Accueil
Galerie
Publications
Rechercher
S'enregistrer
ConnexionWho is Muammar Gaddafi?
Page 1 sur 1
Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Mar 1 Mar 2011 - 19:42
Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
01.03.2011
by Antonio Cesar Oliveira
How can you call someone a dictator leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?
Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media - in the service of the U.S. - praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South
Africa.
Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.
In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendAfter losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.
But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.
In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.
The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.
This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.
Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.
In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.
So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.
Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.
This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.
But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.
Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.
This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.
*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)
He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.
He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."
Translated from the Portuguese and appended by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
01.03.2011
by Antonio Cesar Oliveira
How can you call someone a dictator leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?
Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media - in the service of the U.S. - praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South
Africa.
Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.
In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendAfter losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.
But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.
In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.
The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.
This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.
Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.
In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.
So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.
Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.
This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.
But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.
Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.
This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.
*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)
He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.
He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."
Translated from the Portuguese and appended by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Jeu 3 Mar 2011 - 10:04
Libya: What the media is hiding
02.03.2011
by Miguel Urbano Rodrigues
Two weeks have elapsed since the first demonstrations in Benghazi and Tripoli. The disinformation campaign about Libya has sown confusion in the world. First a certainty: the analogies with events in Tunisia and Egypt are misplaced. These rebellions contributed obviously to depoliticize street protests in both neighboring countries, but the peculiar Libyan process has characteristics inseparable from the conspiring strategy of imperialism and what can be defined as the metamorphosis of a leader.
Muammar Gaddafi, unlike Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, took an anti-imperialist position when he seized power in 1969. A puppet monarchy was abolished, and for decades he has practised a policy of independence, beginning with the nationalisation of oil. He has practised a strategy that promoted economic development and reduced egregious social inequality.
Libya joined with countries and movements that fought against imperialism and Zionism. Gaddafi founded universities and industries, a flourishing agriculture emerged from the desert sands, hundreds of thousands of citizens for the first time had a right to decent housing.
The bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in l986 by the U.S. Air Force showed that the Reagan White House identified the Libyan leader as an enemy to beat. Heavy sanctions were applied to the country.
Since the second Gulf War, Gaddafi turned 180 degrees. Libya was subjected to IMF demands, dozens of companies were privatised and the country was opened to major international oil companies.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendWashington came to see Gadhafi as a leader to dialogue with. He was received with special honours in Europe; fabulous contracts were signed with the governments of Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.
The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A "prince" Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.
The solidarity of the major media in the U.S. and the European Union with the rioting of terrorists in Libya was obviously hypocritical. The Wall Street Journal, a publication for big worldwide finance, did not hesitate to suggest in an editorial (February 23) that "the U.S. and Europe should "help 'Libyans' overthrow the regime of Gaddafi."
Obama, in expectation, was silent on Libya for six days. On the seventh, he condemned the violence and called for sanctions. It followed an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and an expected package of sanctions.
Many progressive Latin American leaders admitted there is an imminent military intervention of NATO. This initiative would be dangerous and stupid, and would produce a negative effect in the Arab world, reinforcing the latent anti-imperialist sentiment in the masses.
The marketing campaign underway of major international media expands the organizers of the rebellion as heroes while they present Gaddafi as a killer and paranoid. The coming days and tomorrow are unpredictable in Libya, the third largest oil producer in Africa, a country whose wealth is now largely falling into the hands of imperialism.
However, the air strikes that western corporate media claim took place on February 22 over Benghazi and Tripoli, which were widely reported by the likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera, with hands wringing and crocodile tears flowing...were not registered by the Russian military chiefs examining the images coming in from satellites.
The satellite pictures show that, "nothing of that sort has been going on on the ground." states Irina Galushko, adding that there is also no evidence from footage shot by television cameras which suggests that any airborne attacks took place. So there you go, lies from beginning to end.
Translated from the Portuguese version and appended by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
02.03.2011
by Miguel Urbano Rodrigues
Two weeks have elapsed since the first demonstrations in Benghazi and Tripoli. The disinformation campaign about Libya has sown confusion in the world. First a certainty: the analogies with events in Tunisia and Egypt are misplaced. These rebellions contributed obviously to depoliticize street protests in both neighboring countries, but the peculiar Libyan process has characteristics inseparable from the conspiring strategy of imperialism and what can be defined as the metamorphosis of a leader.
Muammar Gaddafi, unlike Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, took an anti-imperialist position when he seized power in 1969. A puppet monarchy was abolished, and for decades he has practised a policy of independence, beginning with the nationalisation of oil. He has practised a strategy that promoted economic development and reduced egregious social inequality.
Libya joined with countries and movements that fought against imperialism and Zionism. Gaddafi founded universities and industries, a flourishing agriculture emerged from the desert sands, hundreds of thousands of citizens for the first time had a right to decent housing.
The bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in l986 by the U.S. Air Force showed that the Reagan White House identified the Libyan leader as an enemy to beat. Heavy sanctions were applied to the country.
Since the second Gulf War, Gaddafi turned 180 degrees. Libya was subjected to IMF demands, dozens of companies were privatised and the country was opened to major international oil companies.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendWashington came to see Gadhafi as a leader to dialogue with. He was received with special honours in Europe; fabulous contracts were signed with the governments of Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.
The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A "prince" Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.
The solidarity of the major media in the U.S. and the European Union with the rioting of terrorists in Libya was obviously hypocritical. The Wall Street Journal, a publication for big worldwide finance, did not hesitate to suggest in an editorial (February 23) that "the U.S. and Europe should "help 'Libyans' overthrow the regime of Gaddafi."
Obama, in expectation, was silent on Libya for six days. On the seventh, he condemned the violence and called for sanctions. It followed an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and an expected package of sanctions.
Many progressive Latin American leaders admitted there is an imminent military intervention of NATO. This initiative would be dangerous and stupid, and would produce a negative effect in the Arab world, reinforcing the latent anti-imperialist sentiment in the masses.
The marketing campaign underway of major international media expands the organizers of the rebellion as heroes while they present Gaddafi as a killer and paranoid. The coming days and tomorrow are unpredictable in Libya, the third largest oil producer in Africa, a country whose wealth is now largely falling into the hands of imperialism.
