Reasons to be Cheerful no. 103 24

This in no way detracts from the duplicity and illegality involved in NATO’s intervention in the Libyan Civil War, but I am cheered by the thought that NATO’s attempt to co-opt, absorb and neutralise the “Arab spring” is not going as swimmingly as they hoped. The release of the damning documents on MI6 and CIA involvement with Gadaffi is one hopeful sign: the major anti-Israeli demonstration in Cairo is another.

The arab world is not as under control as Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron would like. I shall sing a little this morning.

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>

24 thoughts on “Reasons to be Cheerful no. 103

  • Dick the Prick

    I noticed that the BBC gave Blair a 30 minute headline slot on Toady to drivel absolute cockwaffle. I just hope someone finds some killer documents but it seems the Libyans are quite aware of how priceless blackmail is.

  • John Goss

    Me too. It cannot backfire enough on NATO countries, and leaders of those countries, for their interventionalist policies to the detriment of (largely) oil-rich states. Let’s hope Bush, Blair, Straw and others face international justice. Let’s hope the truth comes out.
    However I don’t think it will. Last night on the BBC there was an item about Libya’s missing weapons. I can’t be sure but I think the empty missile box about 15 seconds in was planted by the film-makers. To begin with it is brand new. Just compare it with those inside the store, which look like they have been there months, if not years.

  • Levantine

    Frankly, the Craig’s recent blog posts are underwhelming.
    “This in no way detracts from the duplicity and illegality involved in NATO’s intervention in the Libyan Civil War,”
    Duplicitous and illegal aren’t the aptest qualifications for the ongoing murder of hundreds of Libyans in cold blood, which is what the bombing does, and for a fuller picture check the link bellow*.
    “Intervention” is very general term for what is actually… an aggression.
    “Libyan Civil War”? According to the reports, opposite the Libyan govt forces are, very roughly, about 50% foreign ground troops. These foreigners tend to be the actual leaders.

  • mark_golding

    A powerful video:

    Who is willing to divert the present path of deception before Syria and Iran are smashed, decimated, slaughtered and obliterated, leaving us, our children and their children in a single dark corridor framed by dark actors wielding ‘cutters’ to break communications and isolate our existence?
    That is the reality and its happening now.

  • Wikispooks

    Seems to me the document ‘discoveries’ and revelations are likely more connected with internecine squabbling between the UK, French, Italian and assorted other subordinate SIS’s this side of the pond.
    Meanwhile, the over-arching agenda is to plant yet another ‘al-Qaeda Franchise’ in another Arab country, with Algeria, Syria and assorted other miscreants being lined up for similar treatment. That is what’s so Machiavellian about the whole ‘Arab Spring’ official narrative; it is the converse of the actualite.
    Repeat after me “We Cannot allow al-Qaeda a safe haven in Libya …..”
    I reckon NATO boots on the ground are pretty much inevitable down the road.

  • Herbie

    “A Libyan Islamist has told how he and his family were imprisoned after being “rendered” in an operation MI6 hatched in co-operation with Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence services. The rendition occurred shortly before Tony Blair paid his first visit to the dictator.
    In London, meanwhile, an official inquiry into Britain’s role in torture and rendition since 9/11 says the government has provided information about the UK’s role in the affair, and Whitehall sources defended intelligence agencies’ actions by saying they were following “ministerially authorised government policy”.
    It is the first time evidence has emerged that the British intelligence agencies ran their own rendition operation, as opposed to co-operating with those that were mounted by the CIA.”
    So, MI6 are saying that Blair and his small coterie of a kitchen cabinet authorised these crimes.
    How long before these criminals are brought to justice?

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ CRAIG,

    I am not on the ground in Libya -and – neither are you.

