The UN started their dirty game against Libya in 2011. They used made-up lies about crimes that were never committed to push through articles to take action against Libya and the Libyan people using their criminal enforcer arm called NATO. The UN went against their own bylaws and refused to send fact finding commissions to investigate the truth in Libya before taking any action. The Libyan government requested 3 times for the fact finding commissions to come to Libya but were completely ignored. Then the UN went on to enforce a “no fly” zone over Libya by request and push of Obama, Clinton and McCain. After the “no fly” zone was installed (it took 3 days), NATO began to bomb the country with impunity.
Because the Libyan people were against this illegal invasion of their country, NATO faced a backlash and a strength of will to fight by the Libyan people who knew they were being attacked without cause. The Libyan people’s only protection against the 250,000 mercenaries brought in by the CIA (Clinton/Obama) was the Libyan National Army. These mercenaries, robbed, raped, killed and destroyed whatever they wanted with the help and encouragement of the UN, NATO and all the other western factions involved in the invasion of Libya. NATO began to destroy the country with their indiscriminate bombing raids that took place day and night all over the entire country. The Libyan National Army having no ability to fight back was being systematically destroyed and those who were not killed were tortured, killed or assassinated by the mercenaries. NATO bombed homes, schools, water supplies, hospitals, food warehouses, roads, power plants, hotels, farms (including animals and crops), anything and everything they wanted…it was a killing free for all.
Left destroyed, many Libyans went into exile as the perpetrators of the crimes against their country wanted to install their own puppet governments full of radical Islamic terrorists and other criminals. Any Libyan who had worked with or supported the past government was imprisoned and many were tortured to death. Out of the original population of 6.5 million people, over a million have been killed (up to 2017), 2 million went into exile, 1 million became homeless and the rest struggle to survive in a police state run by criminals supported by Italy, the US, the UN, France, the UAE, Turkey and Qatar. The promised 2014 election, where less than 1 million voted, threw out all the Muslim Brotherhood puppets and installed an elected House of Representatives. The criminal Muslim Brotherhood did not accept the results of the election and began to attack the duly elected officials causing them, the HOR (House of Representatives) to relocate themselves to the eastern city of Tobruk for their safety. After that the old GNC (General National Congress) reinstalled itself by force in Tripoli using the help of armed militias and declared itself the real government of Libya. No one recognizes this false government.
Enter the UN again, via their their UN representative to Libya, appointed by the UN, who is a German named Kobler. The Libyans have literally no representative at the UN and do not recognize a German to represent them. That has not stopped the UN who has moved ahead aggressively to create and install their puppet government in Libya.
About one year ago the UN using Kobler, formed a new government for Libya in Tunisia. This new government has not one person in their group that the Libyan people would want to lead them. It is full of Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Ansar Al Sharia and other radical Islamic terrorists. The legitimately elected government of Libya the HOR, rejected all association with the UN group as they have no authority in Libya and were not chosen by the Libyan people. No one wanted the UN puppet government that the UN named the “Government of National Accord” (think about the arrogance of the name the UN hand picked puppets to run the Libyan government under their direction). This made up government was not welcome in Libya, not by the real Libyans and not by the other puppet government in Tripoli. They were not being allowed into the country.
So, what did the UN do? They put this puppet group on boats and took them into Tripoli from Tunisia by the dark of night to sneak them into the country. Once inside they had to hold themselves up at the Mitiga Airport for their own safety. Now the UN had their scheme in full action, they began to put out mass media reports across the world calling Fayez al-Serraj (the leader of the UN group) the Prime Minister of Libya. Next they sent this Serraj out to foreign countries to meet with foreign leaders like he was representing Libya as their Prime Minister.
