Saturday, May 19, 2012

NATO's 25th Summit in Chicago: Global Full-Spectrum Dominance

NATO`s 25th Summit in Chicago in Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance

By Christof Lehmann, nsnbc

16 May 2012


NATO and Chicago prepare for NATO`s 25th Summit while a 17 nations war games exercise is planned in northern Jordan, near the Syrian border. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called US President Obama and declared that he will not take part in NATO`s Summit. Russia is threatening with the option of a preemptive strike over NATO missile defense shield, while NATO is expected to declare the missile defense shield, stationed in Central Europe, and claimed to be directed against Iran as operational during NATO`s Summit. U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ivo H. Daalder, and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and Commander of the U.S. European Command, James G. Stavridis, published an article in “Foreign Affairs“ praising NATO`s successful intervention and victory in Libya, emphasizing NATO`s new international role, and it´s meeting of “the responsibility to protect” as justification for military intervention against sovereign states. Conservatively estimated the global security has not been as volatile and threatened since the Cuban Missile Crisis as it is today. Meanwhile Western Main Stream Media continue painting a picture of “business as usual“. What is to be expected for the nearest future is uncertain. What is certain however, is that the geopolitical developments over the next one to three months will have a significant impact on long term geopolitics and long term global security, and that an new peace initiative is urgently needed.

The 25th NATO Summit

On 20 – 21 May 2012 NATO`s 25th Summit will be taking place in Chicago, U.S.A.. According to NATO, the summit in The Windy City will principally focus on three main themes; the Alliance´s commitment to Afghanistan through transition and beyond; ensuring the Alliance has the capabilities it needs to defend it´s population and territory and to deal with the challenges of the 21st century; and, strengthening NATO`s network of partners across the globe. (1) Translated into a less euphemistic and into a more honest language it translates into that NATO has ambitions to remain in Afghanistan until at least 2014 and most likely beyond 2020 as a function of the strategic encirclement of Russia and China; to begin operating the Anti Ballistic Missile Defense System stationed in Central and Southern Europe, as a means to secure NATO`s capability of a first strike against Russia, and under the pretext of establishing a defense against a fabled missile threat from Iran; and finally, the further strategic and geopolitical encirclement of Russia and China by means of everything between diplomatic pressure, the stationing of troops in former Soviet Republics, maintenance of bases and special operations units in them where feasible, the financing, training and arming of radicalized Islamic groups and other organizations that can be directed against Russia and China, and finally, where ever feasible and opportune, the fabrication of color revolutions and post modern coups where ever a government from the Ukraine, via the greater Middle East to South East- Central- and North East Asia, is opposed to NATO-Expansionism. The creation of incidences that challenge China, such as the ongoing dispute between China and the Philippines over a rock in the middle of nowhere within the South China Sea is probably another factor of NATO´s new doctrine and strategy.

NATO's Expansionism

What NATO does not publicize on it`s website, but which must be considered when analyzing the fact that NATO is attempting to keep the costs for it´s expansion and warfare as low as possible is the fact that the U.S. Special Forces Training Circular, TC 18-01, which has been written for foreign fighters in U.S. and NATO unconventional warfare, clearly states that the U.S.A. will prioritize unconventional warfare for the foreseeable future. (2) In other words, NATO will strongly emphasize the building, maintenance of, and cooperation with terrorist groups and mercenary forces, as seen in both Libya and the ongoing attempted subversion in Syria. Subsequent to the ratification of the Separate Contract between NATO and the United Nations, NATO has officially assumed the role of the “Global Police Force”. It increasingly justifies it´s expansionism under the pretext of “The Responsibility to Protect”, as specified in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/308, (3) which was adopted subsequent to the outcome of the July Debate 2009 of the “International Coalition For The Responsibility to Protect”. (4)

NATO argues that it is uniquely capable of this role since no “other major global power” is capable of “rapidly establishing a well coordinated international military response to global challenges”. Yet another development in NATO expansionist strategy are considerations to make more use of NATO`s Article 5. The first precedence for the use of Article 5 was the interpretation of the events on 9/11 as an attack on a NATO member, that justified a collective response and defense against Afghanistan. (5) The use of Article 5 as well as the use of “the responsibility to protect” are currently being debated as a pretext for justifying an overt military aggression against Syria. The pretexts that are considered are, that the security of Turkey will be threatened by the development of the crisis in Syria. (6) As a pretext for the use of “the responsibility to protect” it is most likely that the recent and continuing bombings in Syria, which are attributed to Al Qaeda, are used to justify the argument that the Syrian Government is unable to protect it`s own population from an ever more deteriorating situation, and that, regardless the fact that Al Qaeda has long been discredited as a creation of NATO.

