and of course NATO is a tool of Western interests. We know NATO uses propaganda to back up its position and most certainly we know that Gaddafi does too. Mathaba has been used to cite examples of atrocities against Libyans by NATO but this agency according to Wikipedia was created by Gaddafi

    However, it really does quite amaze me that those who profess to be liberal and pro democracy take such an anti rebel stance when all that the majority of Libyan people want is to be free from oppression and have a share of the wealth of their country. Have a look at some of their comments at
    Although it seems to me Al Jazeera is not entirely impartial the comments do reflect the thinking of all the Libyans I know.

  • mary

    Orwell does live.
    107 against, 22 for (scroll down towards end for the numerous abstentions and absent) Insurgents welcomed by UN. Democracy in action – again. What a sick joke. Rumours of Mr Orwell’s death very premature.
    Good for Castro and Chavez.
    After Much Wrangling, General Assembly Seats National Transitional Council

    of Libya as Country’s Representative for Sixty-Sixth Session

    Adopts Work Programme and Agenda, Sets Start of General Debate

    For Wednesday, 21 September, Conclusion of Main Part of Session, 13 December

  • ingo

    Thanks for that cruel update to NATO’s very own massacre, Mary.
    The ZBC report mentions a teacher who said that it is Gaddaffi’s men who are fighting, not those who have been armed. Despite having armed the whole of Sirte, these civilians are not using their weapons and are being bombed for it.

  • Vronsky

    Graffitti above a urinal at Glasgow Uni 40 years ago:
    Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Guatemala – where will democracy strike next?
    Admittedly it was adjacent to this:
    To be is to do (Heidegger)
    To do is to be (Sartre)
    Do-be-do-be-do (Sinatra)

  • Ruth

    Well it seems here most of the commentators are very keen to side with Gaddafi. Of course, Gaddafi wasn’t entirely black and of course NATO is a tool of Western interests. We know NATO uses propaganda to back up its position and most certainly we know that Gaddafi does too. Mathaba has been used to cite examples of atrocities against Libyans by NATO but this agency according to Wikipedia was created by Gaddafi

    However, it really does quite amaze me that those who profess to be liberal and pro democracy take such an anti rebel stance when all that the majority of Libyan people want is to be free from oppression and have a share of the wealth of their country. Have a look at some of their comments at
    Although it seems to me Al Jazeera is not entirely impartial, the comments do reflect the thinking of all the Libyans I know

  • mark_golding

    Agent Cameron has failed to heed the warnings of the last 15 years of war.

    The so called ‘no-fly zone’ was NOT a pre-cursor for a humanitarian mission intended to stop civilian killings by a cruel dictator, it was a repeat of the massacre of Srebrenica, Bosnia and the genocide in Iraq; blood-baths that had a British government turning a ‘blind-eye’ and political, military and intellectual elites laying bare to amoral equivalence of greed.
    I condemn the bastards to a life of hell.

  • Roderick Russell

    Mary – at first blush it does look strange that the utilities in a country like the UK that is self sufficient in Oil should still charge their customers one of the highest rates in the world. Certainly in the UK you are paying several times the rate for energy that North American families are paying. I think the answer may lie in the type of privatization you had. Unlike most of Craig’s readers I am in favor of privatization in certain circumstances, but not the type that the UK had – in true UK fashion it was done to line the pockets of the establishment and not to benefit the customer. The same could be said for the appalling rail privatization.

  • Quelcrime

    However, it really does quite amaze me that those who profess to be liberal and pro democracy take such an anti rebel stance when all that the majority of Libyan people want is to be free from oppression and have a share of the wealth of their country.


    If the people want to be free of oppression, how can you fault an observer for opposing those who invite foreign powers to bomb their country? If the people want a share of their country’s wealth, how can you fault an observer for opposing those who seek office by relying on neo-colonial powers who want that wealth for themselves, who have a record of forcing the countries they dominate to abolish social programs, and who consistently turn a blind eye to oppressive regimes, provided those regimes adopt approved foreign and economic policies?

    If you think the new Libya will be liberal and democratic, why are the people of Sirt being subjected to lack of food, water and electricity? Why are the town and its defenders being bombed so viciously? Surely not because they have a different view of who should lead their country?

    How can anyone seriously support ‘rebels’ who, having obtained NATO’s support, reject all attempts to organise peace talks, reject all attempts to seek compromise, simply because they know they have enough military power behind them that they will certainly prevail, though whether it takes six months or a year is unknown, whether it involves killing 10,000 people or 100,000 people is unknown, whether any bridges and hospitals and airports and water pipes and oil refineries will remain standing at the end of it is unknown?