However, the air strikes that western corporate media claim took place on February 22 over Benghazi and Tripoli, which were widely reported by the likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera, with hands wringing and crocodile tears flowing...were not registered by the Russian military chiefs examining the images coming in from satellites.
The satellite pictures show that, "nothing of that sort has been going on on the ground." states Irina Galushko, adding that there is also no evidence from footage shot by television cameras which suggests that any airborne attacks took place. So there you go, lies from beginning to end.
Translated from the Portuguese version and appended by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Mer 9 Mar 2011 - 20:32
Les combats se sont poursuivis mercredi en Libye, où les forces gouvernementales ont progressé dans la ville de Zaouïah, dans l'Ouest, et ont bombardé des positions rebelles près du terminal pétrolier d'Es Sider, dans l'Est. Lire la suite l'article
Les insurgés ont lancé un appel à l'aide internationale, demandant l'instauration d'une zone d'exclusion aérienne afin de neutraliser les forces aériennes loyalistes contre lesquelles ils sont démunis.
Le gouvernement de Mouammar Kadhafi a pour sa part dépêché des émissaires en Europe avant le sommet de l'Union qui sera largement consacré à la Libye vendredi à Bruxelles. Un général libyen porteur d'un message de Kadhafi s'est par ailleurs posé au Caire, où se tiendra samedi une réunion de la Ligue arabe.
A Zaouïah, ville à 50 km à l'ouest de Tripoli que les gouvernementaux tentent de reprendre depuis plusieurs jours, la situation des insurgés, retranchés sur la place centrale, semble très précaire. Un habitant a même affirmé en fin d'après-midi que les rebelles avaient été contraints de se retirer de la place qui serait tombée aux mains des loyalistes.
Selon un médecin, les affrontements de la journée ont fait au moins 40 morts. D'après la chaîne de télévision qatarie Al Djazira, un général et un colonel des forces gouvernementales ont été tués dans les combats.
"LES CHARS SONT PARTOUT"
"Les chars sont partout" avait auparavant déclaré par téléphone à Reuters un combattant rebelle. "Il y a tant de morts qu'on ne peut plus les enterrer. Zaouïah est une ville morte. Il n'y a personne dans les rues. On n'entend plus les oiseaux."
"Ils (les kadhafistes) ont encerclé la place avec des blindés et des tireurs d'élite. C'est effrayant", avait dit un autre habitant de la ville.
La télévision publique libyenne a affirmé que des partisans de Kadhafi se dirigeaient par petits groupes vers le centre de la ville pour crier leur soutien au "guide".
Dans l'est du pays, d'où est partie l'insurrection il y a plus de trois semaines, les forces loyales à Kadhafi ont pilonné près d'Es Sider, dans la région de Ras Lanouf, les positions des rebelles qui ont riposté à la roquette.
Les deux camps s'accusent mutuellement d'avoir détruit des installations pétrolières dans ce secteur.
Les rebelles, dont la progression vers l'est a été stoppée en début de semaine par une contre-attaque gouvernementale, demandent à la communauté internationale d'empêcher Kadhafi d'utiliser son aviation.
L'idée d'une zone d'exclusion est défendue par la Grande-Bretagne et la France mais plusieurs pays, dont la Chine et la Russie qui disposent d'un droit de veto au Conseil de sécurité de l'Onu, sont très réservés.
Les Etats-Unis ont souligné qu'une telle initiative, qui entraînerait nécessairement des attaques contre les défenses aériennes libyennes, devait bénéficier d'un large soutien international, ce dont conviennent Londres et Paris.
A Tripoli, Mouammar Kadhafi a affirmé que le peuple libyen courrait aux armes si une telle zone d'exclusion aérienne était instaurée, car cela prouverait selon lui que les Occidentaux veulent "prendre le contrôle de la Libye et lui voler son pétrole".
INTENSE ACTIVITÉ DIPLOMATIQUE
La secrétaire d'Etat américaine Hillary Clinton a souligné que l'imposition d'une zone d'exclusion revenait aux Nations unies et nécessitait un consensus international.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secrétaire général de l'Otan, a déclaré que l'Alliance atlantique ne cherchait pas à intervenir militairement en Libye mais se tenait prête à toute éventualité.
L'Italie, dont les bases militaires joueraient un rôle clé dans l'éventualité d'une action militaire contre les forces de Mouammar Kadhafi, s'est dite prête à appuyer toute décision prise par l'Onu, l'Union européenne et l'Otan en vue de mettre fin aux combats.
L'entourage du colonel Kadhafi aurait pris contact avec des pays d'Afrique et d'Amérique latine pour savoir si l'un d'eux serait prêt à l'accueillir au cas où il devrait quitter la Libye. Mais peu de pays africains sembleraient prêts à lui accorder l'asile.
Avant le sommet de vendredi à Bruxelles, Catherine Ashton, haute représentante de la diplomatie européenne, a reçu mardi deux émissaires de l'opposition libyenne à Strasbourg - Mahmoud Djebril, qui dirige la cellule de crise du Conseil national libyen (CNL) mis sur pied par les insurgés, et Ali Essaoui, chargé des affaires internationales.
Avec Tom Pfeiffer à Benghazi, Mariam Karoumy à Ras Djdir, Mohammed Abbas à Ras Lanouf, Alexander Dziadosz à Adjdabia et les rédactions d'Alger et de Londres; Guy Kerivel pour le service français
Les insurgés ont lancé un appel à l'aide internationale, demandant l'instauration d'une zone d'exclusion aérienne afin de neutraliser les forces aériennes loyalistes contre lesquelles ils sont démunis.
Le gouvernement de Mouammar Kadhafi a pour sa part dépêché des émissaires en Europe avant le sommet de l'Union qui sera largement consacré à la Libye vendredi à Bruxelles. Un général libyen porteur d'un message de Kadhafi s'est par ailleurs posé au Caire, où se tiendra samedi une réunion de la Ligue arabe.
A Zaouïah, ville à 50 km à l'ouest de Tripoli que les gouvernementaux tentent de reprendre depuis plusieurs jours, la situation des insurgés, retranchés sur la place centrale, semble très précaire. Un habitant a même affirmé en fin d'après-midi que les rebelles avaient été contraints de se retirer de la place qui serait tombée aux mains des loyalistes.