Intervention in Lybia as "Victory"

NATO`s Perception of the Intervention in Libya as “Victory” and as “The Right Way to Run an Intervention”. The fact that NATO´s expansionist strategies are becoming part of the official NATO Doctrine could not be voiced more clearly within a public forum than it was voiced in a recent article by the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo H. Daalder, and NATO`s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis; the article was published in “Foreign Relations”. (7) A brief deconstruction of their article, “NATO`s Victory in Libya – The Right Way to Run an Intervention” (ibid.), clearly outlines NATO`s development towards a doctrine and strategy that is aiming at global, full spectrum military dominance. The doctrine includes an aggressive attempt to isolate Russia and China strategically as well as geopolitically while expanding NATO hegemony under the pretense of the responsibility to protect, by abusing humanitarian principles for aggressive military campaigns, and by maintaining that only NATO is uniquely equipped to meet the global challenges of todays need for security.

Daalder and Stavridis hail Libya as “model intervention”. They are emphasizing that the alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundred of thousands of civilians who were rebelling against an oppressive regime. The article does not contain a word about the well documented fact that NATO, or rather the U.S. military have been aware of who precisely it was, whom citizens of NATO member states were led to believe to be peaceful protesters. Not a single word that the “peaceful protesters” were the same organizations and Libyan fighters from Bengazi and Derna who made the highest per capita contribution of foreign fighters in Iraq. Foreign fighters, who have stood for the murder of scores of U.S. and allied troops, as well as thousands of Iraqi citizens. The fact that the U.S. military as well as U.S. and NATO intelligence services must have been acutely aware of the fact that they were branding the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group as peaceful protesters is clearly documented by the U.S. military´s own publications.

The "Counter-Terrorism" Study

Most prominently among these documentations is a West Point, Counter Terrorism Study called “Al Qa´ida`s Foreign Fighters in Iraq – A First Look at the Sinjar Records “. (8) Neither do Daalder and Stavridis draw attention to the fact that the CIA imported at least 1.500 foreign fighters from Mazar E-Sharif, Afghanistan (9), or for that sake, that the vast majority of the so called Libyan revolutionary forces consisted of a ragtag rebel army recruited in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Qatar, or that those ragtag rebel mercenaries were so disorganized, chaotic, and lacked military education as well as discipline to such a degree that they would have been defeated right out, had they not been assisted by U.S., U.K., French, Italian, Dutch, Qatari, and other NATO and allied Special Operations Forces. Not a word about the fact that the murder of thousands of Libyan soldiers during the first day of NATO´s air campaign was the murder on a legitimate military force that attempted to protect the citizens of Bengazi and Derna from Al Qaeda and associated, NATO backed mercenaries.

In plain English, what Daalder and Stavridis write on behalf of NATO is the following. Unless the new NATO Doctrine and Strategy is meeting a sufficient and credible political as well as military opposition from Russia and China, NATO will continue creating the very crisis to which it then responds; rapidly, while praising itself for it`s humanitarian efforts in fulfillment of NATO`s responsibility to protect. NATO is making the Hegelian Dialectics of Problem Reaction Solution, which it has used for decades in false flag terror operations into part of it´s new, official military doctrine.  To protect the world, of course.

Daalder and Stavridis simplistic Libya time line emphasizes two developments. That the UNSC placed sanctions on Libya in late February, and that Ghadafi´s “crimes” were referred to the International Criminal Court in the Haag, as well as the fact that that the U.S. “led the charge for the UN resolution that authorized the intervention, justifying the action as consistent with the responsibility to protect”. (ibid.) Then, following the U.N. authorization, the United States led a coalition in launching air and missile strikes against Libyan forces – including against a large concentration of armored vehicles approaching Bengazi, the headquarters of the revolution and home to 750,000 people whom Ghadafi had labeled rats.(ibid)