    Even if you trust the rebels, won’t you admit that they are thoroughly indebted to NATO for what power they have achieved, and that the one thing NATO have done consistently is lie about their motives? So how can anyone be confident of the future?

    If the rebels manage to consolidate power, and if they pay off NATO by refusing to finance the African Monetary Fund, and by privatising the Libyan health and education services, and if they stop all of their assistance to other African nations to help them avoid punitive ‘aid’ from the West, and if they make sure NATO country companies are brought in to rebuild what they have destroyed, and if they turn a blind eye to the ensuing corruption, if they do all that, and in other areas are allowed to get on with governing the country as they see fit, what makes you think they will govern in an inclusive, competent or even liberal-democratic way?

  • Quelcrime

    Although it seems to me Al Jazeera is not entirely impartial, the comments do reflect the thinking of all the Libyans I know

    Well, Al Jazeera is not impartial at all; Qatar is firmly on the ‘rebel’ side. You won’t get impartiality from Al Jazeera any more than you will from the BBC or CNN. Very likely they receive a range of comments from Libyans (though I gather communications from some areas where Gadaffi support is strong have been cut off) and choose which ones to publish.

    Do you know many Libyans, from multiple tribes and geographical areas? Colonel Gadaffi certainly seems to have had many supporters as well as many opponents – do you know any of his supporters?

  • Clark

    Ruth, I’m not pro Gaddafi. I am too ignorant of the situation in Libya to be pro or anti. However, it seems obvious that there has been a propaganda campaign to support NATO intervention. Several of Gaddafi’s claims have been proven true, eg. that the rebels included islamists or possibly al-Qaeda, and were committing war crimes. Several claims against Gaddafi have proven false, eg. that he ordered air-strikes against protesters, and that his forces were primarily mercenaries, and were ordered to commit rape and were given Viagra in order to do so.
    I saw the BBC report that clearly played down the pro-Gaddafi support rally in Tripoli, showing only such views that would minimise the extent of the crowd. I also saw the unedited video on YouTube. I also saw videos of people in Tripoli celebrating the defeat of Gaddafi’s forces. In all, the news from Libya has been highly polarised and contradictory; this contradiction is the source of my ignorance and my suspicion.
    Ruth, it seems clear that Gaddafi did have considerable support from Libyans. He probably also had even greater opposition. I have read that Libya was internally divided between “tribes”. If you could give more detail on any of this I would be grateful.
    There is also the wider context. If NATO’s action in Libya is seen as successful “humanitarian intervention”, this may boost support for Western military intervention in other places where it is unjustified or purely aggressive.

  • Roderick Russell

    @ Clark – EU/NATO people had already intervened with ongoing behind the scenes support for Gaddafi. After all he seemed to have had a relationship with MI6, Yo Blair and honest Mr. Berlusconi. – and indeed was getting billions, which he controlled, from western oil companies. We were already intervening in closet for Gaddafi, there was never any balance there. The proof of the pudding, of course, will be what happens to Libya in the future – will they get a decent government with relatively little infrastructure destruction and death, or another Gaddafi type? It’s not the same as Iraq where Yo took us to war based on a lie, and where the cost both to Iraq and ourselves was horrific.

  • anno

    ‘took us to war based on a lie’
    There was, in addition to that unconvincing lie, a lot of evidence that Saddam had murdered tens of millions of his own and other countries’ people. New graves are still being found today.
    Gaddafi on the other hand was a compliant agent of the West, a rendition ally in the ‘warrant of error’.
    The reason why Saddam had to go was that Zionists were seeking to re-conquer their Middle East neighbours to allow for expansion to the state of Israel.
    The reason why Gaddafi had to go is that the Zionists want to take control of the minds of the African people who remain steadfastly gullible to the lies of the Zionist banking/colonial machine.
    They are still convincible that China’s colonial progress might turn out to be more dangerous than the good old enemy they know.
    Gaddafi was going to get too many brownie points for creating the interest-free monetary banking fund.
    I can’t help it if the people of Libya can’t see the wood for the trees. but there isn’t any need at all to wait and see how it will all turn out. Cameron’s violence was predictable. Obama’s assault on Africa was predictable. Israel’s lies are predictable. The partnership between Islamic extremism and NATO was predictable.
    China is sitting on the sidelines seeing that once again, innocent people are suffering at the hands of the West so that can only increase China’s own credibility.
    The game of the last fifteen years has been to scuttle the West as honest brokers in world politics, deviate Islam into a horrible caricature of itself, thus giving the Zionists a whiff of false legitimacy as the leaders of the New World Order.
    The future will be a mega war, waged between the blackmailed leaders of western nations and China on the red earth of Africa.
    The weapons have been prepared, the pieces put in place for war.
    Let battle commence. The Libyans will soon be arriving in hulks on the shores of Europe as the evil plan kicks in.
    Our imaginations were not ready for Iraq. Prepare your imaginations for Congo on the shores of the Mediterranean and Baghdad in Barcelona and Rome, for Pearl Harbour in Capetown and Hiroshima in Nigeria.
    Prepare your imaginations or prepare to sort out your prime Ministers. One or the other. The writing is on the wall for war in Africa, and it has been since Obama was first groomed as a freemason as a child to be the tool for re-capturing the continent and wiping out the innocence of that once Muslim country.