Selon un médecin, les affrontements de la journée ont fait au moins 40 morts. D'après la chaîne de télévision qatarie Al Djazira, un général et un colonel des forces gouvernementales ont été tués dans les combats.
"LES CHARS SONT PARTOUT"
"Les chars sont partout" avait auparavant déclaré par téléphone à Reuters un combattant rebelle. "Il y a tant de morts qu'on ne peut plus les enterrer. Zaouïah est une ville morte. Il n'y a personne dans les rues. On n'entend plus les oiseaux."
"Ils (les kadhafistes) ont encerclé la place avec des blindés et des tireurs d'élite. C'est effrayant", avait dit un autre habitant de la ville.
La télévision publique libyenne a affirmé que des partisans de Kadhafi se dirigeaient par petits groupes vers le centre de la ville pour crier leur soutien au "guide".
Dans l'est du pays, d'où est partie l'insurrection il y a plus de trois semaines, les forces loyales à Kadhafi ont pilonné près d'Es Sider, dans la région de Ras Lanouf, les positions des rebelles qui ont riposté à la roquette.
Les deux camps s'accusent mutuellement d'avoir détruit des installations pétrolières dans ce secteur.
Les rebelles, dont la progression vers l'est a été stoppée en début de semaine par une contre-attaque gouvernementale, demandent à la communauté internationale d'empêcher Kadhafi d'utiliser son aviation.
L'idée d'une zone d'exclusion est défendue par la Grande-Bretagne et la France mais plusieurs pays, dont la Chine et la Russie qui disposent d'un droit de veto au Conseil de sécurité de l'Onu, sont très réservés.
Les Etats-Unis ont souligné qu'une telle initiative, qui entraînerait nécessairement des attaques contre les défenses aériennes libyennes, devait bénéficier d'un large soutien international, ce dont conviennent Londres et Paris.
A Tripoli, Mouammar Kadhafi a affirmé que le peuple libyen courrait aux armes si une telle zone d'exclusion aérienne était instaurée, car cela prouverait selon lui que les Occidentaux veulent "prendre le contrôle de la Libye et lui voler son pétrole".
INTENSE ACTIVITÉ DIPLOMATIQUE
La secrétaire d'Etat américaine Hillary Clinton a souligné que l'imposition d'une zone d'exclusion revenait aux Nations unies et nécessitait un consensus international.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secrétaire général de l'Otan, a déclaré que l'Alliance atlantique ne cherchait pas à intervenir militairement en Libye mais se tenait prête à toute éventualité.
L'Italie, dont les bases militaires joueraient un rôle clé dans l'éventualité d'une action militaire contre les forces de Mouammar Kadhafi, s'est dite prête à appuyer toute décision prise par l'Onu, l'Union européenne et l'Otan en vue de mettre fin aux combats.
L'entourage du colonel Kadhafi aurait pris contact avec des pays d'Afrique et d'Amérique latine pour savoir si l'un d'eux serait prêt à l'accueillir au cas où il devrait quitter la Libye. Mais peu de pays africains sembleraient prêts à lui accorder l'asile.
Avant le sommet de vendredi à Bruxelles, Catherine Ashton, haute représentante de la diplomatie européenne, a reçu mardi deux émissaires de l'opposition libyenne à Strasbourg - Mahmoud Djebril, qui dirige la cellule de crise du Conseil national libyen (CNL) mis sur pied par les insurgés, et Ali Essaoui, chargé des affaires internationales.
Avec Tom Pfeiffer à Benghazi, Mariam Karoumy à Ras Djdir, Mohammed Abbas à Ras Lanouf, Alexander Dziadosz à Adjdabia et les rédactions d'Alger et de Londres; Guy Kerivel pour le service français
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Jeu 10 Mar 2011 - 19:52
Lion of the Sahara
09.03.2011
The big question: What happened to justify the sudden, radical and abrupt change of the "masters of the world" against Gaddafi?
by Manuel José Montañez Lanza M. Sc
Following the conflict in Libya, some private media, national and international, have played with Chávez and Gadhafi photos. That way, world public opinion is being programmed to overwhelmingly reject the conduct of Qaddafi, and this way they seek to ensure that there is also a repudiation of Chavez by presenting him as his "friend."
Not in vain, the English Chancellor suggested that Gaddafi was fleeing to Venezuela and some local journalists have hinted that a child of his and some of his supporters had come to Margarita Island and worse that Cubans were involved in all of this because they have a lot of money saved in Libya.
Paul Wolfowitz, who served as undersecretary of defense of the United States and as World Bank president, architect of the Iraq war, published an open letter to Obama urging him to turn Libya into a "protectorate under NATO control," on behalf of the "international community."
In 2008,, President Bush left allowing the unilateral sanctions imposed against Libya by the United States to lapse, and removing it from the list of "state sponsors of terrorism."
Transnational oil companies rushed on Libya in search of control of the giant deposits of their coveted light oil. The same dogs of war provided weapons, from sophisticated fighter aircraft to assault rifles, machine guns and ammunition. Many boasted of having finally forced Gaddafi to give up his radical positions.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendThat same year, Gaddafi received a visit from Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the U.S. government. Then all the heads of state of countries that claim to own the planet marched through Tripoli: the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, followed by his replacement Gordon Bown, President of France, Sarkozy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and Rodriguez Zapatero humbled themselves before him in 2009 to sell 3.5 billion euros in weapons.
Gaddafi became a kind of a "political star" in international circles. He was invited to participate for the first time in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where he was received by President Barak Obama.
He was invited to visit France, Italy and Spain. He was received like the "King of Kings" and the "Lion of the Sahara."
* Political scientist and Internationalist
MSc in Security and Defense
09.03.2011
The big question: What happened to justify the sudden, radical and abrupt change of the "masters of the world" against Gaddafi?
by Manuel José Montañez Lanza M. Sc
Following the conflict in Libya, some private media, national and international, have played with Chávez and Gadhafi photos. That way, world public opinion is being programmed to overwhelmingly reject the conduct of Qaddafi, and this way they seek to ensure that there is also a repudiation of Chavez by presenting him as his "friend."