Dehumanizing the Enemy


Although it is tragic, it is common practice to dehumanize the enemy in warfare. What needs to be mentioned however, is the fact that those who were called “rats” by the Libyan government and the people of Libya in general, were those foreign Arab mercenaries and terrorists that began to be imported by NATO and who began a systematic campaign of terror, murder, rape, massacres on black Libyans and migrant workers. NATO uses mercenary forces, including known terrorist organizations to challenge a sovereign nations legitimate government, positions the targeted nations government as dictatorship and abusers of human rights, uses the United Nations Security Council for a mandate to “protect” the civilians of the nation it attacks, and then continues a war on the nation until the military objective has been fulfilled. In the case of Libya, it was regime change, and the long term destabilization of the country. Daalder and Stavridis are calling Libya “A Teachable Moment”.

What it ought to teach the international community is the fact, that the world is dealing with a dangerous, aggressive, expansionist political and military alliance that will stop at nothing, and that will not shy any abuse before the goal of global, full spectrum dominance is achieved. The final targets are Russia, China, and the world. The stars are the limit. Daalder and Stavridis are also calling Libya for “a teachable moment” because NATO has, as they claim, saved tens of thousands of lives from almost certain destruction, and because NATO has conducted an air campaign of unparalleled precision, which although not perfect, greatly minimized collateral damage. (ibid.) Nothing could better have elicited NATO`s criminal and appalling disregard for international law and human lives than those words.

Semantics are revealing, and the use of the term “destruction” of human lives is telling; but that is just a minor fact. What is by far more telling is the fact that neither Daalder nor Stavridis spend as much as a single word on the countless black African Libyans and black African migrant workers, who according to the African Union´s Fact Finding Mission already were targeted and massacred during the initial stages of the insurgency. When NATO officially entered the theater these massacres increased in frequency, intensity and number. It is not surprising then, that they are not making mention of the massacre and internal displacement of tens of thousands of Tawergha. (10) Neither do they mention the use of cluster bombs in densely populated civilian areas while they are writing about an air campaign with has been conducted with unparalleled precision. (11)

Targeting NATO's Opponents

The fact that NATO bombs were used to destroy a significant percentage of Libya´s civilian infrastructure, including the Man-Made River Project, that provided most of Libya with fresh water for human, animal, agricultural and industrial use is not mentioned either. (12) NATO and it´s allies have committed tens of thousands of war crimes while referring the legitimate political leadership of Libya to the International Criminal Court. NATO`s doctrine could be described as being legislator, prosecutor, investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. It is a most dangerous concentration of political, legal and military power that can not other than result in the greatest challenge to global stability and security which the world has ever been confronted with; and in deed, as it will be seen below, international peace and security have conservatively estimated not been as volatile since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Unless the development will be vehemently and consequently opposed, any country that opposes NATO members financial and economical, resource or geo-strategically oriented politics as well as hegemonic interests, like Libya, can and will be targeted under the pretense of the responsibility to protect. In the case of Libya the actual reasons for NATO´s aggression were a combination of geo-strategic considerations. The fact that Libya was lobbying successfully for the establishment of a Pan-African gold-backed currency, that it together with Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast had threatened French dominance and control over the economies in the CFR region, that Libya opposed the Mediterranean Basin Alliance because it would have divided Africa into two regions rather than uniting it, and that Libya vehemently lobbied for African Unity. The fact that Libya also has Africa´s largest oil reserves is another reason. (13)

Any nation that opposes the NATO expansionism that is directed against Russia and China, such as Syria, Iran, the DPR-Korea can and will be targeted. The Modus Operandi from subversion to full scale conflict are clearly outlined in the U.S. Special Forces Training Circular TC 18-01 (ibid.), and not even the vehement Russian protest against NATO´s blatant abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 (14) on Libya, nor Russian and Chinese objections against NATO`s ongoing subversion in Syria can stop NATO`s ambitious, threatening posture and criminal aggressions. (15) It is this high stakes game of RISK that NATO forces onto the international community, which will be debated and officially adopted as official NATO Doctrine and Strategy during the 25th NATO Summit in Chicago.

War Games in Jordan 


Moreover the NATO summit will be coinciding with an unprecedented war game in Jordan, along the border to Syria, and most likely with the activation of NATO´s Anti Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe. This missile shield will enable NATO to carry out a first strike against Moscow – regardless how many times they might repeat that it is being activated as defense against a potential Iranian missile attack on Europe. It is not alarmist to state, that the world, conservatively spoken, has not been as close to a global conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis. NATO War Games Starting along Syrian Border in Jordan on 15 May, five days prior to NATO´s Summit. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is popularly known by Syrians as “The Lion of Syria”. The US and NATO has had Special Forces operating from Al-Mafriq, Jordan, for months.(16)

The entire region around Al-Mafriq has since been closed for civilians, and it is being used as staging area for a massive insurgency against Syria. Approximately 40.000 foreign, NATO allied mercenaries, including 18.000 Libyans under the command of Abdelhakim Belhadj are operating from the region. Turkey has for months operated an intelligence operations room as well as recruitment center for NATO mercenaries to oust just that Lion, form an address in Mekka Street, Amman, Jordan. (17) On 15 May, only five days before NATO´s Summit in Chicago, the situation is further escalating. A massive amount of military forces and equipment has been shipped to the region under the pretext of a “war game”, named “Eager Lion”. Forces from 17 nations are taking part in this “exercise” along the Syrian border. (18) U.S., NATO, and Jordanian officials, off course, maintain that it is a sheer coincidence that the war game is taking place during the crisis in Syria.

Surrounding Syria

Furthermore, the massive concentration of troops, weapons and equipment is located in the strategically most advantageous region for a land assault with armored and infantry forces against Syria. In the case of the not unlikely situation that the war “game” is turned into an aggression against Syria, the best military option for the main assault would be to use this very region, while an air campaign as well as minor attacks from Kurdish fighters along the Iraqi Syrian border, minor attacks from Lebanon and Turkey could serve as distractions. More over, Jordan can establish a corridor for US as well as Saudi Troops and equipment stationed in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Another aggravating factor is, that Israel is stationing 22 extra battalions to “secure the Egypt, Syria borders”. (19) Even if the risk of this situation to turn into an overt war on Syria is estimated conservatively, the risk for a NATO attack on Syria is extremely high.

There can be no doubt, that a U.S. / NATO led attack on Syria will provoke an immediate response from Iran as well as Hezbollah. An attack on Syria is thus bound to develop into a regional war that would engulf the Wider Middle East. It is this scenario, a scenario that draws Russian Naval Forces in Syria, as well as Russian Naval, Air and Land forces stationed along the Caspian Sea into the conflict, which Russian forces have been preparing for for months. Russian military forces have already months ago opened a 24 hour per day manned operations room to monitor the situation closely, and it is unthinkable that Russia has not actively prepared an appropriate military response.(20) Iran has the capability to deliver a crushing strike against U.S. and NATO naval vessels in the Gulf, as well as military bases in GCC member states. A full out Iranian response could potentially result in the loss of over 15.000 U.S. American troops within the first day alone.

Hezbollah has according to confidential sources acquired a missile capability far greater than that which it had during the last Israeli attack on Lebanon, and it has reportedly acquired missiles that are capable of hitting targets throughout Israel with far greater precision. A NATO led war on Syria, which develops into a regional war is not only likely to force Russia to respond in the Wider Middle Eastern war theater. Recent years tensions about NATO´s strategic encirclement and the threat of NATO building a first strike capability against Russia under the guise of a fabled defense against a Iranian missile attack against Europe have escalated into a deep diplomatic crisis between NATO and Russia. NATO initiates first strike capability against Russia while Russia reserves the right to initiate a preemptive strike. Many analysts, including the author of this article are convinced that NATO will make it´s anti ballistic missile defense shield operational in May 2012, and the NATO Summit in Chicago is a likely date for this being declared.

The Missile Shield

The missile shield is according to NATO directed against Iran, to protect Europe from an Iranian missile attack. The question Russia is asking NATO is twofold. For the first part, how likely is it that Iran has the capability to hurl missiles into Central, Northern and North Eastern Europe. If the missile shield is meant to protect NATO member states from a fabled Iranian missile attack, why station the missiles in Poland, Romania, and up along the Russian borders ? Would it not make more sense to station the anti missile missiles in Turkey ? Why station the anti missile missiles precisely so, that they would make a successful first strike by NATO against Moscow more likely to be successful by limiting Russia´s capacity to initiate an organized response in it´s defense? Is this what NATO had in mind when inviting Russia into the “Partnership for Peace” program ?