  • ingo

    If this is about ‘the people’ of Libya, and its beginning to look different already, then NATO ashould get real and acknowledge that Gaddaffi had many thousands of supporters.
    If these supporters are so misguided in their support, even when multiple guns are poised to shoot and very little escape is possible from Sirte, then how can anybody possibly think that bombing the shit our of civilians will make a difference?

    NATO generals know now that Sirte’s armed population will not shoot at them, they know that its Gaddaffi’s military that is using this cover and that they will be fighting to the death, so why cary on destroying life’s and infrastructure unless your agenda is chaos and future disorder?

    NATO also knows that supplies and food are running short in Sirte and Bani Walid, so why not lay siege and offer civilians a safe haven outside these cities?

    Is it really the aim of the rebells to kill more of their fellow Libyans? Why this zealous killing and destruction?

    If NATO lifts the no fly zone, we will still have men on the ground, some of them knew and trained Gaddaffi’s special forces and they also have an inkling as to where these forces are, so why this forcefull strangulation of civilians unless you want to create havoc.

    The rebells command structure is chaotic, they could not defend the gains they made without NATO, even now that most large armaments are destroyed, they are militarily naive and not well trained, so their option for the future is limited unless they talk to those who supported Gaddaffi, talks about an inclusive future.
    If the rebells repress fellow Libyans and divert funds from some to others, using repressive prison sentences and show trials, rather than re building Libya and establishing an all inclusive future structure that will govern the country, democratic or whatever, then I can see the same destabilisation happening as in Iraq, with all its excesses and ripp off’s.

    If the rebells fail to establish an all inclusive Libya for Libyans first, then they have wasted their revolutionary zeal and will end up fracturing their country into small tribal pockets.

  • anno

    The plan is as you have described it. To put Belhadj in charge of the army, is to pour Islamic jihad fuel onto the Libyan flames of Civil War. To unite the whole Arab spring across North Africa into Islamist terror and western backed counter-terror, same as Afghanistan. The plan is beyond our imaginations and beyond out control, as it has been for the last 15 years.
    Did you vote Towy last year or Libwal? I was nawty and didn’t vote at all. How is it possible to have lived through the last 15 years and still believe that our politicians are planning stability. They are doing what the Zio-bankers want them to do with brooms stuck up their asses. Inclusive future structures, my big toe. Inclusive. wall to wall, war.