But their dirty scheme was just starting, they had their puppet in place and they began to use him to commit criminal acts. They used Serraj to call in airstrikes on Libya by Africom, these air strikes were mostly against the city of Sirte where ISIS has taken up. The excuse was to clean ISIS but what actually happened was ISIS was dispersed but the airstrikes were in support of the Misurata Militias (the most hated criminal militias in Libya supported by Clinton and McCain) who then moved into Sirte and locked down the city, went door to door stealing, raping whatever. These militias also destroyed most of the power lines and completely destroyed an animal feed plant that was imperative for food for Libya.
The latest scheme that the UN came forward with was to have Serraj sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy. This MOU stated that Libya would build many camps across their country to hold all the African immigrants attempting to get into Europe through Libya. Serraj then demanded that the EU send his group 800 million Euros to support this scheme, which of course he would have pocketed. But, the UN (who put this scheme together) underestimated even the bad guys in Libya who filed a claim with the Appeals Court in Tripoli against this MOU. The Appeals Court found in favor of this complaint and stated that Serraj has no authority to sign such an agreement and that the agreement would turn Libya into a giant refugee camp which would be unsustainable as Libya cannot even feed her own people at this time.
Frustrated by this, Serraj took a trip to the UAE where he met with some of his handlers and agreed to go back to Libya and take control of the National Oil Company of Libya. This will be a trick because the NOC is headed by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who will not pass his post voluntarily.
Seeing Serraj failing and watching him being attacked by many different militias, the Italians have come to his aid. The Italians, who have no authority in Libya or right to be on Libyan soil, have sent their famous military General, Paoulo Serra to help Serraj complete his mission to take over Libya from the Libyan people. The Italians also have (illegally) 400 soldiers on the ground in Libya supporting the criminal Misurata Militias. Anyone who knows history about Libya and Italy, knows that Libya had been occupied by Italy in the past and that Italy committed crimes and atrocities against Libya so huge that they almost affected a complete genocide of the Libyan race. Italy agreed to pay huge amounts of reparations to Libya because of their war crimes. This was negotiated by Ghadafi. Of course all those reparations have never been paid and now Italy is back inside Libya with their military. The Libyan people are disgusted in disbelief and saddened by this horrible turn of events appearing to repeat the past.
The UN is a criminal organization that has organized a fake government for Libya, installed it and is now using it to forward whatever agenda they desire.
The Libyans have had 6 years to understand the dirty game that has been played against their sovereignty, their culture and their land, they will not go quietly into the night, they will fight until they are free of the criminal western cabal that has infected their land.
© ReutersUS Army General Joseph Votel, the commander of the US Central Command As the White House is reportedly weighing deeper military involvement in the Yemeni civil war alongside Middle Eastern allies, America’s top commander in the region told Congress “there are vital U.S. interests at stake” in the fight.
Army Gen. Joseph Votel told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. does not want Yemen to be used asa sanctuary for attacks against the U.S. and allies or for militants to choke off the Red Sea’s Bab el-Mandeb strait, which runs past Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula as well as Djibouti and Eritrea on the Horn of Africa.
Comment: If the US wasn’t in the Bab el-Mandeb strait, it wouldn’t be a sanctuary for attacks against the US. If Saudi Arabia and cohorts weren’t bombing the blazes out of Yemen and killing off its population, the same applies.
The comments came as U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is asking the White House to lift restrictions on U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, The Washington Post reported this week. The plan under consideration reportedly includes backing a planned Emirati offensive to retake a key Red Sea port.
Altogether, it would be a more aggressive tack against Iran for the U.S., beyond counterterrorism operations against the local al-Qaida affiliate. On Wednesday, Votel said Tehran “poses the greatest long-term threat to stability” of the region and that the U.S. must disrupt, expose and hold it accountable through a combination of diplomatic and military action. “That has to be done, they have to account for their destabilizing role in the region right now,” Votel said.
The four-star general also stressed the threat posed by the al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen. “This is the franchise of al-Qaida that has demonstrated in the past — that has tried to attack our homeland, and some of those people still exist,” he said. “That’s a key aspect, and our focus is on disrupting it.”