NATO has so far ignored the Russian concerns. NATO has broken countless of the preconditions for Germany´s reunification, such as not to station NATO troops in former Soviet Republics. NATO literally ignored the concerns of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the International Security Conference in Munich, 2007, where he warned about the extremely volatile security situation due to NATO´s aggressive expansionism. Since then, Russian protests about the criminal abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 on Libya have been ignored; Syria has been and is being relentlessly attacked by NATO and allied countries, and NATO seems not to be taking Russian concerns about the prospects of a regional war, involving Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and the Wider Middle East serious. It is most likely and understandable that Russia interprets a possible activation of NATO´s missile shield as an unofficial declaration of war.

The fact that Vladimir Putin has pulled out of the NATO Summit (21), the fact that Russia is sending a clear signal to NATO that enough is enough, and that it will reserve itself the right for a preemptive strike against NATO in case the missile shield is brought on-line, and the fact that Russia rejects to be talked into more voluntary surrenders of Russia´s security as well as that of it´s allies is a clear sign that the NATO Summit in the windy city may bring about a substantial change in global security. Many analysts, the author of this article included, are convinced that it is not alarmist, but to the contrary, that it is a conservative estimation, when stating that the world has not been as close to an absolute failure of diplomacy and the outbreak of a regional conflict with global consequences.

This month in Chicago, NATO will officially declare itself as World Police Force and reserve for itself the right to intervene anywhere, any time, under the pretext of human rights and the right to protect, while threatening it´s partner for peace by establishing what NATO strategists consider as a credible first strike capability against Moscow. Should the current crisis not develop into a regional war with global consequences it would be highly recommendable for Russia, China, and anti-imperialist governments world wide to strongly support the establishment of a credible, politically powerful European and American Peace Movement. Unless Russia or China plan to stop NATO´s aggression by force, it would be wise to make an investment into peace that is proportional to the actual threat military threat NATO represents.

Dr. Christof Lehmann established nsnbc on 28 August 2011 with the purpose to break corporate or state controlled medias embargo on truth. nsnbc publishes articles from journalists, authors and experts from all continents.

References:

(1) NATO´s 25th Summit Meeting. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_84287.htm

(2) TC 18-01 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare. http://nsnbc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

(3) UN General Assembly – Resolution 63/308 on the Responsibility to Protect. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/Resolution%20RtoP.pdf

(4) ICRtoP Outcome of July Debate: Adoption of First UN Resolution on The Responsibility to Protect. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/2626-un-resolution-on-the-responsibility-to-protect

(5) NATO: Invocation of article 5 confirmed. http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm

(6) Turkey: NATO Article 5 still in play in Syria crisis. http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/6036

(7) Ivo H. Daalder, James G. Stavridis (2012). NATO`s Victory in Libya. The Right Way to Run an Intervention. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2012. Pp.2 – 7.

(8) Al Qa´eda`s Foreign Fighters in Iraq. West Point, Countering Terrorism. CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07

(9) CIA recruits 1.500 from Mazar e Sharif to fight in Libya. The Nation. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/31-Aug-2011/CIA-recruits-1500-from-MazareSharif-to-fight-in-Libya

(10) Ethnic Cleansing – Genocide and the Tawergha. Human Rights Investigations. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/ethnic-cleansing-genocide-and-the-tawergha/

(11) Video of Cluster Bomb Attack on the Civilian Populated City of Brega, Libya, below article and references.

(12) NATO bombs the Great Man-Made River. Human Rights Investigations. http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/27/great-man-made-river-nato-bombs/ 

(13) Neo-Colonialism, Subversion in Africa, and Global Conflict. Lehmann (2011) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/neo-colonialism-subversion-in-africa-and-global-conflict/

(14) UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 on Libya. http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/7825813.88950348.html

(15) Russia draws line in Syrian Sand. Lehmann (2011) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/russia-draws-line-in-syrian-sand/

(16) Foreign Troops Begin to Spread Near Al Mafriq. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/foreign-troops-begin-to-spread-in-syria/

(17) NATO set for War on Syria threatens Iran. The Russian Dilemma and the Possible Joker. Lehmann (2012) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/nato-set-for-war-on-syria-threatens-iran-the-russian-dilemma-and-the-possible-joker/