  • mark_golding

    Ingo, Anno,

    I think it is very important to realise that the Zionist/Anglo French and American alliance is saying to the countries of the Middle East that form the highly emotional ‘Arab Spring’ uprising, sparked from years of suppression from years of Western domination, that this is the bottom line:
    We are not trying to hi-jack your revolution. You can have your own Islamic system; you can even cut off the hands of your thieves or the heads of your murderers, i.e. you can have your own judicial system, but what you cannot do is oppose the financial and foreign policy systems of the West.
    What that means is we will occupy your country and enforce Western rule, by force if necessary if you attempt to establish your own financial institutions or you support a Palestinian state against the wishes of Israel.
    Without leadership, without an anchor, the popular uprisings in the Middle East will amount to nothing and the UN back-office voting deception and military might of NATO will prevail to ensure retention of current the status quo of Western domination.
    Analyst know the Western financial system is in crisis and capital markets cannot be sold weak solutions such as state bonds to prevent a 2012 collapse. A financial crash is imminent and I believe this not the so called pseudo-science 2012 Mayan apocalypse, it is an inevitable prediction when the elites, who have no vision, continue with the word ‘more’ and continue to exploit the global economy and the ecosystem. When it all implodes they will use their money to hide in gated compounds.
    That is the time when the will of our people, strong leadership and preparation *now* will be able to exploit such an event so that the corrupt, inhuman, belligerent, bloodthirsty and truculent designs of Western government can finally be defeated.
    We cannot do this through our own political voting system, which is impotent and biased to the system. Dumping your head in the sand now is condemning future generations to the same old crap.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ All…,
    For those who think that anything good is going to come out of this NATO led war in Libya, and feel that it is a mainly a question of some on the thread wrongly supporting Gadaffi, I beg to differ. The choices really are-
    1. A government in power under Gadaffi; or
    2. A government “bombed into power” by NATO; or
    3. A Western style elected government, which plan, from the onset of the rebel uprising, the African Union had stated in a detailed plan and Gadaffi had accepted.
    Now, since number 1 is history, and number 2 is being resisted in a civil war 6 months on – and – no one on the NATO side had permitted option 3, then we are left with choices 1 or 2. Honest reasoning compels one to ask the question whether there is strong support for Gadaffi in Libya, and if there is and he is willing to be subjected to a Western style ballot – where then is the “democratic” credibility in not having avoided the civil war and effected the AU plan with a choice at the Western style ballot? But, the answer comes back that the African Union was ignored and over-ridden by US foreign policy and Hillary Clinton treated grown African men, speaking down to and dictating to them, as boys in Addis Ababa – and Africa is to have no voice or say n the continent’s destiny, unless it is designed by, dictated to, and approved by the US, France and Britain.
    The honest answer is not to be found in the official fig-leaf cover of “democracy” or NATO’s “humanitarian mission”. These types of operations have a long history, in respect of which the United States of America has been a leader in implementation of similar belligerencies around the world:-
    Go to youtube and insert:- CIA Secret Wars w/ Col. John Stockwell: Gross Millions Dead
    NATO’s operation in Libya, if one were to compare what that insider CIA person has revealed in the John Stockwell video (above), should lead one to understand from whence the militarist motivation for the Libyan operation came. This Libya war supported by the US, reliant on propelled third-party actors, and advanced by NATO has nothing to do with the promotion of “democracy” in Libya. If the West’s entreaties to Gadaffi had anything to do with Western style democracy being implanted in Libya, one already had the precedent of Gadaffi having disposed of his WMD programme, so there was sufficient indication that he would be responsive to Western non-violent urgings. He had already co-operated with Western intelligence services, which goes some considerable way to having relations that signaled that he was not unreachable on all fronts. If Gadaffi had built up and retained an arsenal of inter-continental ballistic missiles and other significant forms of WMDs that could be fired into Europe or the US, assuredly the type of operation on-going against Libya would not have taken place. This may seem a cynical observation, but I consider it true. When the US/NATO mission ultimately reaches Iran, one will find it interesting to see how that war is pursued, having due regard for the military capabilities of the Iranian government.
    I cannot see anytime in the near future much good, for the Libyan people en mass, coming out of the whole Libyan exercise to oust Gadaffi. With Western domination of Libyan oil, as with the US presence in Iraq, the future for Libya looks very bleak – IMF loans, World Bank indebtedness, privatization of the best sectors of the Libyan economy ( health care, education and its vast water supplies included ), McDonald’s galore and with Libya moving from a debt free nation to indebtedness to the West, a plethora of cultural, racial and tribal tensions unleashed such that Western backed leadership will prove unlikely to manage ( because the UK and France simply are not interested in) the best interest of the Libyan people. Will the rebel faction be able to maintain and control political power in Libya without NATO backing? I suspect not. Yet, any and all foreign military presence will continue to be resisted by the Gaddaffi faction, or the like-minded nationalist political heirs of Gadaffi, if Gadaffi is assassinated any time in the near future. There is unlikely to be any truly representative elections being held any time in the near future, with all factions being represented (cf. the failure in Afghanistan to unite tribes and effective representative electoral process over a decade accompanied by the beating that NATO is taking after a decade of occupation). Britain and the UK will be jostling to get their share of the oil, on terms disproportionately favourable to Western oil interests, as payback for the military support given by NATO to the “bombed in” NTC administration. China has already played a strategic international card in recognising the NTC, with an assurance obtained that the existing pre-NTC contracts with Libya will be honoured. Russia too has played both sides against the economic middle, in certain ways. Russian media is largely condemnatory of the legal violations and excesses of NATO, but at the international legal level, it too has recognised the NTC. That is simply called – acting with national economic self-interest. Chavez and his ALBA group of Latin American and Caribbean countries refuse any acknowledgement of the NTC and is taking active steps in the UN in opposition to the NTC. Meanwhile, Gadaffi loyalists fight on – on the ground in Libya.
    If the NATO forces can partition Libya, this will be done; if NATO can defeat the Gaddafi faction it will do so with overt and covert support for its implanted “government”; if NATO can assassinate Gadaffi, it will do so; whatever slices of the oil wealth can be claimed for themselves by the UK and France – assuredly will be claimed. International law in Libya, when considering NATO’s actions, is literally coming out of the barrel of guns.
    I am saying categorically that the point is not whether some or most on this thread support Gadaffi or oppose him to any degree. The salient points of international concern are:-
    1. Is the world to see the upholding of the principles of the United Nations Charter for the promotion of peace in the world and settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; is Article 2 of the UN Charter to remain the basis on which nations can under international law lawfully go to war, or by reference to Article 51 ( self-defence) as a legitimate basis to engage in belligerent international action?
    2. Does the concept of sovereignty have applicability in the international community, and more particularly has the concept been seen to have been respected in the case of Libya?
    3. Did either UN Resolutions 1970 or 1973 permit the NATO nations lawfully to arm, bomb and support a faction in Libya to obtain regime change?
    4. Will the actions of the US and the European branch of NATO use Libya as an international precedent for incursions into any resource rich country, or rely on the casus belli of “humanitarianism” as a basis to oppose militarily any nation that deigns to advance any truly independent national polices, not in accordance with NATO’s wishes?
    The answers to these types of questions will yield one of two results:-
    1. A world that is committed to peace and respect for the rule of international law; or
    2. A world of unending and perpetual warfare where covert support for uprisings deemed to be in the interest of the US/NATO will increase with concomitant global instability on a massive scale for most of humankind as covert militarism becomes manifestly more blatant, outrageously illegal and overt.
    The rule of international law may be deemed by some to be some sort of legalistic abstraction. Indeed, international law can seem distant and far removed from one’s daily existence. However, does the idea that there are domestic laws, which prohibit the theft of your car, you TV, and personal property of whatever type, have tangible meaning when a neighbour steals your car and you go to the police to have the law enforced? The real problem, however, in international law in the case of Libya, is that when the thieves and Rule-Makers are themselves the Rule-Breakers – then to whom does one turn for justice – the UN? Mao Tse-Tung’s power from the barrel of a gun edict takes on new meaning (“Political power grows from the barrel of a gun” – “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed”) – since now NATO’s war surfaces with understandable bloody meaning, as the framework of international legality has capsized in Libya and is substantially compromised by reference to the barrels of many Libyan and NATO guns.
    This is in no way a war in Libya about or for “democracy”. Plain and simple – this is an imperialist and neo-colonial war, and one heavily motivated by the desire for the control and domination of Libyan oil.
    CB (