Not in vain, the English Chancellor suggested that Gaddafi was fleeing to Venezuela and some local journalists have hinted that a child of his and some of his supporters had come to Margarita Island and worse that Cubans were involved in all of this because they have a lot of money saved in Libya.
Paul Wolfowitz, who served as undersecretary of defense of the United States and as World Bank president, architect of the Iraq war, published an open letter to Obama urging him to turn Libya into a "protectorate under NATO control," on behalf of the "international community."
In 2008,, President Bush left allowing the unilateral sanctions imposed against Libya by the United States to lapse, and removing it from the list of "state sponsors of terrorism."
Transnational oil companies rushed on Libya in search of control of the giant deposits of their coveted light oil. The same dogs of war provided weapons, from sophisticated fighter aircraft to assault rifles, machine guns and ammunition. Many boasted of having finally forced Gaddafi to give up his radical positions.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendThat same year, Gaddafi received a visit from Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the U.S. government. Then all the heads of state of countries that claim to own the planet marched through Tripoli: the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, followed by his replacement Gordon Bown, President of France, Sarkozy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and Rodriguez Zapatero humbled themselves before him in 2009 to sell 3.5 billion euros in weapons.
Gaddafi became a kind of a "political star" in international circles. He was invited to participate for the first time in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where he was received by President Barak Obama.
He was invited to visit France, Italy and Spain. He was received like the "King of Kings" and the "Lion of the Sahara."
* Political scientist and Internationalist
MSc in Security and Defense
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Ven 11 Mar 2011 - 9:07
Libya: Media Manipulation
09.03.2011
As the journalists continue to follow the events in Libya, so does the public. Our new interactive format, which allows our readers to comment on the articles, has seen Pravda.Ru over the past few weeks receive numerous interesting comments from those who have been interested in this situation, which we are happy to synthesize below.
Let one thing be perfectly clear: those who manufactured those Libyan flags from the time of King Idris, those who are arming, aiding and abetting the "rebels" (terrorists according to the western media referring to the same types of actions in other countries) are responsible for what is going on. Suppose the western media is misleading us?
"He's gotta go," says David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom about Muammar Al-Qathafi. The thing is, who has done more for his people? From President Obama, surprisingly, the same call. Yet the Libyan is not a protagonist who is dying for his own war to become a hero, because his disastrous policies at home are making him unpopular.
Unlike David Cameron, Muammar Al-Qathafi has invested in his people; he has not slashed education funding, he has increased literacy rates from 10 to around 85%; maybe those who support the flags from the pre-Qathafi era would like to have a reminder of the statistics from those times, because for sure those who fabricated these flags and transported them across the Tunisian and Egyptian borders will send Libya and the Libyans back into the dark ages from which Muammar Al-Qathafi freed them.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendLet another thing be perfectly clear: the western media is misleading us and is trying to hide the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign member of the UNO. Let us see some of the many comments from - and a presentation of several points raised by - our readers...
1. Why did the Libyan "revolution" not start in the capital, Tripoli, but rather in the separatist region of Cyrenaica?
2. Is it important that Cyrenaica is the oil-rich region?
3. How come the terrorists in Libya are referred to as "rebels" yet in other countries in the region they are "terrorists"?
4. How come the authorities of any sovereign nation have the right to impose law and order after armed insurrection, but Muammar Al-Qathafi apparently does not (according to Western media)? What does any civilised nation do when rebels burn buildings, kill women and children (oh didn't the western media publicise this?) and slaughter and torture unarmed civilians? In most countries the authorities have the right to react.
In the case of Libya, it is facing an armed insurrection fuelled by interfering foreign powers, marauding gangs of terrorists aiming to settle tribal scores, all for the right price.
5. How is it possible that the poorly equipped "rebels" "now have access to more sophisticated equipment" (SKY News). Where did it come from?
6. How to explain the fact that Dutch and British special forces have been detained operating inside Libya?
7. Why does SKY News concentrate on the same screaming child in a Libyan hospital, every single day, a child who seems to be screaming because he is more afraid of a syringe than due to any injury? Is it correct to manipulate public opinion using images of children?
8. Why does the same news channel show a man with a flesh wound from "heavy weaponry" while the bullet is visible on the surface of his skin? Why is Dominic Waghorn reporting the "truth" when last Summer he came to Portugal to hide it?
9. Why did the western media report that civilians had been bombed, and then Saif Al-Islam Qathafi entered a Sky News vehicle, saying for them to take him where they wanted, and the SKY crew was unable to find the areas they had said his "regime" forces had bombed?
10. Why did the BBC lie about an air strike that never existed?
11. Why did the BBC admit that the Libyan Air Force had been purposefully not hitting human targets? Then say Muammar Al-Qathafi is a "dictator" "slaughtering his own people"?
12. Why has the western media been saying that Muammar Al-Qathafi has been throwing the full force of his military options against "unarmed civilians" when it is obvious the civilians are heavily armed and he has not yet even started to use all the weaponry at his disposal?
13. Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar!! Allaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar! God is great! Where have we heard this before? And now from the er...rebels.
14. Why is the unrest always worse after Friday prayer service? Are we seeing another CIA-Mujaheddin type alliance? The type that saw the launch of the Taleban in Afghanistan?
15. Why is it that whenever there is a western camera present, someone unfolds one of those idiotic flags from the time when the people of Libya were illiterate and oppressed?
16. How come Muammar Al-Qathafi turns up wherever and whenever he wants in Tripoli?
17. Has Muammar Al-Qathafi disrespected the UNO by using lies to attack sovereign nations outside the auspices of the UN? No.
18. Libya is a "carbon copy" of brutal, bloody aggression of NATO on Yugoslavia
and Serbia. Looking at those people running away from Libya to Tunisia in their thousands and western media again doing same thing, telling us that they are running away from "Gadhafi's regime" not from a threat of NATO intervention and their bombs but just like what happened with the Albanians from Kosovo, the aggressor is intervening on "humanitarian grounds".