Comment: Perhaps Votel should refresh his memory on the origins of al-Qaida and who-all was really responsible for 9/11. He should also remind himself that Iran did not start the Yemeni conflict, did not destabilize the region, nor is it responsible for the massacre of the Yemeni people.
An escalating role for the U.S. would risk complicity in a spiraling humanitarian crisis, as fighting between a Saudi-led coalition of regional states and Houthi rebels has cut off food supplies and yielded thousands of civilian casualties. In the public hearing on Wednesday, which preceded a closed-door session, lawmakers did not probe the risks in depth. But Votel did nod at them in his discussion of U.S. interests. “All of that is against the backdrop of the civil war, and we all understand the implications of becoming involved in those types of activities, and if we don’t choose to move forward militarily, we have to look at ways to move forward and resolve that situation,” Votel said.
Rep. Paul Cook, a former Marine colonel and a member of both the the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, replied: “Obviously everyone wants peace in the area and the fighting to stop, but until that happens, I think we have to take the side of our friends and allies.
Comment: Wrong. They have to take the side of innocent civilians. That is what militaries were created to do. (But that doesn’t count when you are selling weapons and equipment to the slaughterers.)
“They are so concerned that Iran is using the Houthi rebels as a proxy to destabilize and come after them,” the California Republican said. “While I don’t think we need boots on the ground, as much as we can do with [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] to support our friends and allies is critical.”
Amid questions from Cook, Votel affirmed the Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales programs are “extraordinarily important” in the region, and he said he was concerned when the U.S. does not share systems, potentially driving allies to buy elsewhere. The comments came after the State Department earlier this month reportedly approved a resumption of weapons sales that critics had linked to Saudi Arabia’s bombing of civilians in Yemen. In September, the Senate voted down a measure to block the $1.15 billion sale of U.S. tanks to Riyadh.
In the Bab el-Mandeb strait, the U.S. Navy has already expanded its presence. The destroyer Cole was tasked Feb. 3 with patrolling the region, days after a suicide boat attack by Yemeni Houthi rebels on the Saudi frigate Al Madinah off the port of Al Hudaydah killed two sailors on the warship. Stressing the waterway’s importance for international commerce and U.S. freedom of navigation, Votel said that it threatened to become “an extraordinarily restricted strait.”
With Iran’s backing, the strait has become militarized, he said, with “a layered defense” of coastal missiles, radar systems, mines and explosive-laden boats — “threatening ships and our security operations.”
Comment: And US ships decked in full armor don’t count in the militarization. Iranian paramilitary boats are small patrol boats.
These capabilities, he said, have migrated from the Strait of Hormuz, an important waterway for the oil trade at the mouth of the Arabian Gulf, where Iranian paramilitary boats have routinely faced off against U.S. naval forces.
Votel suggested use a combination of diplomatic and military efforts to resolve the issue. “This is an area where we will need the Department of State to help us,” he said. Amid questions from lawmakers about Iran’s probing naval maneuvers and perceived harassment of U.S. ships, Votel attributed the alleged aggression to Tehran’s aspirations to be the dominant regional power and downplayed their effect.
“I’m extraordinarily confident in our leaders and in the processes, procedures and capabilities they have to properly defend themselves,” Votel said. “The presence of these types of boats have seldom, if ever prevented us from doing their missions. [The paramilitary boats are] there to demonstrate their presence, in some cases be provocative.”
Votel affirmed that Tehran had increased destabilizing acts since the nuclear deal, which intentionally or not, will hand ammunition to critics of the controversial treaty. “I believe they have,” Votel said. “I believe that Iran is operating in what I would call a gray zone. It’s a competition between states and its just short of open conflict. They do it through surrogate forces, through lethal aid, and through their own cyber activities and influence operations.”
Comment: And who would know this mode of operation better than the creators, facilitators and protectors of ISIS?