  • anno

    Thank you as ever. I’m still not convinced that the bankers will collapse the system and retreat into gated compounds, unless it serves some other malicious intent to do so, such as breaking Christianity to clear the way for Zionist freemasonry.
    My model of what is happening, as mentioned before, is the refrigeration system. Trying to make it easy to understand.
    Stage one: The compressor increases pressure and heat/ ie capital and business activity. Excess heat/ capital is blown off by a fan
    / creamed off in bonusses etc.
    Stage two: The pressure is dropped by squeezing the money flow.
    i.e. the banks say that all the money is gone. The refrigerant gas, having lost heat through the fan or capital through bankers bonusses and pay, is now freezing cold. No-one can find any money to do anything. Business can be bought up cheap and state assets privatised.
    Stage three: The compressor then fires up on the low-pressure switch. The trouble is for us that we are dependent on the bankers to decide at which point they have creamed off enough fat from our pockets. With house prices and savings still at record levels, they may think that the British public can be squeezed a great deal more than at present. They will not re-capitalise the economy so long as pickings can be made from people who are desperate to sell.
    The people to attack are the bankers. The bankers control the politicians by threatening to wreck the entire economy if they do not do what they’re told.
    I would advocate direct action against the banking class. You never know, the blackmailed politicians might gain enough confidence to take control of our economy if they saw their blackmailers coming under fire from the people.
    We have to make the bankers lives hell. No swanning around in Bentleys, just sit quivering for fear in their gated village manors.
    As a footnote to this, several of the leaders of the rich Jewish clans who tried to murder our prophet Muhammad SAW were targetted and murdered, because it is possible for a very few individuals to exercise massive control over the rest of the bunch of nasties.
    The politicians are extremely expendable by these bullies. You have to target the bullies to get things done. Acid on cars, breaching of security fences, personal exposures on the internet. You have to break the law to stop these criminals because their works are destroying the whole world.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.