19. Gadhafi has to be put on trial for Genocide and violation of human rights but GW Bush, Tony Blair and Greschner should receive the "Nobel peace prize",
20. When the West waged its genocidal 1st war for the conquest of Kuwait and Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of third country nationals that fled from Iraq did so not because of having had to suffer any hardship due to Iraqi rule, but rather because of starvation and acholera epidemic resulting from an inhuman total blockade imposed by NATO (food items and chemicals--employed---in--water--treatment--plants were especially prohibited).
21. The WESTERN MAINSTREAM media has completely FORGOTTEN about the human right to life of all the Libyan civilians unopposed to Gaddafi who are being massacred or maimed by the foreign insurgents just to terrorise the remaining populace and make a point. Just as this very same media cared not a fig about the thousands of apolitical innocent civilians that were brutally executed (by stoning, electrocuting etc.) by the Bush & Hillarity-backed Taliban within days of having overran almost three-fourths of Afghanistan with NATO weaponry in the late 1990's.
22. Few other countries live in such a social comfort, as Libyans do. They have free health care system and treatment. Their hospitals are provided with the best medical equipment in the world. The education in Libya is free of charge. Talented youth have an opportunity to study abroad at the expense of Libya. After getting married, a couple can get more than 60 thousands dinar (50 thousand dollars) of financial help. State credits are non-interest-bearing, and often the principal is written off as well. Automobile's prices are considerably lower, than in Europe and affordable for everyone. Petrol costs 18 cent, and bread 4 cent. Libyans have been provided a very good environment as regards social and job-security, and their general educational level (both males and females can be seen pursuing all branches of university education) is better than that in so-called very affluent Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.
23. When a DUTCH helicopter carrying several mercenary Dutch soldiers including a jingoistic woman, (allegedly on a sabotage-cum-espionage mission to undermine Libyan national defence right in the hometown of the leader Col. Gaddafi ) were captured by Libyan defenders, the DUTCH government finally acknowledged that its warship:- the TROMP, has indeed been lurking in the high sea off SIRTE and the captured helicopter had lifted-off from there.
24. When will the world understand the US modus operandi. Befriend, Praise, Infiltrate, Subvert, Destroy. It has become cliché and yet people still fall for it. It is true there is an upper limit to intelligence but stupidity knows no bounds. Let it be a warning to all those who believe that the US/Israel and other Zionist minions can be trusted allies. The process, preparing the world for the invasion of Libya, is so reminiscent of the one prior to the Iraq war, that only those severely challenged can fail to see it.
25. Surely the Libyan armed forces have shown restraint, more than aggression. Let's face it, they could raze the cities and towns if they wanted. They have been going in, causing limited damage to the terrorists and have pulled back out again limiting the human and material damage.
26. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.
The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A "prince" Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.
27. In relationship to the status of women in Libya, "The delegation indicated that women were highly regarded in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and their rights were guaranteed by all laws and legislation. Discriminatory laws had been revoked." (Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Council, Jan. 4, 2011, p. 4)
Many thanks to our readers for making Pravda.Ru the interactive and interesting alternative must-read on the Net!
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
09.03.2011
As the journalists continue to follow the events in Libya, so does the public. Our new interactive format, which allows our readers to comment on the articles, has seen Pravda.Ru over the past few weeks receive numerous interesting comments from those who have been interested in this situation, which we are happy to synthesize below.
Let one thing be perfectly clear: those who manufactured those Libyan flags from the time of King Idris, those who are arming, aiding and abetting the "rebels" (terrorists according to the western media referring to the same types of actions in other countries) are responsible for what is going on. Suppose the western media is misleading us?
"He's gotta go," says David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom about Muammar Al-Qathafi. The thing is, who has done more for his people? From President Obama, surprisingly, the same call. Yet the Libyan is not a protagonist who is dying for his own war to become a hero, because his disastrous policies at home are making him unpopular.
Unlike David Cameron, Muammar Al-Qathafi has invested in his people; he has not slashed education funding, he has increased literacy rates from 10 to around 85%; maybe those who support the flags from the pre-Qathafi era would like to have a reminder of the statistics from those times, because for sure those who fabricated these flags and transported them across the Tunisian and Egyptian borders will send Libya and the Libyans back into the dark ages from which Muammar Al-Qathafi freed them.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendLet another thing be perfectly clear: the western media is misleading us and is trying to hide the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign member of the UNO. Let us see some of the many comments from - and a presentation of several points raised by - our readers...
1. Why did the Libyan "revolution" not start in the capital, Tripoli, but rather in the separatist region of Cyrenaica?
2. Is it important that Cyrenaica is the oil-rich region?
3. How come the terrorists in Libya are referred to as "rebels" yet in other countries in the region they are "terrorists"?
4. How come the authorities of any sovereign nation have the right to impose law and order after armed insurrection, but Muammar Al-Qathafi apparently does not (according to Western media)? What does any civilised nation do when rebels burn buildings, kill women and children (oh didn't the western media publicise this?) and slaughter and torture unarmed civilians? In most countries the authorities have the right to react.
In the case of Libya, it is facing an armed insurrection fuelled by interfering foreign powers, marauding gangs of terrorists aiming to settle tribal scores, all for the right price.
5. How is it possible that the poorly equipped "rebels" "now have access to more sophisticated equipment" (SKY News). Where did it come from?
6. How to explain the fact that Dutch and British special forces have been detained operating inside Libya?
7. Why does SKY News concentrate on the same screaming child in a Libyan hospital, every single day, a child who seems to be screaming because he is more afraid of a syringe than due to any injury? Is it correct to manipulate public opinion using images of children?
8. Why does the same news channel show a man with a flesh wound from "heavy weaponry" while the bullet is visible on the surface of his skin? Why is Dominic Waghorn reporting the "truth" when last Summer he came to Portugal to hide it?
9. Why did the western media report that civilians had been bombed, and then Saif Al-Islam Qathafi entered a Sky News vehicle, saying for them to take him where they wanted, and the SKY crew was unable to find the areas they had said his "regime" forces had bombed?
10. Why did the BBC lie about an air strike that never existed?
11. Why did the BBC admit that the Libyan Air Force had been purposefully not hitting human targets? Then say Muammar Al-Qathafi is a "dictator" "slaughtering his own people"?
12. Why has the western media been saying that Muammar Al-Qathafi has been throwing the full force of his military options against "unarmed civilians" when it is obvious the civilians are heavily armed and he has not yet even started to use all the weaponry at his disposal?
13. Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar!! Allaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar! God is great! Where have we heard this before? And now from the er...rebels.
14. Why is the unrest always worse after Friday prayer service? Are we seeing another CIA-Mujaheddin type alliance? The type that saw the launch of the Taleban in Afghanistan?
15. Why is it that whenever there is a western camera present, someone unfolds one of those idiotic flags from the time when the people of Libya were illiterate and oppressed?
16. How come Muammar Al-Qathafi turns up wherever and whenever he wants in Tripoli?
17. Has Muammar Al-Qathafi disrespected the UNO by using lies to attack sovereign nations outside the auspices of the UN? No.
18. Libya is a "carbon copy" of brutal, bloody aggression of NATO on Yugoslavia
and Serbia. Looking at those people running away from Libya to Tunisia in their thousands and western media again doing same thing, telling us that they are running away from "Gadhafi's regime" not from a threat of NATO intervention and their bombs but just like what happened with the Albanians from Kosovo, the aggressor is intervening on "humanitarian grounds".
19. Gadhafi has to be put on trial for Genocide and violation of human rights but GW Bush, Tony Blair and Greschner should receive the "Nobel peace prize",
20. When the West waged its genocidal 1st war for the conquest of Kuwait and Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of third country nationals that fled from Iraq did so not because of having had to suffer any hardship due to Iraqi rule, but rather because of starvation and acholera epidemic resulting from an inhuman total blockade imposed by NATO (food items and chemicals--employed---in--water--treatment--plants were especially prohibited).
21. The WESTERN MAINSTREAM media has completely FORGOTTEN about the human right to life of all the Libyan civilians unopposed to Gaddafi who are being massacred or maimed by the foreign insurgents just to terrorise the remaining populace and make a point. Just as this very same media cared not a fig about the thousands of apolitical innocent civilians that were brutally executed (by stoning, electrocuting etc.) by the Bush & Hillarity-backed Taliban within days of having overran almost three-fourths of Afghanistan with NATO weaponry in the late 1990's.
22. Few other countries live in such a social comfort, as Libyans do. They have free health care system and treatment. Their hospitals are provided with the best medical equipment in the world. The education in Libya is free of charge. Talented youth have an opportunity to study abroad at the expense of Libya. After getting married, a couple can get more than 60 thousands dinar (50 thousand dollars) of financial help. State credits are non-interest-bearing, and often the principal is written off as well. Automobile's prices are considerably lower, than in Europe and affordable for everyone. Petrol costs 18 cent, and bread 4 cent. Libyans have been provided a very good environment as regards social and job-security, and their general educational level (both males and females can be seen pursuing all branches of university education) is better than that in so-called very affluent Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.
23. When a DUTCH helicopter carrying several mercenary Dutch soldiers including a jingoistic woman, (allegedly on a sabotage-cum-espionage mission to undermine Libyan national defence right in the hometown of the leader Col. Gaddafi ) were captured by Libyan defenders, the DUTCH government finally acknowledged that its warship:- the TROMP, has indeed been lurking in the high sea off SIRTE and the captured helicopter had lifted-off from there.
24. When will the world understand the US modus operandi. Befriend, Praise, Infiltrate, Subvert, Destroy. It has become cliché and yet people still fall for it. It is true there is an upper limit to intelligence but stupidity knows no bounds. Let it be a warning to all those who believe that the US/Israel and other Zionist minions can be trusted allies. The process, preparing the world for the invasion of Libya, is so reminiscent of the one prior to the Iraq war, that only those severely challenged can fail to see it.
25. Surely the Libyan armed forces have shown restraint, more than aggression. Let's face it, they could raze the cities and towns if they wanted. They have been going in, causing limited damage to the terrorists and have pulled back out again limiting the human and material damage.
26. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.
The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A "prince" Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.
27. In relationship to the status of women in Libya, "The delegation indicated that women were highly regarded in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and their rights were guaranteed by all laws and legislation. Discriminatory laws had been revoked." (Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Council, Jan. 4, 2011, p. 4)
Many thanks to our readers for making Pravda.Ru the interactive and interesting alternative must-read on the Net!
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Ven 11 Mar 2011 - 9:21
Is NATO about to break international law again?
10.03.2011
As this article goes to Press, the NATO member states are holed up in their Brussels Headquarters yet again scheming together to attack a sovereign nation outside the auspices of the UNO. In other words, yet another act of terrorism, another breach of international law, another act of disrespect for the UNO and a violation of its Charter.
I correct myself. By "member states" I mean the United States of America, egged on eagerly by Top Poodle - the UK, while the other members sit and listen obediently while their contribution to yet another act of terrorism - an illegal attack against a sovereign state outside the auspices of international law - is pencilled into the scheme.
A few token peace-keeping military police from the Portuguese, unwilling to ruffle many feathers; a more proactive role for the Baltic States, willing to make amends for their disgusting record during the Second World War; a nice bloodthirsty role for the British Gurkhas, Nepalese psychopaths sent in to slit throats with a Kukri knife, all in the name of King and Country, and so on...
An act of war has, under international law, to receive the sanction from the United Nations Security Council, this being the only proper forum of international law, and as agreed by NATO member states when they signed the UN Charter, is the only forum and legal body which can justify a causis belli - a cause for war.
Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state where it has not committed aggression on other states.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendArticle 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
On the provisions which enable a nation to wage war, Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UNO, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security".
In the case of Libya, neither collective self-defence nor security are minimally in question. Any act of aggression involving military forces against Libya must necessarily come after a specific resolution justifying the same at the UNSC and after a separate Resolution has confirmed the collective action. A violation of Libyan airspace by NATO jets would be an act of war, and would render such equipment liable to being shot out of the sky.
NATO has no jurisdiction whatsoever to act like the global policeman, firstly because this role belongs to the UNO (crimes are handled by the properly constituted police forces in any country, not a self-styled mob of vigilantes, which NATO has become) and anyway, who elected NATO to rule over the armed forces of its member states, let alone take unilateral control of any other region? Surely NATO's existential crisis is that it is unconstitutional?
Article 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter clearly says that:
"The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."