(18) Over 15 Nations to join US-led military drill near Syria border. Hyrriet Daily News. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/over-15-nations-to-join-us-led-military-drill-near-syria-border.aspx?pageID=238&nid=20407&NewsCatID=352

(19) Israel Approves Call Up of 22 Additional Battalions to secure Egypt Syria Borders. http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/5915

(20) Attack on Syria likely before March ? http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/attack-on-syria-likely-before-march/ Putin pulls out of NATO Summit. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2114393,00.html

Putin pulls out of summit, missile defense discussion. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120510_13_A4_WASHIN208733&allcom=1

President Obama keeps reaching out to Putin. The Nation. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/15-May-2012/president-obama-keeps-reaching-out-to-putin

(21) NATO Air Strike on the Civilian Populated City of Brega, Libya, during operation “Unified Protector” 2011.  Brega – Libya – Cluster Bombs Brega – Libya – Cluster Bombs ►

2 comments:

  1. “the fact that those who were called “rats” by the Libyan government and the people of Libya in general, were those foreign Arab mercenaries and terrorists that began to be imported by NATO and who began a systematic campaign of terror, murder, rape, massacres on black Libyans and migrant workers”



    “neither Daalder nor Stavridis spend as much as a single word on the countless black African Libyans and black African migrant workers, who according to the African Union´s Fact Finding Mission already were targeted and massacred during the initial stages of the insurgency. When NATO officially entered the theater these massacres increased in frequency, intensity and number”



    "It would make sense to me that both Libyans and NATO forces targeted Blacks - the Libyans because they were finally free to avenge themselves against colonisers and NATO because it could paint its Libyan opposition as ‘racist,’ the ultimate thought-crime in our formerly Western newly anti-Western police-states."

    *****

    Mr Lehmann, I believe that Kaddafi’s stance on race and nation issues is one of the two main reasons the interests that run NATO allowed Kaddafi to rule Libya for so long even though he made such pronounced efforts to improve the living standards of ordinary Libyans.

    A leader apparently on the side of his own people - if that people is not Jewish - is simply not tolerated by those interests as a rule.

    But whereas Kaddafi endeavoured to improve the living standards of people in Libya in the present, he also made efforts to eventually eliminate the Libyan people as such, and to replace the population with sub-Saharan Africans, and to abolish Libya as a sovereign state subsumed within a Pan-African, Black-run empire (see for example ‘Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective’ by Gerald A. Perreira).

    Native Libyans and Black colonists were both aware of this monstrous agenda - the Libyans standing opposed but powerless and the Black colonisers in at least tacit agreement and taking criminal advantage of it.

    It was perfectly predictable that the Libyans would turn against these knowing agents of Libyan genocide when Kaddafi lost power and I for one do not blame them. If any crime deserves the death penalty then conspiracy to commit genocide surely does.

    I suspect that Kaddafi was tolerated just as long as his generally anti-Libyan / pro-Black agenda led to race-replacement in Libya but did not threaten to bear fruit in the form of Pan-African or at least widespread African economic convergence under a non debt-based money system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for posting this article on your blogg. I wanted to tell you a month ago - time flies. To the comment by Nick Dean. I´d advise to have a close look at the functions of the OAS vs the EU co-opted AU, the prospects of uniting Africa against usurpation rather than having Africa divided into a EU-associated Mediterranean Basin Alliance and a Sub Saharan African Hellhole, plundered by functions such as the CFA region - 8 African Nations having their fiscal politics, the value of their currency etc dictated from Paris, good and well 80 % of their foreign currency reserves administrated by the French National Bank. Libya / Africa looks easy through eyes like those, I presume Nick Dean applies, when in fact it is extremely complicated, multi faceted. There is a lot of truth in his words, but some of it is simply misconstrued. Understandable when taken into account how complicated the situation is and how little information there is that is easily accessible - or even documented at all.

    Maybe the closest thing to answering in this forum is to point towards my article " Neo-Colonialism, Subversion in Africa and Global Conflict" published in "The Illegal War on Libya"
    http://www.claritypress.com/McKinney.html and on nsnbc

    Thank you for reading the article though, and thank you Jim for carrying it here.

    Too bad that neither writing nor reading stops the murder that is unleashed in Syria now.

    Best

    Christof

    ReplyDelete