    This really is not about any honesty, truth or principled action on the part of Britain, France or the US/NATO. It is simply criminality at the highest international levels – and I will explain and outline why I say so. Of course, you or anyone else are perfectly entitled to tell me that I am wrong – but, please do so with credibly stated facts.
    This is a game of “military chess”. Lies are fed via the mainstream Western media. The truth of the matter is that it was NATO that drove the rebellion, but because it was not a true broad based people rebellion NATO is strategically disadvantaged. They can’t sustain the bombing attacks forever, and if they are to take Sirte and retain Benghazi and Tripoli – these are but small sections of the chess board relative to the wider geographical space of Libya and beyond Libya’s borders.
    It seems that the heat of the battle with NATO at the helm – has yet to begin.
    NATO has bombed infrastructure – then they steal Libyan money. Next, as in Iraq, you place a bill on the reconstruction where it is the West that determines the reconstruction costs. Reconstruction contracts are awarded at whatever costs Libyan and money goes to Western companies, and at the same time the Western interests illegally buy Libyan oil at cents on the dollar then sell on the open market for $200 per barrel or more and make huge profits. Look at Iraq – then follow the steps being taken in Libya. While NATO professes its pursuit of a “humanitarian mission” – its game is one of literal crimes against humanity and theft on a grand scale.
    But – the war is just beginning.
    CB (
    Read on:-

  • John Goss

    Thanks, Herbie, for the Guardian link.

    “Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, said he welcomed the fact that an inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson would be examining the matter but did not answer questions about whether he had authorised the operation.”

    Yes, he welcomed the fact that the inquiry was being headed by Gibson, since they both probably have something on each other.

    “How long before these criminals are brought to justice?”. Soon, Herbie, I hope. In terms of international law there is already enough evidence for a trial, not an inquiry. Inquiries are useless. And one chaired by Gibson into MI6 and ministerial complicity in torture is even more useless.

  • Jack

    If the anniversary of 9/11 shows anything, it is surely that any idea that 3rd-world and islamic countries cannot respond to Western aggession is a myth – there is no hiding place from people who feel they have nothing more to lose. Whether they are right or wrong becomes a matter of spin and propaganda in a world where perspective may ultimately be all that counts.

    The 9/11 perpetrators were – beyond question – criminals and murderers. But then so – beyond question – are most Western governments.

    The Twin Towers represented a Twin Tragedy – that both the naked aggression of the West and the violent response it (deliberately?) provokes both fall on largely innocent people. In contrast to the financiers, media barons and and war criminals who now seem to run most of the world but remain themselves largely unaffacted by anything other than the profits involved.

    My late Granny used to say – you made your bed and you must sleep in it. To my mind the West has made its bed.

  • Roderick Russell

    I am a little surprised at why there is so much objection to us finally assisting the non-Gadaffi forces in Libya. Incredible though it seems — and not to mention his past responsibilities for the murder of the London Policewoman, the 270 Lockerbie air crash victims, and four decades of abuse of the Libyan people by the Gadaffi regime – it appears that several of Europe’s present and former politicians, MI6, etc were already involved aiding and abetting the Gadaffi government. I think NATO finally got it right when they decided to reverse our (disgraceful) closet support for the murderous Gadaffi regime, and at least attempt to support a burgeoning democracy movement.

  • John Goss

    Mark Golding, I’ve just watched the video you posted a link to, which asks some very searching questions about the supply of arms to Libya. and the aims of the US government a few days after 9/11 to take out 7 countries starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. As well as being revealing as a video, one of the comments under the link was also revealing. A Russian, called Stephann, has written.
    Каддафи – Победа!

    Натофашистам и крысам - смерть!
    which means “Victory to Gadaffi!
    death to the NATO fascists and rats!
    It set me wondering just what other countries, like Russia, are thinking about us now. To my mind it is quite clear that if the USSR had not protected itself through the Warsaw pact the US, UK and France would have tried to change the USSR’s political system to one more acceptable to capitalist philosophies. Churchill wanted to drop napalm all over the USSR straight after the war but was talked out of it by his advisors. There is no level to which NATO will not stoop to destabilise a country with a regime with which it does not agree. It is blatant aggression and the aggressors should meet the full measure of the law (but not the death penalty). Showing what they did to Saddam Hussein in the video (which also asks who made the decision to execute him) helps demonstrate the futility of capital punishment.
    NATO must be dismantled. It is the major threat to peace on earth.

  • Ruth

    The Arabs including, of course, the Libyans are a little bit cleverer than most people here think. They know what they want and if they have to use the West to achieve their aims, so be it. They’re prepared to die for freedom and a say in the running of their country; we’re just prepared to moan about our corrupt government and lack of democracy.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Ruth,
    “They’re prepared to die for freedom and a say in the running of their country; we’re just prepared to moan about our corrupt government and lack of democracy.”
    “ They” meaning the Arabs – and – “we” meaning Westerners.
    But are you actually on point:-
    1. Surely you can see that it is NATO that propelled this struggle ( see : my post above).
    2. There has been significant public support for Gadaffi – and – clearly he has significant support in Libya – so – how in all honesty can you portray this struggle as any true contest for “democratic” rights? When Gadaffi states he was willing to have Western style elections and the African Union supported a roadmap to a negotiated an d peaceful solution:-
    – Why doesn’t NATO embrace the representatives of the African continent’s proposal which Gadaffi was willing to work with – if – at all this is a liberation process in the interest for “democracy” as distinct from just another bloody oil war.?
    – Why would the NATO powers set in train a process whereby specific steps along a peaceful path, already outlined by the AU, would not be followed? “Democracy” is the mantra – but – somehow the legitimate voice of the African continent does not have a “democratic” right and any chance to impose an accepted peaceful resolution – because NATO does not want elections and it does not want a peaceful; l path forward under the AU plan.
    – Why is it lawful to support a faction that NATO bombs into a power situation – which time will tell they can’t consolidate – but declare the so-called Transitional Council legitimate without elective sanction – while simultaneously rejecting the AU plan for elections?
    3. Are you seriously suggesting that a NATO led, armed and supported faction – is a more legitimate expression of the collective will of the Libyan people than what they had before? If so – in Western democratic terminology – please specify – why so?
    – 6 months relentless bombing – and the war is not over ( cf. Egypt and Tunisia where the leaders really had disconnected with their people en mass).
    – Arms supplied by foreign sources.
    – Rejection by NATO of the AU democratic plan.
    Military operatives on the ground guiding and directing the rebellion – so – is this an indigenous masses expression of disaffection with Gadaffi – or – is it a foreign funded and guided coup?
    Answer these questions Ruth – then let’s debate.
    What “democracy”?

  • Courtenay Barnett

    [Mod – duplicate content removed – re-post of earlier comment with Mathaba link]

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Moderator – no problem – I respect your decision. I am trying to take Ruth back to points that seem to have been leap-frogged. But – you acted fairly – I accept.

  • Brendan

    William Foster:“I’m the bad guy? How did that happen?”

    [Michael Douglas in ‘Falling Down’]

    The character in the movie eventually understood. The players in NATO never will. And this makes us wonder, who are NATO anyway? I don’t see even the fig-leaf of democratic accountability attached to NATO, and I’m not convinced at all that our elected politicians are the ones really calling the shots. Not that this matters – our elected politicians aren’t accountable either, unless you believe our elections are free and fair. And, I don’t.

  • Nextus

    @ Courtenay:
    “Of course, you or anyone else are perfectly entitled to tell me that I am wrong – but, please do so with credibly stated facts.”
    – It’s interesting that you should frame the discussion that way. You proclaim “the truth” about certain matters and demands facts in any riposte. Yet your “truth” is conjecture based on
    cui bono appeals to motives. Furthermore, you admit you are “not on the ground in Libya”, but you’re arguing with someone who has been on the ground in Libya; I fail to see why we should assume by default that you are the king-of-the-castle. How about you come up with some “credibly stated facts” to undermine your opponent’s “truth”?
    “Surely you can see that it is NATO that propelled this struggle ( see : my post above).”
    – “Surely you can see” that you’re employing loaded visual metaphors (like Tony Blair’s “Look …”). The implication is that anyone who disagrees with you is simply blind to the truth that you have privileged access to. (What’s the reply meant to be? “No, I don’t see …”) I would suggest that Ruth can see the point you’re making very clearly, and has considered it in depth, but has a different opinion on it.
    You may declare unilateral victory if your loaded questions aren’t answered by decisive refutations, but I’m not sure how many others will be convinced. I’m interested in your explanation, and I’m sure it’s part of the political narrative, but it would help if you separate the hard facts from the assumptions (that others may dispute).

  • Ex Pat

    > Roderick Russell
    Lockerbie was an internal US false flag operation. Lihop or mihop ??? – ‘The Maltese Double-Cross’ –
    The War of Terror foretold in 1982. Allan Francovich, from beyond the grave. Allan Francovich the author of ‘Inside the Company’ the famous film about the CIA _and_ of the ‘The Maltese Double Cross,’ which exposed US lies about the Lockerbie bombing. For which Allan Francovich was suicided at Houston Airport if you choose to believe that these things happen.
    @31.14 ‘I’ll predict … using the justification of fighting terrorism … and they are going to be encouraging, they are going to be publicising terrorism in order to get everyone nervous. You are going to see them start doing things inside this country to control people that, eh, they’ve been preparing to do for some time.’
    @56:00 The banality of (evil) ‘You’re dealing with a rotary club version of the Gestapo.’
    That was quite a crystal ball. For 1982. Allan Francovich Interview. –
    _This_ was the ‘limited-hangout’, so we can only imagine what they were hiding. Actually we don’t need to imagine. Because Peter Dale Scott has told US! It was the massive CIA drug dealing, dating back to the 1950s!
    CIA – ON COMPANY BUSINESS – Based on Philip Agee’s books –
    ‘American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA’s Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan’, by Peter Dale Scott – _Lots_ of ‘deep politics’ exposed _and_ made clear – a far harder job! ; ) –
    [Mod – personal insults removed.]

  • ingo

    Why should anybody have wanted to believe Gen. QWesley Clarke when he said what he said?
    But now, after two countries have been turned into chaotic enteties, with factional fighting a fact in Iraq and already visible in Libya’s formation of new power sturctures, i.e. a rift between those in Benghazi and the fighters in tripoli andf elsewhere, so we know his story is collaborated.

    NATO weaponry on the ground is proof that resolution 1973 is taken as a key to enter into Libya.
    What will follow is to be seen, in two month time we will see how many stooges have been employed and how much democracy is being offered to voters.

  • ingo

    Now as a new chapter, we see Syria and Iran being announced as the new target of the war on the world coalition by Foghorn Bliar, so rest assured, Libya will soon be controlled by the likes of Halliburton, allegedly.

    Cairo and Ankara’s relations with Israel have nosedived, the whole of the eastern end of the med has turned into and instabile powerderkeg, ready to blow any minute , hour or day of this or next week.
    The Turkish foreign ministers visit to Ghaza next week is timed with its ICJ case to be delivered, it is to be seen what sort of action Israel will respond with to this firendly visit by a foreign dignatory.

    Would not be surprised if they bomb Ghaza to welcome Davotuglu.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Nextus,

    Thanks for your response.

    You seem to be more focused on how I frame my expressed opinions than at all saying that I got anything factually incorrect. To that extent, and in that context, I do not have any difficulty with what you have said.
    I have not sought to invent “facts” and I placed emphasis in accordance with how I see an issue.
    “The implication is that anyone who disagrees with you is simply blind to the truth that you have privileged access to. (What’s the reply meant to be? “No, I don’t see …”)” And – that is how you frame the interpretation of what was posted. However – where have you factually and/or logically refuted anything.
    Not at all saying that I have the final word, answers, or that mine is the only opinion. Clearly, I asked for and openly invited feedback. You gave it and I have politely responded.
    You are not blind ( and my apology if you felt that was being said). You have your own grasp of the “truth” and are perfectly entitled to expresse it, as you see. Now – don’t let it be said that because of how I framed that last sentence – I was arrogating onto myself the power of permitting you to express your truth ( see what interpretation can do?). Smile – chuckle – all good healthy debate.
    Ruth – of course – is her own person and, I am sure able to speak for herself.

Comments are closed.