Before it commits (yet) another act of international terrorism, let us remind NATO of its own Charter, which claims it is a defensive organization and is only committed to force if one of its members is attacked.
"Article 1
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. [...]
"Article 7
"This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Like any other nation, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a State ruled by the people through People's Councils) has its laws and among these is the right of the Government to employ the authorities to protect the State against acts of vandalism, terrorism and armed insurrection.
The "evidence" cooked up and spread by the international "bought" media has so far been pitiful: manipulating news of air strikes which never took place. In fact, Libya's armed forces have been very careful to limit their operations to munitions dumps and to keep armed incursions into areas held by hostile elements to the level of punitive raids, then pulling out again to decrease casualties.
What has happened is that the USA has used mercenaries to sow chaos and then blame the Libyan authorities - a reason why one of the main leaders of the insurrection in Cyrenaica, Khaled Maassou, has claimed he is giving up because he does not agree with the participation of armed mercenaries commissioned by the USA on Libyan territory.
Libya, for its part, has called on the UNO and the African Union to form an International Peace Commission and has welcomed a free and fair investigation into the insurrection. NATO, for its part, would do well to heed the terms of the treaties its member states have signed and not commit yet another act of terrorism.
Photos
1 - Dangerous terrorist targeted by NATO
2 - An aggressive military anachronism
3 - NATO cavorting with Albanian terrorists
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
10.03.2011
As this article goes to Press, the NATO member states are holed up in their Brussels Headquarters yet again scheming together to attack a sovereign nation outside the auspices of the UNO. In other words, yet another act of terrorism, another breach of international law, another act of disrespect for the UNO and a violation of its Charter.
I correct myself. By "member states" I mean the United States of America, egged on eagerly by Top Poodle - the UK, while the other members sit and listen obediently while their contribution to yet another act of terrorism - an illegal attack against a sovereign state outside the auspices of international law - is pencilled into the scheme.
A few token peace-keeping military police from the Portuguese, unwilling to ruffle many feathers; a more proactive role for the Baltic States, willing to make amends for their disgusting record during the Second World War; a nice bloodthirsty role for the British Gurkhas, Nepalese psychopaths sent in to slit throats with a Kukri knife, all in the name of King and Country, and so on...
An act of war has, under international law, to receive the sanction from the United Nations Security Council, this being the only proper forum of international law, and as agreed by NATO member states when they signed the UN Charter, is the only forum and legal body which can justify a causis belli - a cause for war.
Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state where it has not committed aggression on other states.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendArticle 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
On the provisions which enable a nation to wage war, Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UNO, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security".
In the case of Libya, neither collective self-defence nor security are minimally in question. Any act of aggression involving military forces against Libya must necessarily come after a specific resolution justifying the same at the UNSC and after a separate Resolution has confirmed the collective action. A violation of Libyan airspace by NATO jets would be an act of war, and would render such equipment liable to being shot out of the sky.
NATO has no jurisdiction whatsoever to act like the global policeman, firstly because this role belongs to the UNO (crimes are handled by the properly constituted police forces in any country, not a self-styled mob of vigilantes, which NATO has become) and anyway, who elected NATO to rule over the armed forces of its member states, let alone take unilateral control of any other region? Surely NATO's existential crisis is that it is unconstitutional?
Article 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter clearly says that:
"The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."
Before it commits (yet) another act of international terrorism, let us remind NATO of its own Charter, which claims it is a defensive organization and is only committed to force if one of its members is attacked.
"Article 1
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. [...]
"Article 7
"This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Like any other nation, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a State ruled by the people through People's Councils) has its laws and among these is the right of the Government to employ the authorities to protect the State against acts of vandalism, terrorism and armed insurrection.
The "evidence" cooked up and spread by the international "bought" media has so far been pitiful: manipulating news of air strikes which never took place. In fact, Libya's armed forces have been very careful to limit their operations to munitions dumps and to keep armed incursions into areas held by hostile elements to the level of punitive raids, then pulling out again to decrease casualties.
What has happened is that the USA has used mercenaries to sow chaos and then blame the Libyan authorities - a reason why one of the main leaders of the insurrection in Cyrenaica, Khaled Maassou, has claimed he is giving up because he does not agree with the participation of armed mercenaries commissioned by the USA on Libyan territory.
Libya, for its part, has called on the UNO and the African Union to form an International Peace Commission and has welcomed a free and fair investigation into the insurrection. NATO, for its part, would do well to heed the terms of the treaties its member states have signed and not commit yet another act of terrorism.
Photos
1 - Dangerous terrorist targeted by NATO
2 - An aggressive military anachronism
3 - NATO cavorting with Albanian terrorists
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Mer 16 Mar 2011 - 13:49
Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy: A threat to international peace
15.03.2011
What happens when you get protagonists on the international political scene with serious problems at home? In a word, trouble. Like the western media, these politicians got the Libya story wrong from day number 1, raising serious questions as to their capacity to perform in their positions.
Why, for instance, have the western media been caught lying about air strikes that never existed, about bombing of civilians when the buildings they were supposed to have bombed are still in pristine condition; why have there been stories about "Gaddafy" turning the full weight of his heavy weaponry against "unarmed civilians" when what we can see clearly is marauding gangs of terrorists and thugs committing acts of savagery, arson and wanton destruction?
Why have David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy failed to mention - even once - the massacre of supporters of Muammar Al-Qathafi in Benghazi? Not one or two people, not soldiers, but no less than 212 (two hundred and twelve) unarmed civilians - these, yes, were indeed unarmed - in Benghazi (where else)? Murdered in cold blood.
Why have they failed to mention - even once - the origin of all the mercenaries fighting in Libya - not only to support the government forces but also fighting alongside the "rebels" from Benghazi - a separatist region. Britain and France both experienced long and bloody fights against separatists, in Northern Ireland, in Brittany, in Corsica.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendWhy have Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy failed to mention the fact that the Libyan Government welcomes an international peace plan proposed by President Chavez of Venezuela and the setting up of an International Peace Commission, why have they failed to mention the fact that Muammar Al-Qathafi suggested that a team from the UN Human Rights Commission should come to Libya to make an investigation into what happened?