There are more that 100,000 Iranian-backed Shia militants in Iraq, and that poses “a big concern” about Tehran’s influence beyond the fight against the Islamic State group, he said, as the U.S. advises Baghdad on integrating Shia paramilitary forces.
© the Greenville PostFrom the start of his presidency, Donald Trump’s “war on terror” has entailed the seemingly indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people in the name of killing terrorists. In other words, Trump has escalated the 16-year-old core premise of America’s foreign policy — that it has the right to bomb any country in the world where people it regards as terrorists are found — and in doing so, has fulfilled the warped campaign pledges he repeatedly expressed.
The most recent atrocity was the killing of as many as 200 Iraqi civilians from U.S. airstrikes this week in Mosul. That was preceded a few days earlier by the killing of dozens of Syrian civilians in Raqqa province when the U.S. targeted a school where people had taken refuge, which itself was preceded a week earlier by the U.S. destruction of a mosque near Aleppo that also killed dozens. And one of Trump’s first military actions was what can only be described as a massacre carried out by Navy SEALs, in which 30 Yemenis were killed; among the children killed was an 8-year-old American girl (whose 16-year-old American brother was killed by a drone under Obama).
Comment: It is extremely dubious that the Obama civilian casualties count is real and verifiable. This administration was known for its across-the-board fudging of numbers, be it military, financial, etc. Human Rights organizations have repeatedly reported watered down “official accountings.” A comparison between Trump and Obama should remain inconclusive.
In sum: Although precise numbers are difficult to obtain, there seems little question that the number of civilians being killed by the U.S. in Iraq and Syria — already quite high under Obama — has increased precipitously during the first two months of the Trump administration. Data compiled by the site Airwars tells the story: The number of civilians killed in Syria and Iraq began increasing in October under Obama but has now skyrocketed in March under Trump.
© Civilian Casualties/redcafe.netWhat’s particularly notable is that the number of airstrikes actually decreased in March (with a week left), even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the U.S. military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama:
© Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent ResolveThis escalation of bombing and civilian deaths, combined with the deployment by Trump of 500 ground troops into Syria beyond the troops Obama already deployed there, has received remarkably little media attention. This is in part due to the standard indifference in U.S. discourse to U.S. killing of civilians compared to the language used when its enemies kill people (compare the very muted and euphemistic tones used to report on Trump’s escalations in Iraq and Syria to the frequent invocation of genocide and war crimes to denounce Russian killing of Syrian civilians). And part of this lack of media attention is due to the Democrats’ ongoing hunt for Russian infiltration of Washington, which leaves little room for other matters.
But what is becoming clear is that Trump is attempting to liberate the U.S. military from the minimal constraints it observed in order to avoid massive civilian casualties. And this should surprise nobody: Trump explicitly and repeatedly vowed to do exactly this during the campaign.
He constantly criticized Obama — who bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries — for being “weak” in battling ISIS and al Qaeda. Trump regularly boasted that he would free the U.S. military from rules of engagement that he regarded as unduly hobbling them. He vowed to bring back torture and even to murder the family members of suspected terrorists — prompting patriotic commentators to naïvely insist that the U.S. military would refuse to follow his orders. Trump’s war frenzy reached its rhetorical peak of derangement in December 2015, when he roared at a campaign rally that he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS” and then let its oil fields be taken by Exxon, whose CEO is now his secretary of state.
Trump can be criticized for many things, but lack of clarity about his intended war on terror approach is not one of them. All along, Trump’s “solution” to terrorism was as clear as it was simple; as I described it in September 2016:
The clarity of Trump’s intentions regarding the war on terror was often obfuscated by anti-Trump pundits due to a combination of confusion about and distortions of foreign policy doctrine. Trump explicitly ran as a “non-interventionist” — denouncing, for instance, U.S. regime change wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria (even though he at some points expressed support for the first two). Many commentators confused “non-interventionism” with “pacifism,” leading many of them — to this very day — to ignorantly claim that Trump’s escalated war on terror bombing is in conflict with his advocacy of non-interventionism. It is not.
To the extent that Trump is guided by any sort of coherent ideological framework, he is rooted in the traditions of Charles Lindbergh (whose “America First” motto he took) and the free trade-hating, anti-immigration, über-nationalist Pat Buchanan. Both Lindbergh and Buchanan were non-interventionists: Lindbergh was one of the earliest and loudest opponents of U.S. involvement in World War II, while Buchanan was scathing throughout all of 2002 about the neocon plan to invade Iraq.
Despite being vehement non-interventionists, neither Lindbergh nor Buchanan were pacifists. Quite the contrary: Both believed that when the U.S. was genuinely threatened with attack or attacked, it should use full and unrestrained force against its enemies. What they opposed was not military force in general but rather interventions geared toward a goal other than self-defense, such as changing other countries’ governments, protecting foreigners from tyranny or violence, or “humanitarian” wars.
What the Lindbergh/Buchanan non-interventionism opposes is not war per se, but a specific type of war: namely, those fought for reasons other than self-defense or direct U.S. interests (as was true of regime change efforts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria). Lindbergh opposed U.S. involvement in World War II on the ground that it was designed to help only the British and the Jews, while Buchanan, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, attacked neocons who “seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests” and who “have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.”
The anti-Semitism and white nationalistic tradition of Lindbergh, the ideological precursor to Buchanan and then Trump, does not oppose war. It opposes military interventions in the affairs of other countries for reasons other than self-defense — i.e., the risking of American lives and resources for the benefits of “others.”
Each time Trump drops another bomb, various pundits and other assorted Trump opponents smugly posit that his doing so is inconsistent with his touted non-interventionism. This is just ignorance of what these terms mean. By escalating violence against civilians, Trump is, in fact, doing exactly what he promised to do, and exactly what those who described his foreign policy as non-interventionist predicted he would do: namely, limitlessly unleash the U.S. military when the claimed objective was the destruction of “terrorists,” while refusing to use the military for other ends such as regime change or humanitarianism. If one were to reduce this mentality to a motto, it could be: Fight fewer wars and for narrower reasons, but be more barbaric and criminal in prosecuting the ones that are fought.
Trump’s campaign pledges regarding Syria, and now his actions there, illustrate this point very clearly. Trump never advocated a cessation of military force in Syria. As the above video demonstrates, he advocated the opposite: an escalation of military force in Syria and Iraq in the name of fighting ISIS and al Qaeda. Indeed, Trump’s desire to cooperate with Russia in Syria was based on a desire to maximize the potency of bombing there (just as was true of Obama’s attempt to forge a bombing partnership with Putin in Syria).
What Trump opposed was the CIA’s yearslong policy of spending billions of dollars to arm anti-Assad rebels (a policy Hillary Clinton and her key advisers wanted to escalate), on the ground that the U.S. has no interest in removing Assad. That is the fundamental difference between non-interventionism and pacifism that many pundits are either unaware of or are deliberately conflating in order to prove their own vindication about Trump’s foreign policy. Nothing Trump has thus far done is remotely inconsistent with the non-interventionism he embraced during the campaign, unless one confuses “non-interventionism” with “opposition to the use of military force.”
Trump’s reckless killing of civilians in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is many things: barbaric, amoral, and criminal. It is also, ironically, likely to strengthen support for the very groups — ISIS and al Qaeda — that he claims he wants to defeat, given that nothing drives support for those groups like U.S. slaughter of civilians (perhaps the only competitor in helping these groups is another Trump specialty: driving a wedge between Muslims and the West).
But what Trump’s actions are not is a departure from what he said he would do, nor are they inconsistent with the predictions of those who described his foreign policy approach as non-interventionist. To the contrary, the dark savagery guiding U.S. military conduct in that region is precisely what Trump expressly promised his supporters he would usher in.