Why have they failed to mention the fact that Libya's oil wealth has been ploughed back into the economy, giving the Libyans the best standard of living in Africa, with the best human development indicators in the continent? Why have they failed to mention that before Al-Qathafi took over, Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, with per capita income at less than 50 USD a year?
Why have they failed to mention that Libyans have free housing, free healthcare and free education services? Have they implemented such policies in their countries? Why have they failed to mention that those who wish to set up a farm are given land for free, plus livestock, seeds and equipment - plus a farmhouse?
Let us be honest. On the domestic political front, Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy want and need a Falklands, a Kosovo, an Afghanistan or an Iraq, they need to find a "tinpot dictator" who "oppresses his people" who is easy to isolate, to take the eyes off their own oppressive policies at home as they destroy the social fabric of their countries and render the futures of millions of young people hopeless.
Let us be honest, on the commercial front, their oil companies wish to renegotiate their contracts under their own terms - and not just in Libya, but in the whole of Africa. It is as one of the fathers of the African Union and one of the architects of African Unity where Al-Qathafy has angered the western vested commercial interests, so used to imperialistic and colonialist policies which saw Africa's resources going one way - their way.
Now that Al-Qathafi is trying to change that trend, he is called a monster and "has to be removed because he is a threat". THEY are the threat. They always have been.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
15.03.2011
What happens when you get protagonists on the international political scene with serious problems at home? In a word, trouble. Like the western media, these politicians got the Libya story wrong from day number 1, raising serious questions as to their capacity to perform in their positions.
Why, for instance, have the western media been caught lying about air strikes that never existed, about bombing of civilians when the buildings they were supposed to have bombed are still in pristine condition; why have there been stories about "Gaddafy" turning the full weight of his heavy weaponry against "unarmed civilians" when what we can see clearly is marauding gangs of terrorists and thugs committing acts of savagery, arson and wanton destruction?
Why have David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy failed to mention - even once - the massacre of supporters of Muammar Al-Qathafi in Benghazi? Not one or two people, not soldiers, but no less than 212 (two hundred and twelve) unarmed civilians - these, yes, were indeed unarmed - in Benghazi (where else)? Murdered in cold blood.
Why have they failed to mention - even once - the origin of all the mercenaries fighting in Libya - not only to support the government forces but also fighting alongside the "rebels" from Benghazi - a separatist region. Britain and France both experienced long and bloody fights against separatists, in Northern Ireland, in Brittany, in Corsica.
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendWhy have Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy failed to mention the fact that the Libyan Government welcomes an international peace plan proposed by President Chavez of Venezuela and the setting up of an International Peace Commission, why have they failed to mention the fact that Muammar Al-Qathafi suggested that a team from the UN Human Rights Commission should come to Libya to make an investigation into what happened?
Why have they failed to mention the fact that Libya's oil wealth has been ploughed back into the economy, giving the Libyans the best standard of living in Africa, with the best human development indicators in the continent? Why have they failed to mention that before Al-Qathafi took over, Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, with per capita income at less than 50 USD a year?
Why have they failed to mention that Libyans have free housing, free healthcare and free education services? Have they implemented such policies in their countries? Why have they failed to mention that those who wish to set up a farm are given land for free, plus livestock, seeds and equipment - plus a farmhouse?
Let us be honest. On the domestic political front, Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy want and need a Falklands, a Kosovo, an Afghanistan or an Iraq, they need to find a "tinpot dictator" who "oppresses his people" who is easy to isolate, to take the eyes off their own oppressive policies at home as they destroy the social fabric of their countries and render the futures of millions of young people hopeless.
Let us be honest, on the commercial front, their oil companies wish to renegotiate their contracts under their own terms - and not just in Libya, but in the whole of Africa. It is as one of the fathers of the African Union and one of the architects of African Unity where Al-Qathafy has angered the western vested commercial interests, so used to imperialistic and colonialist policies which saw Africa's resources going one way - their way.
Now that Al-Qathafi is trying to change that trend, he is called a monster and "has to be removed because he is a threat". THEY are the threat. They always have been.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Re: Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
Maximo Mer 16 Mar 2011 - 14:01
G8 leaders disagree on no-fly zone over Libya
16.03.2011 | Source: Pravda.Ru
The Group of Eight (G-
nations were not able to agree yesterday, after negotiations in Paris, on the issue of a no-fly zone over Libya. Intended to shield civilians and opposition forces from Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the measure was strongly supported by France and the United Kingdom, while Germany and Russia led the opposition.
The United States has, thus far, been hesitant to support intervention. The Daily believes that the Obama administration should not support a no-fly zone.
President Barack Obama has stated his desire to see Gaddafi leave office and allow for a transfer of power. Though he has been cagey in his response, he has reportedly been considering, in addition to the no-fly zone, aerial surveillance, humanitarian assistance and tougher enforcement of an arms embargo that was passed by the U.N. Security Council two weeks ago, according to Tufts Daily.
Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister said: "If we had used military force last week to neutralise some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn't have happened.
"We have perhaps missed a chance to restore the balance."
Col Gaddafi, in an interview, said Germany, Russia and China would now be rewarded with business deals and oil contracts
16.03.2011 | Source: Pravda.Ru
The Group of Eight (G-
nations were not able to agree yesterday, after negotiations in Paris, on the issue of a no-fly zone over Libya. Intended to shield civilians and opposition forces from Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the measure was strongly supported by France and the United Kingdom, while Germany and Russia led the opposition.The United States has, thus far, been hesitant to support intervention. The Daily believes that the Obama administration should not support a no-fly zone.
President Barack Obama has stated his desire to see Gaddafi leave office and allow for a transfer of power. Though he has been cagey in his response, he has reportedly been considering, in addition to the no-fly zone, aerial surveillance, humanitarian assistance and tougher enforcement of an arms embargo that was passed by the U.N. Security Council two weeks ago, according to Tufts Daily.
Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister said: "If we had used military force last week to neutralise some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn't have happened.
"We have perhaps missed a chance to restore the balance."
Col Gaddafi, in an interview, said Germany, Russia and China would now be rewarded with business deals and oil contracts
Maximo- Super Star
-
Nombre de messages : 3182
Localisation : Haiti
Loisirs : football - Gagè
Date d'inscription : 01/08/2007
Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle:
Page 1 sur 1
Permission de ce forum:
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum