Stealing Syria’s Oil: The EU/Al-Qaeda oil consortium

The decision of the European Union to lift the embargo on Syrian government’s energy exports by importing oil from the ‘armed opposition’ is another flagrant violation of international law. It violates the UN General Assembly declaration of 1962 on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and is yet another violation of the 1981 UN declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. But it is much more than a technical violation of the law. It marks the decent of civilization into barbarism.

London and Paris, have more than Washington, been at the forefront of aggression against Syria. In spite of the fact that it has now been confirmed by most media sources that the Syrian ‘opposition’ is Al-Qaeda, London and Paris persist  in their insane drive to arm the terrorists, using the spurious argument that if they don’t arm the ‘moderates’ the ‘extremists’ will take over the country. However, in the words of the New York Times, ‘nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of’. [1] The fact that the Syrian ‘rebels’ are in fact Al- Qaeda has even  been admitted by the war-mongering French daily  Le Monde.[2]So, Paris and London are pushing for further arming of Al-Qaeda and the legalization of oil trading with the jihadi terrorists. In plain language this means that the loose, terrorist network known to the world as Al-Qaeda will soon become one of the EU’s partners in the oil business. A new absurd chapter in the Era of Terror is about to be enacted.

International law and its violators.

The 1962 UN Resolution 1803 on the Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources states:

‘Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace’[3]

Japhat Al-Nostra and other Al-Qaeda affiliated groups do not in any way represent the Syrian people, nor do they constitute a sovereign state according to the categories of international law.  The ‘armed opposition’ IS Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the European Union’s decision to officially buy oil from terrorist gangs currently occupying territories in the Syrian Arab Republic constitutes a heinous crime and makes a further mockery of the basic principles governing the relations between states.  

The 1981 UN resolution on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States explicitly condemns:

‘the increasing threat to international peace and security owing to frequent recourse to the threat or use of force, aggression ,intimidation, military intervention and occupation, escalation of military presence and all other forms of intervention or interference, direct or indirect, overt or covert, threatening the sovereignty and political independence of other States, with the aim of overthrowing their Governments’,

The declaration goes on to categorically condemn the deployment of ‘armed bands’ and ‘mercenaries’ by states for the use of overthrowing the governments of other sovereign states:

‘Conscious of the fact that such policies endanger the political independence of States, freedom of peoples and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, adversely affecting thereby the maintenance of international peace and security,

Conscious also of the imperative need for any threat of aggression, any recruitment, any use of armed bands, in particular mercenaries, against sovereign States to be completely ended, so as to enable the peoples of all States to determine their own political, economic and social systems without external interference or control’ [4]

Western governments, who for many years have been openly and shamelessly violating all known and agreed principles of international law, arming terrorist gangs who murder and maim civilians, funding common criminals who traffic drugs and recruit child-soldiers, have now descended to a new low by purchasing oil and gas from these same terrorist gangs, natural resources which are legally the property of the Syrian Arab Republic and its citizens.

EU governments colluding with terrorists

Europe’s descent into absolute moral turpitude and lawlessness is further reflected in the fact that EU authorities are doing nothing to prevent brainwashed Muslim youths from traveling to Syria in order to fight NATO’s war. Yet, the officials of EU states readily admit that hundreds if not thousands of jihadis from Britain, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and other states are now joining the ranks of the so-called ‘Syrian rebels’.  But they also admit that their only concern is that these terrorists might be a threat to European security if they ever return. The fact that these terrorists are putting bombs in busy market squares; cars; universities; schools; hospitals and mosques throughout Syria, and that US State Department’s own reports confirm this, doesn’t seem to bother the EU’s governments. [5]Their only concern is that they might eventually bite the hand that feeds. The EU ‘anti-terror’ chief Gilles de Kerchove tells the BBC:

"Not all of them are radical when they leave, but most likely many of them will be radicalized there, will be trained

"And as we've seen this might lead to a serious threat when they get back."[6]

We know from Israeli intelligence sources that most of the terrorists are being trained in US/NATO military bases in Turkey and Jordon.[7]

So, why doesn’t the EU’s ‘anti-terror’ chief seem to know about this? This is the man responsible for protecting Europe from terrorism?  As I reported before, France’s ‘anti-terror’ magistrate actually admitted on French state radio in January 11^th that the French government was on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Syria:

“There are many young jihadists who have gone to the Turkish border in order to enter Syria to fight Bachar’s regime, but the only difference is that there France is not the enemy. Therefore we don’t look on that in the same way. To see young men who are at the moment fighting Bachar Al-Assad, they will be perhaps dangerous in the future but for the moment they are fighting Bachar Al-Assad and France is on their side; they will not attack us’’.[8]

The cynical double standard which states that all territories outside the EU are barbaric and therefore outside the realm of international law has now become a policy that goes unnoticed by Europe’s brainwashed masses.  Euro-Atlantic powers are not only behaving like criminals but are now openly displaying their criminality.  One should also note that the French government has now decided to call the Syrian president by his first name. Calling a state official by his first name is a sign of deep disrespect in French etiquette. Since the Sarkozy regime, French diplomacy has been dragged through the mud, with France’s diplomatic corps now behaving like a cross between spoilt brats and fascist thugs.

Syria’s Oil Geopolitics

The quest for sources of cheap energy is one of the geopolitical contexts driving the war in Syria. Christof Lehmann has written that the discovery of the Iranian Pars gas field in 2007 and Teheran’s plan to pipe the gas to the Eastern Mediterranean by constructing a pipeline through Iraq and Syria holds the potential of turning Iran into a global economic power, giving Teheran enormous leverage over the EU’s Middle East policy. This development would pose a threat to the Zionist entity. It would pose an existential threat to the despotic emirates of the Gulf, who depend on the power of the petro-dollar for their survival.[9]

That is one of the reasons why NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council are using Al-Qaeda terrorists to break the Shite-led alliance of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. As Italian geographer Manlio Dinucci has reported, contrary to received opinion, Syria actually has massive energy reserves.

Dinucci writes:

‘The U.S. / NATO strategy focuses on helping rebels to seize the oil fields with a twofold purpose: to deprive the Syrian state of revenue from exports, already strongly decreased as a result of the EU embargo, and to ensure that the largest deposits pass in the future, through the “rebels” under the control of the big Western oil companies. [10]

The first implementation of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ ideology was during the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Since then, the truncated entity called Kosovo has become Europe’s number one criminal state, run by a convicted organ and drug trafficking mass murderer called Hacim Al Thaci, a protégé  of Brussels and Washington. This is the kind of narco-mafia anti-state NATO has installed in Libya since the Blitzkrieg against that country in 2011 and it is the type of criminal regime that will rule over Syrians if NATO succeeds in bombing that country.

 One can read hundreds of articles in the mainstream press about the criminality of the Kosovar regime and articles describing the chaos in post-Gaddafi Libya have not been rare. But the same media outlets will systematically ignore the fact that they were the ones cheering on the CIA’s Kossovo Liberation Army during the destruction of Yugoslavia. The same prestitutes are now pushing for more arming of the terrorists in Syria and for military intervention by NATO.

The closing of the European mind

The pontificators of European integration and Europe’s role in the world like to pepper their speeches with pompous references to the ‘rule of law’ and the universality of ‘European values’.

This specious rhetoric is unceasingly drummed into European students throughout our universities and institutions of higher learning and it is repeated ad nauseum by the mass media. The people now using Al-Qaeda terrorism to further their interests in the Middle East teach courses in prestigious European universities on ‘international relations’.

It is no wonder ordinary people are incapable of seeing and understanding what is happening before their very eyes. The sheer scale and complexity of the global institutional networks built upon an empire of lies, self-righteousness and deceit is simply too overwhelming for the unschooled intellect to comprehend. Something in our order-seeking minds rejects reality when its horror surpasses our horizons of tolerance and intelligibility. As a result, the mind recoils, filters out the real, preferring instead to see in our masters the expression of complex, contradictory and arcane policies, whose moral content is consigned to the studies of ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’, who are themselves the products and propagandists of the same corrupt institutions.

There are now so many academic institutions, conferences; foundations; think tanks; policy institutes and university courses proclaiming the virtues of ‘humanitarian intervention’ that it has acquired the status of a dogma. The repetition and reproduction of this dogma by the scholastics of neo-liberal academia has turned that which critical reason would normally scoff at into an apriori principle of ‘global governance’.

In chapter 22 of his seminal work on international law De Juri Belli ac Pacis, (On the Law of War and Peace), the great 17^th century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote:

‘Some wars were founded upon real motives and others only upon colorful pretexts. This distinction was first noticed by Polybius, who calls the pretexts, profaseis and the real causes, aitias. Thus Alexander made war upon Darius, under the pretense of avenging the former wrongs done by the Persians to the Greeks. But the real motive of that bold and enterprising hero was the easy acquisition of wealth and dominion, which the expeditions of Xenophon and Agesilaus had opened to his view.’ [11]

Little has changed since the days of Alexander the Great. Wars are still fought for pillage and plunder and the furtherance of empire. Polybius’s vocabulary of ‘profaseis’ and ‘aitias’ will be useful here. Since the start of the Syrian nightmare in 2011, the ‘profaseis’ propagated by corporate media agencies calling for military intervention in Syria has been the desire to ‘protect civilians’ from a ‘brutal regime’.  Only the naïve and ignorant could now defend such nonsense as the same media agencies have finally admitted that the ‘opposition’ is in fact Al-Qaeda, a fact the alternative media have been pointing out since the beginning of the violence in Deraa in March 2011.  

NATO’s ‘aitias’ in this conflict is clear: break up and destroy an independent sovereign state; rob and pillage all of its resources; rape and terrorize its citizens into submission by unleashing drugged and brain-washed death squads on the population; constantly blame all of this on the ‘regime’, then finish the country off with an intensive aerial bombing campaign before installing a crime syndicate to run the country. Finally, call that holocaust freedom. Call that holocaust democracy. It’s a tried and trusted formula which is now being deployed all over the world in NATO’s megalomaniacal drive for global supremacy.

Grotius again:

‘Others make -use of pretexts, which though plausible at first sight, will not bear the examination and test of moral rectitude, and, when stripped of their disguise, such pretexts will be found fraught with injustice. In such hostilities, says Livy, it is not a trial of right, but some object of secret and unruly ambition, which acts as the chief spring. Most powers, it is said by Plutarch, employ the relative situations of peace and war, as a current specie, for the purchase of whatever they deem expedient.’

In the war-ravaged 17^th century Europe of Hugo Grotius, to establish the distinction between profaseis and aitias or the pretexts and real reasons for war was not considered heretical in the domain of rigorous juridical discourse. Today, those who make such distinctions are dismissed as ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists’.  In an interview entitled LA PENSÉE CRITIQUE COMME DISSOLVANT DE LA DOXA, (Critical Thought as a solvent of Doxa) French sociologist Loic Wacquant argues that ‘never before have false thought and false science been so prolix and ubiquitous.’[12]

In this age of technological lawlessness, the basic precepts of international and domestic law have been dismantled. With the promulgation of the Patriot Act and now the National Defense Authorization Act, the United States has regressed to the kind of juridical tyranny that preceded the drafting of the Petition of Right in the England of 1628, a document denouncing imprisonment without trial, torture and martial law and providing the legal and moral groundwork for the English Revolution of 1641.

Conclusion

It behooves us all to reflect upon the current war in the Levant.  What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Westphalian state system and a return to the kind of chaos of the 17^th century’s Thirty Years War, except this time it is festering on the borders of Europe where the principle of bellum se ipsum alet, war will feed itself, is being acted out by private military corporations, drug gangs, terrorist networks and international crime syndicates linked directly and indirectly to the ideological state apparatuses of the Atlantic powers.

And so, the KLA have been training the ‘Syrian Free Army’, while Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group has also joined the ‘holy war’ in Syria. Like the Thirty Years War, the armed gangs and mercenaries are funding themselves by pillaging the local economies and selling their booty as contraband. Whole factories in Syria have been dismantled and stolen by mercenaries in the service of Turkey and Qatar, while the drug trade is now booming like never before. When one country is destroyed and reduced to despotic fiefdoms and emirates, Western corporations move in with their private military companies and proceed to pillage the country’s resources, unhindered by the rules and regulations of the Sovereign State. The terrorist hordes then move on to the next country on NATO’s hit list. This is NATO’s strategy of chaos and it is spreading all over the Southern Hemisphere.

Given the criminality of Western oil companies in the past, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that they would now, in the form of the EU, be openly buying oil from terrorist organizations. What is surprising, however, is the morbid insouciance of Europe’s populations.  How could there be so many ‘respectable’ people in our media and academic institutions prepared to collaborate with these mobsters? Why have there been few if any significant demonstrations against NATO? How is it possible that the powers that be should be allowed to get away with such unmitigated criminality?

The Roman poet Horace wrote- neglecta solent incendia sumere vires -a neglected fire always gathers in strength. Since the destruction of  the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan by the Western-backed Mujahedeen terrorists in the 1979, sovereign states have fallen prey to mercenaries and terrorist gangs backed by Western imperialism, while civil liberties have been curtailed in America and Europe in the name of the ‘War on Terrorism’.

The fire has since spread to the former Yugoslavia; Rwanda; Côte d'Ivoire; Sudan; Somalia; Iraq; DRC; Chechnya, Libya and now Syria. If people don’t wake up and mobilize against the criminals planning these wars, the flames of destruction will eventually come home in the form of martial law, and a fascist, panopticon police state which will be deemed necessary during the prosecution of a Third World War against Iran, Russia and China. If this fire of terrorism is not put out in Syria, it will continue into the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Russian Federation and Eastern China until all possible resistance to NATO’s drive for ‘full spectrum dominance’ is eliminated and a tyrannical, corporate hyper-state rules over the planet.

World wars have happened in the past and given the scelerate Will-to-Power of our current rulers, there is no reason to believe that a world war will not happen again. Many in the West, inured to televised violence and indifferent to distant wars, have a tendency to believe that politics is a domain that does not affect them. But in the words of the French politician Charles de Montalambert  ‘Vous avez beau ne pas vous occuper de politique, la politique s'occupe de vous tout de même.’[It is easy for you not to be concerned about politics, but politics, however, is concerned about you] In the light of current events the statement merits reflection.

[1]http://www.globalresearch.ca/time-to-end-western-support-for-terrorists-in-syria-opposition-is-entirely-run-by-al-qaeda/5333204

[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-media-admits-that-the-syrian-opposition-is-al-qaida-then-justifies-french-government-support-to-the-terrorists/5331289

[3] http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9D85892AC6D7287E8525636800596092

[4]http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r103.htm

[5] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22275456

[7] http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/?print=1

[8] http://www.franceinter.fr/emission-le-79-marc-trevidic-et-jean-pierre-filiu

[9] http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/28/the-dynamics-of-the-crisis-in-syria-conflict-versus-conflict-resolution-part-5/

[10]http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

[11] http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_222.htm

[12][http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/socio/wacquant/pensecri.html

Article first published on Global Research and Dissident Voice.

Amnesty International: A criminal organisation in the service of Western Imperialism

Last year the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation launched a brutal war of aggression on Libya killing thousands of civilians and replacing an independent, responsible government with gangs of hooligans, Wahabite terrorists and outright criminals. What was once Africa's richest and most successful state was bombed into oblivion, its impressive infrastructure destroyed, its thousands of people's committees and people's assemblies closed.

Universities, schools, and hospitals were bombed by French, British and American jets. Thousands of Libyans were blown to bits. Libya's revolutionary leader, Muammar Al Gaffafi, was presented to the ignorant readers of the Western press as a brutal dictator, in spite of the fact that he had held no official position in Libya since the mid 1970s.

Every crime committed by the NATO "rebels" was falsely attributed to Muammar Al Gaddafi and the legitimate Libyan government; a government that had previously been praised by the UN Human Rights Council for its humane treatment and rehabilitation of Islamist terrorists was now being systematically  demonised by the Western corporate press with the Qatari monarchy's mouthpiece Al Jazeera playing a leading role in the disinformation war.


 NATO's murderous 7 month Blitzkrieg on Libya was presented to the world as a "humanitarian intervention" which, they claimed, was intended to save civilians from a brutal crackdown by "Gaddafi's African mercenaries". In reality, the Libyan government had been attacked by gangs of armed mercenaries in the service of NATO.

 No evidence of any crimes attributed to Gaddafi and the Libyan government were ever proven. Most, if not all, of the crimes committed in NATO's "humanitarian war'' were, in fact, committed by NATO's proxy terrorists. The "humanitarian war" on Libya would never have been possible were it not for the overwhelming sophistication and callous fanaticism of pseudo humanitarian organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, inter alia. Last year, as the humanitarian bombs rained down on Tripoli and other Libyan cities blowing innocent men, women and children to bits, I called Amnesty International the public relations whores of fascism. One year on, my assessment of Amnesty International has not changed.


 Since the destruction of the Libyan state, Amnesty International have been at the forefront of the war on the people of Syria spearheaded by NATO's corporate media agencies. Amnesty International have only published reports and claims made by so-called Syrian oppositionists and human rights activists, many of whom have been shown over and over again to be consummate liars.

 In spite of the lack of evidence to support the accusations of the so-called Syrian opposition against the Assad regime, Amnesty has published their claims as though they were the incontrovertible truth. This has helped create a consensus in the West which has resulted in the white-washing of Syrian rebel crimes and the demonisation of the Syrian government in a concerted effort to drum up support for a war of aggression on a sovereign state with a view to replacing the anti-imperialist regime of that state with a weak government under the control of Washington, London and Paris.

Without the active role of Amnesty International such an ambitious operation would not be possible. In a panel discussion in Weseley College in 2012 Amnesty International director scolded former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright for hesitating to bomb Syria.

 ""Now as the head of Amnesty International-USA, one point of great frustration and consternation for human rights organizations and civil society organizations over the last eight or nine months has been the failure of the UN Security Council to address, in any way, the deaths of now five thousand civilians in Syria at the hands of President Assad and his military.


 Last spring the Security Council managed to forge a majority for forceful action in Libya and it was initially very controversial, [causing] many misgivings among key Security Council members. But Gaddafi fell, there's been a transition there and I think one would have thought those misgivings would have died down. And yet we've seen just a continued impasse over Syria and a real, almost return to cold war days and paralysis in the Security Council. How do you explain that and what do you think is the missing ingredient to break that logjam and get the Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria?"


 Muammar Gaddafi was sodomised with a knife before being murdered by armed gangs backed by NATO. This was a crime against humanity, according to international human rights law. Here is the head of Amnesty International PRAISING such action. Such are the fascist thugs running Amnesty International. But the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Principals and many other human rights laws still exist. The day will come when war criminals such as Suzanne Nossel will be arraigned before an international criminal court and prosecuted for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity. It behoves the thirty governments-representing half the population of the earth, who gathered in Teheran a couple of weeks ago, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis- it behooves these nations to bring criminals such as Suzanne Nossel and her ilk before an accountable international criminal court so that the world may be spared the unspeakable horrors of the fascism of our time, this insidiously evil policy called "humanitarian intervention".

Syrie - Un chercheur belge censuré par le lobby du Conseil national syrien (La Nouvelle République, 10 mars 2012)

[photo : Pierre Piccinin, avec Fadwa Suleiman, porte-parole des rebelles, dans une cache à Homs - décembre 2011]


SOURCE http://www.pierrepiccinin.eu/


Pierre Piccinin a été l’un des tout premiers observateurs étrangers à entrer en Syrie. Par son travail de terrain, depuis le début des événements, il propose une vision très à contre-courant, véritable source d’information alternative face aux médias français. Or, le politologue belge vient d’être radié du Cercle des Chercheurs sur le Moyen-Orient (CCMO).

Les motifs invoqués par le service de communication du CCMO sont graves ; nous l’avons contacté ; voici la réponse qui nous a été faite :

« En décembre dernier, le bureau du CCMO a lancé une procédure disciplinaire à l'encontre de Monsieur Piccinin, suite à la polémique créée par nombre de ses papiers. Monsieur Piccinin a été invité, à trois reprises, à se présenter devant le bureau pour défendre ses travaux. N'ayant jamais donné suite à nos convocations, menaçant le CCMO d'un recours en justice et ayant tenu des propos injurieux à l'égard de l'association, le Conseil d'administration du CCMO a voté son exclusion à la majorité. »

Pierre Piccinin évoque quant à lui d’autres motivations, à l’origine de sa radiation : entre autres, l’influence de deux membres du Conseil national syrien (CNS), aussi membres d’honneur du CCMO. Ces derniers n’auraient que peu apprécié le franc-parler de Pierre Piccinin sur la réalité du terrain en Syrie.

Un cas de censure, donc…

Aucun média français n’en parlera, ni le Canard enchaîné, ni non plus Médiapart, que nous avons pourtant sollicités.

Dans un entretien accordé en exclusivité pour La Nouvelle République, Pierre Piccinin revient sur un épisode qui remet en cause quelques paradigmes d’universitaires aux ordres du politiquement correct, et questionne en profondeur le travail de la presse française dans le dossier syrien.



propos recueillis par Jonathan MOADAB


Pierre Piccinin, qu'est-ce que c’est, le CCMO, exactement ? Et qu'attendiez-vous d'un tel cercle de chercheurs ?

Le Cercle des Chercheurs sur le Moyen-Orient a été mis sur pied à l’initiative de son président, Sébastien Boussois, jeune docteur en sciences politiques. Son but était de constituer un outil performant, pour, dans un premier temps, permettre d’aider les jeunes chercheurs à trouver leur marques ; mais, à terme, le but était de créer un think tank sur le monde arabe, un centre de recherche indépendant et sans tabou. C’est du moins ainsi qu’il m’avait été présenté.

Ces deux aspects m’intéressaient : l’idéal de la jeunesse, avec l’espoir d’y trouver un franc-parler et une réelle indépendance, et cette ambition d’en faire « le » think tank sur le Moyen-Orient, comme me l’avait confié son président. Donc, lorsque l’on m’a proposé d’y adhérer, puis demandé d’entrer dans le conseil d’administration, j’ai répondu présent.

Je constate, hélas, que, en matière de tabou et d’indépendance, ma crainte s’est rapidement confirmée : la plupart des membres du CCMO, à commencer par le bureau directeur, se comportent en arrivistes rompus aux compromissions et utilisent cette structure pour promouvoir leur carrière. C’est de bonne guerre : la plupart des jeunes membres de ce cercle ont une carrière à faire et doivent donner des gages; mais c’est dommage. Ce qui a d’ailleurs entraîné la démission de plusieurs chercheurs déjà, assez déçus par cette attitude.

Et, en matière de compétence, de think tank, le CCMO, à peine créé, rejoint le troupeau des organisations de ce genre qui, comme me le disait tout récemment Moncef Marzouki, n’ont jamais rien compris au monde arabe et n’y comprendront jamais rien, car elles s’enferment dans des grilles de lecture préfabriquées par l’Occident, politiquement correctes surtout, et refusent toute remise en question.

Le CCMO est une structure assez récente. Elle n’est pas très connue et, en fin de compte, ma radiation par ce groupe n’a en soi que peu d’importance. Ce qui est proprement effarant, par contre, c’est la manière dont les choses se sont passées et, surtout, les motivations des membres administrateurs de ce cercle.


Quelles sont ces motivations et quel est le conflit qui vous oppose au CCMO (et à quels membres) ?

Personnellement, je n’ai jamais eu de conflit avec le CCMO, jusqu’à ce que je me rende une première fois en Syrie, en juillet 2011, et que je témoigne de la réalité du terrain : une opposition minoritaire, fragmentée, aux objectifs différents, parfois violente et armée ; et un pays pas du tout à feu et à sang, généralement très calme, dans les grandes villes notamment, où une large partie de la population soutient le gouvernement, fût-ce par défaut.

J’ai aussi rapporté le fait que j’avais pu me déplacer tout à fait librement et me rendre partout où je l’avais voulu.

C’est alors que le vice-président du CCMO, Jean-Baptiste Beauchard, jeune doctorant, attaché à l’Institut de recherche stratégique de l'École militaire (ceci permettant peut-être de comprendre cela, en France particulièrement), s’est déchaîné à mon encontre, m’accusant à mi-mots d’être un suppôt du régime. Sa réaction, épidermique, est due –je suppose- aux faits que, d’une part, mes observations contredisaient tout ce que lui et son père, le professeur Jacques Beauchard, professeur émérite de l'Université Paris XII, écrivaient et racontaient sur la Syrie, et, d’autre part, que, moi, je l’ai fait : j’y étais ; pas eux (c’est triste à dire, mais le fait que j’ai couvert tous les terrains du « Printemps arabe », exception faite du Bahreïn, a suscité assez bien de jalousie de la part de plusieurs collègues).

Les articles que j’ai publiés à la suite de mes séjours en Syrie on continué de m’attirer des inimitiés, et celle, notamment, du journaliste belge Baudouin Loos, qui fait la pluie et le beau temps au quotidien Le Soir, concernant tout ce qui a trait au Moyen-Orient, et a choisi une ligne éditoriale des plus simplistes concernant la Syrie. Au CCMO, on m’a expliqué que Baudouin Loos avait menacé de mettre un terme à la collaboration entre le CCMO et Le Soir, dans le cadre de l’organisation d’une conférence, vu que j’étais membre de ce cercle. On m’a fait comprendre que je devenais un problème et qu’il me fallait rentrer dans le rang ou quitter le cercle. A tout le moins me mettre un peu à l’écart du Conseil d’Administration, ce que j’ai accepté en donnant ma démission (et ce qui a ensuite été utilisé contre moi : on a justifié la procédure disciplinaire, notamment, au motif que je savais que mes écrits nuisaient au CCMO, puisque j’avais accepté de me mettre en retrait du CA - sic).

Ensuite, il y a eu les pressions de Salam Kawakibi, chercheur à l’université d’Amsterdam et sympathisant déclaré du Conseil national syrien. Je ne le connaissais pas et l’ai rencontré pour la première fois à Bruxelles, à l’Institut royal pour les Relations internationales (l’Institut Egmont), lors d’un séminaire : lorsque j’ai fait part de mon expérience en Syrie, il a éclaté, est devenu proprement odieux, et aucun débat scientifique n’a plus été possible ; l’esclandre a mis tous les participants mal à l’aise. J’ignorais qu’il était membre d’honneur du CCMO, qui m’en a informé, en m’apprenant aussi que Kawakibi avait menacé de démissionner du cercle si je n’en étais pas éjecté, imité en cela par Bassma Kodmani, directrice de l’Arab Reform Initiative et porte-parole du CNS en France, également membre d’honneur du CCMO.

Et, à ma connaissance, il y a encore eu la réaction d’un autre membre du bureau directeur du CCMO, Julien Salingue, doctorant à l’Université de Paris VIII. Pour moi, il est devenu le parfait exemple de cette bienpensance bobo : d’un côté, il s’insurge –et avec raison- contre les sionistes qui font déprogrammer un colloque sur l’apartheid israélien en Palestine, qu’il avait tenté d’organiser dans son université, et crie à l’atteinte à la liberté d’expression et de recherche ; et, d’un autre côté, cela ne le gêne absolument pas de m’exclure et de me censurer sur le dossier Syrien. Salingue m’a écrit pour justifier sa position : il trouve intolérable qu’un de mes articles sur la Syrie ait été reproduit sur le site pro-Assad InfoSyrie et estime que « cela donne à réfléchir »; mais qu’y puis-je et en quoi suis-je responsable ? Je n’ai fait que décrire ce que j’avais observé sur le terrain et tirer les conclusions qui s’imposaient. Si le Ministère de l’Information syrien reprend le papier, ce n’est pas de mon ressort.

Mais, des entretiens que j’ai eus au sein du CCMO, je retiens que ce sont surtout les menaces de Kawakibi et Kodmani qui auraient pesé dans la balance.

Je n’ai par ailleurs eu aucun contact avec les autres membres du CA, et je ne connais pas certains d’entre eux ; qui ne me connaissent pas non plus et avec lesquels je n’ai jamais eu l’occasion de débattre de mes observations en Syrie. Je suppose donc qu’ils ont gentiment voté mon exclusion pour, eux aussi, montrer patte blanche et ménager leurs arrières…

Le plus effarant, dans cette histoire, en effet, c’est qu’il n’y a jamais eu débat. Je n’ai même pas été entendu : le bureau m’a convoqué à trois reprises, mais chaque fois à une date où le président et le vice-président savaient fort bien que j’étais en Libye et en Tunisie (pour revoir Moncef Marzouki, après son élection), puis en Syrie et, enfin, au Yémen, à l’occasion des élections. Et, là, le bureau a décidé de m’exclure, tout d’un coup, ajoutant aux motifs précédemment mentionnés le fait que je refusais de me présenter pour m’expliquer, et ce alors que je leur avais annoncé que je serais à Paris début avril et que nous avions convenu de nous y rencontrer.

Ils ont été jusqu’à retirer du site du CCMO mes articles, qu’ils y avaient publiés après aval du comité de lecture pourtant. Je n’existe plus : mon nom a été martelé, effacé ; mes écrits sont censurés, c’est la mise à l’index.

Bref, concernant la Syrie, ils donnent les gages qu’on attend d’eux… Surtout dans la France sarkozienne, dont le gouvernement soutient les rebelles, y compris des mouvements salafistes pas très sympathiques et sûrement pas démocratiques. Car, en fin de compte, le CCMO, qui se voulait international, demeure très franco-français et, vu le climat de terreur qui règne dans les universités sur certains thèmes, on peut les comprendre…

Mais c’est en cela que cette affaire devient sérieuse, car symptomatique d’une réalité oppressante qui grève la recherche et empêche la bonne compréhension, en l’occurrence, du conflit syrien.


Quelle est la « version officielle » ?

Elle ne diffère pas de ce que je viens de dire ; et c’est précisément ce qui est interpellant.

Le courrier que j’ai reçu me signifiant mon exclusion, à ma grande surprise (alors que je pensais rencontrer le bureau en avril, comme je l’ai dit), est très clair : « la polémique suscitée par vos écrits et le discrédit qu’ils jettent sur la renommée de notre cercle (…) sont constitutifs d’un motif grave en faveur de votre exclusion ».

Comme je le disais, il n’y a même pas débat ; on ne cherche même pas à savoir si mon travail de recherche est honorable ou non et si mes conclusions sont fondées ou non. Aucun débat scientifique. Je suis exclu parce que les observations de terrain que j’ai publiées ne correspondent pas à la pensée dominante et sont désapprouvées de facto ; et ils le disent sans s’en cacher.

Si j’avais menti et travesti les faits, dans je ne sais quel but, et que, au terme d’une controverse scientifique, j’eusse été confondu, je n’aurais rien à redire. Mais il ne s’agit pas de cela : les faits que j’ai rapportés sont bien établis et, d’ailleurs, mes adversaires refusent le débat pour cette raison ; non, je suis radié car mes observations dérangent ; la question de leur qualité et de la pertinence de mes conclusions ne se pose même pas !

J’ai été invité à participer à une conférence sur la situation en Syrie, à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles. A l’annonce de ma présence à la table, Baudouin Loos et Salam Kawakibi ont refusé d’y participer. Et Kawakibi a répondu aux organisateurs qu’il refusait de se confronter à « des théories négationnistes » (sic). Cela dit, ni l’un ni l’autre n’ont été sur le terrain. En outre, ils connaissent mes arguments et les éléments factuels que j’ai rassemblés lors de mes séjours d’observation en Syrie. Que pourraient-ils leur opposer ? Ils le savent et préfèrent donc éviter le débat. Il en a été de même de la part de Thomas Pierret, un chercheur d’Edimbourg qui m’avait attaqué dans la presse suite aux articles que j’avais publiés en juillet 2011, au retour de ma première incursion en Syrie : invité à confronter sa position avec la mienne à Paris, il a aussi refusé le débat.

C’est effrayant qu’on en soit là : on n’est même plus dans le « politiquement correct » ; on est passé à la « pensée unique ». On n’en est plus seulement à dire « ce qu’il faut penser » ; on en est venu à dire aussi « ce qu’il ne faut pas penser ».

Et, le plus grave à mon sens (car, des censeurs et des pressions, on en a toujours connu), c’est que tout cela ne semble plus déranger personne et que tout ce petit monde journalistique et universitaire, à quelques rares exceptions près, joue parfaitement le jeu et sait s’indigner quand c’est utile à la bonne conduite d’une carrière et se taire à d’autres occasions, voire, même, a appris à anticiper et à faire montre de sa soumission en s’attaquant d’emblée à ceux qui ne disent pas comme il faut.

Outre cela, le bureau me reproche également d’avoir formulé des « critiques, voire des insultes, à l’égard du CCMO ».

D’une part, répondant à un courrier qui m’avertissait d’une procédure disciplinaire à mon encontre, je ne m’adressais pas « au CCMO », mais aux seuls membres du Conseil d’Administration, et ce, de manière très informelle, puisque je connaissais personnellement certains d’entre eux. Mais, surtout, en matière « d’insultes », voici ce dont il s’agissait : j’ai comparé à celles de l’Inquisition les méthodes mises en œuvre à mon égard. C’est tout. Aujourd’hui le bureau me le reproche en m’expliquant, avec le plus grand sérieux du monde, que l’Inquisition est une institution qui a tué des milliers de personnes et qu’il est donc intolérable que j’aie osé commettre cette comparaison. Quant aux « critiques » : j’ai supplié le CA de ne pas faire du CCMO, jeune structure porteuse d’espoir, un club de carriéristes prêts à donner tous les gages qu’on lui demanderait.


Comment vos collègues réagissent-ils ?

Pour l’instant, personne n’est encore réellement au courant. Si votre article sort dans la presse, je suppose que ça jettera un froid. Mais, connaissant les milieux académiques, chacun viendra certainement me taper sur l’épaule dans mon bureau et me faire part de son indignation, mais aucun ne prendra la plume pour dénoncer la méthode et, en public, tous feront semblant de ne pas me connaître.


Votre point de vue sur la Syrie est bien isolé. Comment expliquez-vous cela ? A part le réseau Voltaire et vous-même, qui critique le regard des médias sur la Syrie ?

Il n’est pas si « isolé » que cela… Et il n’est pas nécessaire d’aller chercher le Réseau Voltaire (à propos duquel j’aurais quelques réserves à émettre) pour trouver des témoins du terrain syrien. Plusieurs chercheurs et journalistes se sont rendus sur place et on confirmé, de manière générale, le tableau que j’avais dressé en juillet 2011 déjà : Alain Gresh (Monde diplomatique), Gaëtan Vannay (RSR), François Janne d’Othée (Le Soir), Françoise Wallemaq (RTBF), Christophe Lamfalussy (La Libre Belgique), George Malbrunot (Le Figaro), etc.

Je ne crois pas qu’il y ait « complot » des médias contre le régime de Damas. Le problème, c’est que le régime a fermé les frontières à la presse dès le début des événements ; vieux réflexe stalinien propre au fonctionnement du baathisme syrien. Dès lors, il a livré les médias pieds et poings liés à l’Observatoire syrien des Droit de l’Homme, pour qui le champ était libre, leur source quasiment unique, qui travaille main dans la main avec les opposants, le CNS notamment. Et les médias ont promu cette vision artificielle du conflit : « un peuple uni contre une féroce dictature ».

Mais, en fin de compte, il n’a pas été très difficile, pour ceux qui le voulaient, d’entrer en Syrie et de constater la réalité des événements. C’est ce que j’ai fait. Et ce que beaucoup d’autres ont fait depuis, mais, le plus souvent, en passant par les canaux de l’opposition, de l’Armée syrienne libre, qui ne montre que ce qui lui est favorable (d’où le reportage complètement parti-pris de Manon Loizeau, par exemple), comme le gouvernement, de son côté, ne montre également que ce qui l’arrange. Il faut lire les presses russe et chinoise, qui donnent une version tout à fait différente de ce que l’on peut lire et entendre en Europe : leurs journalistes entrent en Syrie avec l’accord du régime et se font tout autant trimballer, mais par le gouvernement dans ce cas-là, qui ne leur montre que l’autre côté du conflit. J’ai eu l’opportunité –et c’est probablement ce qui fait l’originalité de mon travail ; et qui dérange mes détracteurs- de rencontrer les deux parties, à plusieurs reprises, dans l’objectif de produire un tableau complet et une analyse dès lors plus réaliste de ce qui se passe aujourd’hui en Syrie.

Le problème, pour la presse, c’est maintenant de se dédire : le conflit dure et dure ; et il devient évident que la vision manichéenne développée ne tient plus la route. En outre, les journalistes qui se succèdent sur le terrain se rendent bien compte qu’elle ne correspond pas à la réalité. Il va donc bien falloir que les rédactions revoient leur ligne en ce qui concerne la Syrie, car la distorsion entre ce qui se passe et ce qu’ils disent est devenue flagrante.




Pensez-vous être victime de ce que Chomsky appelle « la Fabrique du consentement » ?

Cela, c’est à vous de me le dire.

Pour ma part, je me contenterai de vous rapporter ce que m’a répondu un jour le rédacteur-en-chef d’une revue très connue, mais dont, par charité, je tairai le nom. Je lui avais proposé un article. Il m’a dit : « tout ce que vous dites est vrai et très intéressant ; mais nous ne pourrons pas le publier, car cela risquerait de désorienter nos lecteurs » (sic)…


Quels conseils donneriez-vous aux Français pour s'informer correctement sur la Syrie ?

Je n’ai pas de conseil à donner en la matière.

S’informer n’a rien de très compliqué, en fin de compte, surtout avec l’outil internet qui a depuis longtemps enlevé le monopole de l’information aux grands journaux « politiquement prudents » ; mais rechercher l’information peut prendre beaucoup de temps.

Ainsi, ceux qui veulent s’informer le font déjà et trouvent sur la toile des faits, des analyses étayées, et, avec un peu de méthode et d’esprit critique, ils peuvent comprendre assez bien ce qui se passe réellement en Syrie.

Quant aux autres, on peut leur donner tous les conseils que l’on veut : ça ne les intéresse pas.


Votre proverbe, maxime favorite...

Je n’ai généralement pas peur de dire ce que pense, y compris sur des sujets délicats, comme la question israélo-palestinienne ou, en ce moment, les « révolutions » arabes.

Ce sont des sujets à propos desquels règne un politiquement correct convenu, auquel il est difficile de déroger sans s’attirer le courroux de certains cercles de pouvoir, sans prendre le risque de se faire des ennemis, à commencer de ceux-là mêmes qui pratiquent l’équilibre rassurant de l’homme couché et, d’une part, saisissent l’occasion de s’attaquer à un discours à contre-courant pour donner de cette manière un maximum de gages et, d’autre part, haïssent ceux qui, par ce discours politiquement incorrect, mais bien souvent très juste, leur renvoie l’image de leur lâcheté et de leur compromission intellectuelle.

Aussi, je cite volontiers ces quelques vers du Cyrano de Bergerac d’Edmond Rostand : « Oui, c'est mon vice. Déplaire est mon plaisir. J'aime qu'on me haïsse. »

Mais il est rare que mes interlocuteurs en saisissent le sens exact.

Dès lors, je reprendrai plutôt à mon compte cet extrait d’un célèbre discours de Jean Jaurès : « Le courage, c'est de chercher la vérité et de la dire. C'est de ne pas subir la loi du mensonge triomphant qui passe et de ne pas faire écho aux applaudissements imbéciles et aux huées fanatiques. »

Ou cette très belle pensée de Jean Guéhenno, que j’ai placée en tête de mon blog : « La vraie trahison est de suivre le monde comme il va et d'employer l'esprit à le justifier. » Je trouve qu’elle est parfaite, en la circonstance.

C’est à cela que j’essaie de me tenir, en tant qu’être humain et en tant que chercheur. C’est certes difficile et ce n’est pas en pratiquant cette philosophie qu’on peut arriver à « faire carrière ».

Mais à quoi bon faire carrière, si c’est pour devoir déguiser sa pensée en permanence, renoncer à dire la vérité et à défendre le juste ?

Pour récolter en échange quelques piètres honneurs, une place dans un institut ou telle distinction académique sans la moindre valeur éthique ? De mon point de vue, c’est sans aucun intérêt. A fortiori dans mon métier : la recherche et l’enseignement.

Et, si j’avais eu cette « ambition », cet objectif-là, j’aurais choisi la banque, pas l’histoire et les sciences politiques.

Amnesty International: The filthy public relations whores of fascism

Death squads have been released upon the people of Tripoli. We can even see them on the screens of their friends in the corporate media. We can see them firing their guns in the air and at everything that moves. We can see them looting houses, rampaging through the city; these hoards, these bandits, cheered on by ruthless intelligence agents posing as journalists.

Hospitals are over flowing with dead bodies, people are being beheaded in the streets, black people are being lynched, tortured, beheaded, eviscerated. The mainstream press even admits that thousands of Gaddafi supporters have been massacred. They call it ‘settling of accounts’ as though it is perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable. After all, these people supported Gaddafi, so they deserve to be raped, tortured, burned alive, beheaded.

We have reports of patients being taken out of hospitals and murdered. Yet Amnesty International, in order to deflect from the atrocities of the NATO death squads, suggest that some of the patients in the hospitals could have been murdered by ‘Gaddafi’s forces’.

Now where did you get those rumours Amnesty International? Why do you suspect that a government currently under siege from the combined forces of the richest and most powerful nations on earth would have the time or malevolent will to go into hospitals and murder the patients there, murder doctors who they so desperately need? Why haven’t you investigated the PROOF of rebels going into hospitals in Benghazi, dragging Libyan soldiers out by the ears and hanging them over the entrances?

They even filmed it for you and posted it on the internet. Do you have any other sources of information other than NATO and their death squads? Why haven’t you investigated it? Is it okay now Amnesty International, is it okay now to behead black people? Or is this all part of Gaddafi’s ‘propaganda’ plan? Were the beheadings carried out under ‘Gaddafi’s orders’?

Muammar Gaddafi who so hates the black race that he set up the African Union, Muammar Gaddafi who so hates the black race that he wears the portraits of all the African heroes on his robes, the African heroes murdered by the CIA and their cronies since Black African countries achieved independence, thanks to training and funding from Tripoli? Are you afraid Amnesty International? Afraid of losing your credibility by criticizing the powers who fund and promote you?

Why didn’t you investigate the outrageous racist allegations that the Libyan forces were using ‘black mercenaries’, allegations which lead to the massacres of hundreds of black Libyan families right throughout this war? Why didn’t you condemn the disgusting use of the term ‘African mercenaries’? Did you not know that Libya is in Africa? Did you not know that there are thousands of black Libyans serving in the Libyan Armed Forces and police, just like America, Britain, France and other countries?

Why are you continuing to cover for NATO’s crimes? Why haven’t you condemned NATO’s arming of the rebels, in violation of international law? Why haven’t you condemned NATO’s deployment of mercenaries, in violation of international law?
NATO have carpet bombed Sirte yesterday.

Did you hear about that Amnesty International? So far more than 400 civilians dead. NATO’s hoards are systematically terrorizing the people of Tripoli, all of whom support Gaddafi. We know this because they all demonstrated that support throughout the war. We saw them on the streets of Tripoli on July 1st, all 1.7 million of them, waving green flags and holding up portraits of their leader.


We know this because you cannot bomb a country for six months, day and night, bombing and bombing and bombing and killing and killing , just like Vietnam, just like Laos, Just like Cambodia, just like the bombing of over 30 countries by US imperialism in the last century, you cannot bomb a country and expect its inhabitants to like you. It did not take long to oust Ben Ali of Tunisia nor Mubarak of Egypt, because neither of those leaders had the overwhelming popular support of Muammar Gaddafi. That’s why the target of NATO bombings is not ‘Gaddafi’s forces’, the target is the Libyan population.


Why have you not published more information about your directors, Amnesty International? We know, for example, that the mastermind of Al Qaeda, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski, was one of your directors when his Al Qaeda thugs were raping and mutilating men and women in socialist Afghanistan during the 1980s, while you only concentrated on harassing the legitimate government of the country which was trying to stop them!

What a disgusting and discredited cabal of liars you all are! We will expose you Amnesty International, we will expose you for the scoundrels that you are, the scoundrels that you have always been, the whores of Western imperialism that you have always been.


When humanity needed independent humanitarian observers most, you were always on the side of the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation, the US/EU rapists of the planet. You, who thrive on ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the form of depleted uranium bombs, cluster bombs, death squads and mass murder, which you pathetically attempt to attribute to the victims in order to protect the perpetrators.
In order to maintain your credibility among the uncritical, you sometimes make concessions to truth, you sometimes admit that the ‘good guys’ nominated by the Western military-industrial-media complex, have committed some crimes.
Yet, you know what is happening on the ground; you know this is a colonial war of conquest; you know that the rebels are deranged psychopaths; you know that many of them are not even Libyan; you know that they are raping women en masse; you know that they are lynching and torturing black people and you know that the Libyan government had one of the best human rights records in the world ; you know that it was the Gaddafi Charity Foundation that revealed and condemned abuses of prisoners in Libyan prisons; you’ve read the UN report on human rights in Gaddafi’s Libya; you know that political prisoners in Libya were Al Qaeda, the same people who are now slaughtering the civilian population, lead by NATO special forces, Apache helicopters and ceaseless bombardment from the air. You know this is imperialism; you know that it is NATO and not the Libyan Armed Forces who are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity . You know all of this because you are part of it. You are an essential part of it all. You provide ‘humanitarian’ and ‘human rights’ cover for the crimes of imperialism.

The richest and most egalitarian country in Africa is being bombed into the stone age and ‘human rights’ groups are doing everything they can to make us love it. Amnesty International are nothing but the filthy public relations whores of fascism.

From the makers of "Gaddafi is killing his own people" Doha studio presents" The Libyan Revolution"

picture source:http://cyaegha-c.livejournal.com/460657.html



Surpassing previous mass media fabrications, both in scale and boldness, yesterday morning's Al Jazeera mise-en-scène will surely go down in history as one of the most cynical hoaxes committed by corporate media since the manipulated pictures of Iraqis topplying Saddam Hussein's statue after the US invasion in 2003.

On the morning of August 22nd 2011, Al Jazeera aired a 'live' report from Green Square in Tripoli,which claimed to show the capture of the Libyan capital by rebel forces. Scenes of jubilation and euphoria enveloped Al Jazeera's reporter Zeina Khodr as she declared: " Liya is in the hands of the opposition''

The images were immediately reproduced throughout the global media complex, with headlines trumpeting the 'end of the Gaddafi regime' and editorials throughout the corporate media world speculating about the post-Gaddafi future of Libya.

Gaddafi's sons were said to have been arrested, and more defections were announced. The Libyan capital was, we were told, now in the hands of the rebel forces. For many, it seemed a fait accompli.

In fact, the Al Jazeera pictures from Green Square were an elaborate and criminal hoax. The report had been prefabricated in a studio in Doha Qatar . This information had been passed onto Libyan intelligence and the Libyan people had already been warned about the qatari psyops a couple of days previously on Rayysse state television.

The Al Jazeera hoax was intended to create the impression that Tripoli had fallen so as:
(1) to break the Libyan resistance by creating panic and chaos in the Libyan captial.
(2) to provide cover for the massacres of civilians that would occur in the days following the declaration of rebel victory.

In other words, the media would provide cover for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that are necessary in order to subjugate the Libyan Jamhahirya to Western corporate interests.


Shortly after the Al Jazeera pictures were released, this author contacted independent reporter Lizzie Phelan in Tripoli. Miss Phelan was able to confirm from what she described as realiable sources that the Al Jazeera pictures were false.

By the end of the day, it emerged that all the twitter lies emanating from the criminals in the National Transitional Council were also, unsurprisingly, false. Gaddafi's sons had not been arrested, and the rebels were not in control of the city.

In the meantime, Lizzie Phelan, Mahdi Darius Nemenroaya and Thierry Meysan have receieved death threats from CNN producers staying in the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli. After the arrival of thousands of NATO/Al Qaeda terrorists, a brief period of chaos ensued in the city.

When many of the mainstream reporters abandoned the Rixos Hotel, Libyan authorities discovered that most of them were CIA and MI6 agents working undercover as journalists.

At present, Mahdi Darius Nezemroaya, Thierry Meysan and other real journalists remain trapped in the Rixos Hotel. Nezemroaya was fired upon by a NATO/rebel sniper when he attempted to place a press sign on top of the Rixos hotel to protect the building from NATO bombardement.

Reporter Lizzie Phelan contacted a friend yesterday to say that she had been threatened by CNN personnel and had been blocked from using facebook and email.

Below, you can see the warning given to the Libyan people by state media of Al Jazeera's coming psyops. The presenter tells the viewers that Al Jazeera have produced a simulation of Tripoli's Green Square, and that they are going to use this to produce a gigantic fiction of 'liberated' Libya.

The picture above proves that the producers of the Al Jazeera hoax are no Dutch masters, as the glaring discrepancies between the real Green Square in Tripoli and the Al Jazeera version are patently obvious. The differences between the architecture in Green Square in Tripoli and the pictures shown in Al Jazeera are well documented in the video below.

While the Al Jazeera mise-en-scène is entertaining, the leading actress Zeina Khodr is unlikey to receive awards for her rather slugish performance. She said her lines rather mechanically, as one who was not particularly enamoured of the script, or perhaps it was the far-fetched aspect of the entire screen play that bothered her.
This media hoax is another poignant example of the desperation of NATO, who have ruthlessly bombed a sovereign nation for 6 months and have so far failed to effect regime change. It also proves yet again the role of the corporate media in disinformation and war-mongering.

From Operation Odyssey Dawn to Operation Siren: Colonel Gaddafi as Homeric Hero.

Since renaissance times, graduates of Greek and Latin literature in Britain, France and other imperial countries were often recruited by the secret service agencies. There were several reasons for this: graduates who could read the classics of Greek and Latin literature in the original languages tended to have good analytical and linguistic skills and a deep knowledge of history and culture.



Attention to detail and the capacity to read complex codes and signs are essential for intelligence work. On October 29th 2010, the British newspaper Express quoted the head of Britain’s secret service MI6 Johnathon Evans, a classical scholar, saying that classics should be taught in state schools “on the grounds that learning Latin and Greek would help “develop the kinds of skills that would-be spies need”.[1]



Given the centrality of Greek and Latin in the education of the European aristocracy in the past, it comes as no surprise that the current war on Libya was baptized “Operation Odyssey Dawn”. Scholars of the centuries identified many of the locations that feature in Homer’s epic poem in Malta, Sicily and the Mediterranean Sea where NATO’s air and sea forces are currently based.



European elites clearly see this current military adventure as akin to the trials and tribulations of Homer’s hero Odysseus who spent 10 long years attempting to return to his homeland of Ithaca after the Trojan War to liberate his palace from treacherous suitors who were attempting to woo his wife Penelope in his absence.



After many adventures and mishaps, the Homeric hero finally returns to Ithaca, joining up with his son Telemachus(the far-fighter), killing all the suitors occupying his palace.

But the question concerning Libya is: who is playing the role of Odysseus here?



The eponymous hero of Homer’s epic poem is described by the Greek bard as resourceful, wily, smart, fearless, charming, righteous and intelligent. Homer’s most frequently used epithets for Odysseus are‘polytropos’, of many twists and turns, ‘polymeros’,many-faceted and ‘metis’, cunning.



The most distinguishing aspect of this war has been the inversion of language to represent a false reality. So, the ‘protection of civilians’ means the bombardment of civilian targets; the Gaddafi regime means the majority of the population of Libya who support their government; ‘rebels’ and sometimes ‘revolutionaries’ are the euphemisms used to disguise jihadist terrorists’; the crimes of the rebels have been ascribed to the government forces and rebel retreats have been presented as advances.



It is hardly likely, therefore, that NATO considers their hated enemy, Muammar Gaddafi as an Odyssean hero fighting to free his country from greedy parasites. Yet, like Odysseus, Gaddafi has resisted NATO’s bombardment for 6 months.



Like Odysseus, part of Gaddafi’s country is currently being occupied by violent and treacherous parasites in the service of NATO. Like Odysseus, Gaddafi has managed to escape capture and death from the most gigantic and formidable forces on the planet.



Many classical etymologists derive the word Odysseus from the Greek ‘odyssomai’(ὀδύσσομαι ), meaning “to be wroth against, hated”[2]

Is there any other figure in the international media today more hated, more demonized than Muammar Gaddafi?



In Homer’s Odyssey, the suitors who occupy the eponymous hero’s palace attempt to persuade his wife Penelope that Odysseus is dead, that he will never return and that she should choose a new husband.



The international corporate media have been spreading the same lies and rumours about Gaddafi since the outbreak of the war in March this year.

When hostilities began in February, the British foreign minister William Hague declared that the Libyan leader had fled to Venezuela. The claim was false.



Claims were recently made that Gaddafi’s son Khamis had been killed. The claims were false. On Sunday August 21st International Criminal Court prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo-the man who told the astonishingly absurd lie about Gaddafi ordering Viagra for his troops so they could rape women-- told Reuters news agency that Gaddafi’s on Saif Al Islam had been captured by the rebels.[3]

Ocampo’s claim has been dismissed by Mathaba news agency. [4]



Gaddafi has continued to survive. Whether one likes the guide of the Libyan Green Revolution or not, it is clear that the Libyan people love their leader and that he is a man of unquestionable ability.



Only a leader of Odyssean qualities would be capable of resisting the aggression of the most powerful nations on earth for the best part of 40 years; instituting a political system that has the support of the people; creating the wealthiest and most egalitarian country in Africa and finally, surviving continuous aerial bombardment, economic blockades and invasions of foreign mercenaries for 6 months.



Did the planners of Operation Odyssey Dawn unwittingly dramatise themselves as the vengeful god Poseidon , punishing a superhero protected by Athena, the goddess of wisdom?

Operation Siren: psychological warfare to break the Libyan resistance.





According to the French newspaper Le Parisien on Saturday August 20th, the spokesman for the National Transition Council in Benghazi , announced the commencement of Operation Siren. The operation is being carried out by NATO forces in conjunction with rebels on the ground and aims to take Tripoli by ousting Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, [5] according to the Libyan NCT spokesman,



In book 12 of Homer’s poem, Odysseus and his men confront the challenge posed by the enchanting sounds of the Siren’s song. In Greek and Homeric mythology the Sirens were bird-women and seductresses who lured unsuspecting sailors to shipwreck and destruction.



The songs of the sirens were said to be impossible to resist but Odysseus had previously been warned about the nefarious bird-women by the sorceress Circe;

‘To the Sirens first shalt thou come, who bewitch all men, whosoever shall come to them. Whoso draws nigh them unwittingly and hears the sound of the Sirens' voice, never doth he see wife or babes stand by him on his return, nor have they joy at his coming; but the Sirens enchant him with their clear song, sitting in the meadow, and all about is a great heap of bones of men, corrupt in death, and round the bones the skin is wasting. But do thou drive thy ship past, and knead honey-sweet wax, and anoint therewith the ears of thy company, lest any of the rest hear the song; but if thou myself art minded to hear, let them bind thee in the swift ship hand and foot, upright in the mast-stead, and from the mast let rope-ends be tied, that with delight thou mayest hear the voice of the Sirens. And if thou shalt beseech thy company and bid them to loose thee, then let them bind thee with yet more bonds’[6]


Odysseus survives by asking his men to bind him to the mast of the ship so he can hear the sirens. knead honey-sweet wax, and anoint therewith the ears of thy company, lest any of the rest hear the song / the sailors put wax in their ears so they won’t hear the song and be drawn into destruction.


The Parisien report goes on to claim that it is no longer possible to evacuate foreign nationals in Tripoli as a Maltese ship which was due to evacuate Polish citizens has come under fire. However, the report does not say who exactly fired on the ship. According to the Polish foreign ministry, negotiations are underway with the rebels in order to secure the evacuation of Polish citizens in the country. [7]



However, the Reuters version of the same report gives more information about Polish citizens attempting to flee the besieged city of Tripoli. According to the report, 250 Polish families are currently in Tripoli.

“The ministry was not immediately available to confirm the report.



Poland has evacuated most of its citizens from Libya and moved its ambassador from Tripoli to rebel-held Benghazi, but some 250 people from mixed Polish-Libyan families have stayed behind, the ministry official added.

One family had hoped to leave on the Maltese ship, the MV Triva 1”. [8]



The above-cited French newspaper did not mention that the report had NOT actually been confirmed by the Polish foreign ministry and the Reuters report states that out of 250 people of mixed Polish-Libyan families only one family hoped to leave on the Maltese ship.

Both the Reuters and Le Parisien reports also claim that ‘heavy fighting’ has broken out in Tripoli between “remnants” of the “Gaddafi regime” and “rebels”, who, it appears, are about to capture the Libyan capital.



Le Parisien quotes Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini saying that “the tragedy is coming to an end” as the rebels will soon capture Tripoli. Frattini also assures Italian companies that previous contracts signed with the Gaddafi government will be respected as soon as the NTC takes over. [9]



What is the significance of the Maltese ship here? Why is NATO so concerned about getting a ship into Tripoli to evacuate foreign nationals when the unconfirmed reports cited only one Polish family hoping to flee the Libyan capital? To whom is the NTC president talking when he warns of a ‘catastrophic end’ for Gaddafi and his people?



Is NATO attempting to use a ‘humanitarian’ vessel as a Trojan Horse to deliver terrorists to Libya? Is another humanitarian narrative being written to justify NATO troops on the ground to ‘liberate’ Tripoli? Why do the reports not confirm who exactly fired upon the Maltese ship? Why does the report state that officials are negotiating with rebels to bring the ship into Tripoli? The rebels are not in control of the city.



Independent reporter and political analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has claimed that NATO is now embarking on a sophisticated psychological warfare operation to create panic and fear among the Libyan population in order to break their resistance to NATO’s terrorists. It is clear that Operation Siren is the name of NATO’s new terror campaign.



The same reporter told Russia Today that he had been fired upon by snipers. Nazemroaya also said that a CNN producer had issued death threats to CNN journalists in the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli.

The websites of Libyan state newspapers Al Jamahirya, Al Yosberides, Azzaf Alakhdar and Al Fair Aljadeed have been suspended.



NATO may now attempt to cut power and communication lines in Tripoli, create a state of chaos and fear in the streets, backed up with a mass rumour campaign in order to break the resistance of the Libyan people and prepare the conquest of Tripoli.

There have been reports in the Libyan television station Rayysse of an elaborate hoax prepared by Al Jazeera in which scenes of Tripoli being overrun by rebel forces are fabricated.



Rayysse reported on Friday August 19th:

“an anonymous source reports that NATO will try its last card, it seems that they have reproduced the background of Tripoli in a studio in Doha, Bab Aziziya in particular, and that they are going to simulate a takeover of Tripoli, after they cause a general blackout, cutting electricity and transmissions. The aim is to break the morale of the brave Libyans and fool them, so as to lead the city and the country into a chaotic state.”[10]


This morning August 22th Al Jazeera broadcast a report from Tripoli’s Green Square which they claimed was now in control of the rebels. The reporter Zeina Khodr declared “ this city is now in the hands of the opposition”


In a message on facebook, independent journalist Lizzie Phelan, who has been reporting from Libya since the start of the war declared:

“I now have from reliable sources that the Libyan army is still in control of Tripoli. Al Jazeera footage of Green Square was fake. Gaddafi went to Green Square with his sons. Things are much calmer now”


Al Jazeera, the television station owned by the Emir of Qatar, has been a driving force in the media war on Libya since the start of hostilities there. In February the Qatari station aired a video which they claimed showed peaceful protestors in Benghazi being fired upon by ‘Gaddafi’s forces’.



The video was subsequently located and published on the internet.

It clearly shows pro-Gaddafi demonstrators being fired upon by unknown snipers. The video was edited by Al Jazeera to suit their agenda of demonizing the Libyan government and creating the pretext for “humanitarian” intervention by NATO and the Gulf dictatorships.[11]



In a press release on August 21st, Libyan government spokesman Dr. Moussa Ibrahim, confirmed that over 1300 people had been killed and 900 injured in Tripoli within 12 hours of rebel attacks. Although dozens of rebels have been captured and they have not captured the city, the final phase of NATO’s brutal destruction of Libya is likely to end in a bloodbath. [12]



In spite of media claims of ‘game over’ for Gaddafi, the Libyan armed forces have cleared the rebels from Misrata, Zawia, Garman, Sormon and Sabratha in the last few days[13] It is clear that the majority of the Libyan people still support Colonel Gaddafi.



Conclusion.

Though the mainstream media chant about “Gaddafi’s last stand”, Operation Siren is the last desperate attempt of the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation to enslave the Libyan population. If this war is not stopped now, there will be a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.An anonymous NGO report published on August 21st states on the 108morris108 channel on utube states:


"All the carnage was distant until night fell then the sea boiled over with small fast boats that dumped ten or more special forces and Al Qaida killers at hundreds of points along the beach in and around Tripoli. The slaughter began at that moment. The distraction of the small gangs inside the city proved successful and allowed the unfettered invasion from the sea. Killing hundreds of thousands of Libyans in the next few days may be the result of this full fledged attack on a sovereign nation by NATO" [14]




NATO's rebels are facing a population of over 2 million Tripolitan citizens who have been armed by the government. These brave people, ignored by the world, will fight for the rights and freedoms that are theirs, the cities and towns that are theirs, the future of their families and children.



NATO’s sirens may beam their evil songs but the people of Tripoli are singing back to them. “Alla, Muammar, Libya bas” The Libyan people have three muses, Allah, Muammar and the land of Libya.



Perhaps NATO thinks it is winning this media war. But they would do well to consider the fate of the Sirens before committing ground troops to crush the Libyan people. The medieval writer Stephanus of Byzantium tells the story of a competition between the sirens and the Greek muses. When the sirens won the singing competition, the muses plucked the feathers from their wings. The sirens turned white and fell into the sea.



[1] http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/208177

[2]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do%29du%2Fssomai

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/21/us-libya-rebels-tripoli-idUSTRE77K2EX20110821

[4] http://mathaba.net/news/?x=628171

[5]http://www.leparisien.fr/intervention-libye/libye-pour-isoler-kadhafi-les-rebelles-lancent-l-operation-sirene-21-08-2011-1573322.php

[6] http://www.literaturepage.com/read/theodyssey-177.html



[7] http://www.leparisien.fr/intervention-libye/libye-pour-isoler-kadhafi-les-rebelles-lancent-l-operation-sirene-21-08-2011-1573322.php

[8] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=maltese-ship-heading-for-tripoli-un

[9] http://www.leparisien.fr/intervention-libye/libye-pour-isoler-kadhafi-les-rebelles-lancent-l-operation-sirene-21-08-2011-1573322.php

[10] http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/08/al-jazeera-and-nato-planning-major-scam.html

[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb2qL9UOxuA

[12] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbjSPHOdZQ&feature=share

[13] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1108/S00205/susan-lindauer-libya-gadhaffi-retakes-key-towns.htm

[14]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFGsmJMd_fo&feature=player_embedded

More NATO crimes against humanity in Libya: A letter to the "Irish Anti-War Movement"

During the nights of the 8th and 9th of August, NATO jets bombed a refugee centre in the little village of Zliten, near the Libyan capital Tripoli. The NATO missiles blew 86 unarmed civilians to bits. 33 of them were children. Nato has denied the charges but the video below provides the dirty, incontrovertible proof of NATO's war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Since NATO began this war of aggression against Libya five months ago, under the fabricated pre-text of 'protecting civilians', they have failed to 'pacify' the North African nation. What is the reason for this failure? The reason is simple: Libya is one of the most democratic countries in the world and the Libyan people do not want to give up their hard-earned freedoms to be occupied by foreign powers and their corrupt domestic puppets of the so-called National Transitional Council.

The Great People's Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya is run by over 460 people's committees. There is no central government in Libya; rather,each resident of the country is a member of a local popular assembly. As Geoff Simons writes in his wonderful book 'Libya: the struggle for survival':
"The aim has been to sustain the sovereignty of individual Libyan citizens through the creation of popular assemblies(mutamarat) and committees(lijan; in such a system that the committee is pervasive at every political level and in every social sector.Every resident belongs to a sovereign popular assembly at the district level; members meet for an annual week of evening sessions to receive reports on local matters and to agree an agenda of important issues(such issues can range widely; from the relation between law and Islam to foreign aid, from policies on expatriates to economic development). The chairman and other mandated delegates carry the findings and conclusions of the meetings to the annual National Assemby which in turn takes its majority decisions to the secretariats"

The entire Libyan population is armed and the overwhelming majority of Libyans support the guide of the Libyan Green revolution Muammar Gaddafi. Now, you may not like the eccentric looking Libyan leader, dear reader, but the Libyan people do. There are no examples in human history of unpopular autocrats arming the entire population. Unpopular regimes never arm their subjects, for obvious reasons.

The NATO-backed rebels have never had popular support among the Libyan people. They are comprised mainly of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group, a rebel army formed by the CIA in Sudan during the 1970s when the country was ruled by CIA operative Gaafar Nimeiry. There is also CIA group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and other motley factions who would like to see a restoration of the British puppet Sanusi monarchy, and there is, of course,the ever nebulous international conspiracy called Al Qaeda. The city of Darnah in Eastern Libya has always been major recruiting ground for Islamist terrorists. One of the Al Qaeda leaders currently fighint NATO's war is Abu Sufian Ibhramhim Ammed Amuda bin Qumu. Bin Qumu was a former detainee in Guantanimo Bay. He was trained in the CIA-funded terrorist camps of Afghanistan during America's covert war against the Soviet Union. He was moved to Guantanimo Bay after the American invasion of Afghanistan and has now been deployed to Libya to fight against the Libyan republic. Other CIA/AL Qaeda operatives are Al Hasidi and Khalifa Hifter.

The 'rebels' of Benghazi have received extensive military support from the Qatar dictatorship as well as media cover and propaganda from the television station owned by the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera.

Working in conjunction with Western intelligence, Al Jazeera/Arabic and Al Jazeera/English have marketed themselves as 'independent' television stations. This marketing involved mild criticism of Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, since the CIA-fomented war against the Libyan people and the covert war against Syria, Al Jazeera has been the most important asset of the Pentagon's information war.

Judging by the TOTAL silence of the so-called 'anti-war' groups, it would appear that Al Jazeera and the pentagon have won the war thus far. Although Al Jazeera have been caught lying over and over again about Libya and Syria, Trotskites and many other 'leftists' do not seem to have noticed.

The Irish trotskyites and their European counterparts are a good example of this unfathomable gullibility. These soi-disant'revolutionary socialist' and 'anti-capitalist' groups have backed the CIA contras in Benghazi against the popular democratic Jamahirya.

The utterly risible views of these groups emanate principally from such eminanet intellectual fraudsters as Gilbert Ashgar and Noam Chomsky. Both of these authors swallowed the lies of Al Jazeera, CNN and BBC hook, line and sinker and they've been joined by a chorus of prattling sycophants.

In an interview Noam Chomsky gave with the BBC on March 8th 2011 after the CIA-backed uprising, he called the Benghazi rebellion a 'popular revolution' and Al Jazeera was, he stessed, "one of the best news services in the world".

Unsurprisingly, that is also the view of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who recently praised the quality of debate on Al Jazeera and complained about news stations such as Russia Today that were winning the media war against U.S imperialism. So Chomsky and Hillary Clinton are in perfect agreement on the outstanding quality of Al Jazeera!

In the above-mentioned interview Chomsky gave to the BBC, the MIT professor and 'cognitive scientist' went on to call Muammar Gaddafi a 'brutal dictator'. Muammar Gaddafi left office in 1974. Since, then, he has held no official function in the country, other than a highly symbolic role as ideologue of the revolution; his high prestige and devotion to the green revolution have given Gaddafi enormous symbolic power, such that when he speaks for or to the nation, everyone listens. Have you read any of Gaddafi's speeches Mr. Chomsky? Or his Green Book? Obviously not.

Gaddafi is not a dictator. He does not have the powers to override decisions of the general congress. For example, many years ago, Gaddafi advocated abolishing the death penalty in Libya. He proposed the motion to the General Congress and it was unanimously rejected.

On 16th of February 2009, Gaddafi addressed the Libyan government, criticising them for corruption and demanding more direct redistribution of wealth. The Libyan guide proposed that the government be dismanted entirely and that all oil wealth be distributed evenly among the people.

That motion was rejected by the members of the General Congress who were the object of the Colonel's criticism and who are now trying to kill him, his family and everything that the country has achieved over the last 40 years. For example, Mahmoud Jabril, head of Libya's National Economic Development Board, which had recently been closed down due to corruption, and Abud Ajleil, the ex-justice minister, were staunchly opposed to Gaddafi's revolutionary plans.

To return to the BBC Paxman/Chomsky interview, when the BBC presenter asked "the greatest intellectual of our time" if he thought that a NATO intervention would 'bring democracy' to Libya, Chomsky replied " I don't think so".

Now, imagine that! Mr Chomsky, the guru of the left, doesn't THINK that a NATO intervention will bring 'democracy' to Libya; he's not SURE if a violent intervention by imperialism will 'protect' the Libyan people. Here's an except from the Paxman/Chomsky interview:

Paxman " we have an obligation, do we not, to behave responsibly"
Chomsky: "yes"
Paxman : "And you're saying that we should simply not get involved"
Chomsky: "there may come a time when it would make sense for the West to become involved, in spite of its horrendous record of atrocities and crimes in that region too going way back, but the question is has that time come?"

Chomsky and his cohorts never once questioned the avalanche of lies diffussed by the corporate media against the Libyan government, the FACT that its rebels were armed from the start by Western intelligence agencies working from Egypt.

The fact that the rebels attacked police and army headquarters, buring officers alive and mutilating their bodies, invading people's houses, raping and mutilating women, beheading their victims, lynching black people, indulging in cannibalism. All of this has been well documented, yet Chomsky has nothing to say about it. He calls Benghazi 'liberated' and only trusts the pronouncements of the 'world's best television service' the afore-mentioned station owned by the pro-US dictator of Qatar.

That Chomsky has been able to present himself as a serious leftist for many decades is indeed a tribute to his skills as a 'cognitive scientist'

Shortly thereafter, the leader of the "Irish anti-war movement" Jim Roche, echoed his master's voice by telling the Irish times that the NATO intervention in Libya was 'unlikely' to bring democracy and freedom. Many of these Africa-hating, Gaddafi-hating, Trotskyites tend to justify their hostility to Gaddafi by citing his raprochement with the West after 911.

Gaddafi certainly tried to make friends wih the west after the bombings in New York, but that was because 1 he knew that if he didn't they would invade and occupy his country 2 Gaddafi had also been fighing Al Qaeda in Libya for many years( they had been supported by Britain and the USA). During the 1990s, M-I6 ,working through a London Al Qaeda cell, attempted to assasinate the Libyan leader. Gaddafi knew all along what the real meaning of "al qaeda" was and he did not flinch from speaking his mind after he had established friendly relations with the West.

In an interview with Larry King of CNN on 28/9/2009, Gaddafi reminded the American presenter that the 911 terrorists had been trained in the United States and not in the caves of Afghanistan and that the occupation of that country was therefore wrong.
The notion, therefore, that Gaddafi was a puppet of the west is patently false.

Although 'friendship' with the west was costly for the Libyan people, it also enabled them to have the crippling sanctions lifted and Gaddafi was quick to use his new international 'friendship' with the West to criticise them all over the world. This was particularly evident in his speech to the UN on Sep 23th 2009. Have you read this speech "Irish anti-war movement"?

So, why did the west bomb Libya?

1 Libya was the richest, the most egalitarian and democratic society in Africa. They were setting a bad example to other African countries who serve Western interests.

2 Libya has the biggest oil reserves in Africa. Imperialism rather likes owning oil.

3 Gaddafi was resolutely opposed to Africom (you haven't heard of Africom "Irish Anti-War movement?" look it up!

4 Gaddafi opposed French president Nicholas Sarkozy's plan for the Union of the Mediterannean which would bring North Africa under the rule of the European Union.

5 Gaddafi wanted to create a counterweight in the world to NATO called the South Atlantic Treaty Organisation. He was working closely with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to achieve this so that poor countries would be able to protect their resources from Western pillage.

6 Gaddafi wanted to create the United States of Africa: one federal state with one powerful military to protect the continent from foreign domination.

7 Libya was investing heavily in education, health and telecommunications systems throughout Africa, financing Africa's first satelite system which became operational in 2007. It was thanks to Libya that Africa underwent a telecommunications revolution in recent years. Bad news for US and European corporations seeking to dominate the African market.

8 The Great Man Made River Project( have you ever heard of that my dear Trotksyites?). Bringing the water under the Sahara desert for thousands of kilometres to supply Libyan cities with fresh clean water, the Great Man Man River Project is, without question, the greatest humanitarian infrastructual project in the history of humanity.

The GMMRP was financed and built by Libyan money made from oil-sales after the West lifted the sanctions against them. But the ambitions of the Libyan government did not stop there;they hoped to become self-sufficient in agriculture by irrigating the desert, turning it into fertile arable land. Now there is nothing that irks Western GMO crop corporations than countries becoming self-sufficient in food. Not bad for a 'brutal dictator'eh Chomsky? One further point here: The CMMRP was built by Libyan engineers. When Gaddafi took power in 1969, there was not a single engineer in the illiterate land. Now, Libya has the higest literacy rate in Africa.

9 Gaddafi proposed a one-state solution for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Gaddafi's reasoning was simple. Palestinian arabs already work in Israel and the West Bank is split off from Gaza. It is impossible to construct a viable Palestinian state. The logical conclusion is therefore for the Israelis and Palestinians to live together in a democratic republic. Whites and blacks did not form separate states in South Africa, so why should Apartheid Israel be any different? Gaddafi has some experience in the politics of apartheid. It was in Tripoli in 1981 that the first pan-African conference on apartheid was held. Did you know that my dear Trotskyite 'socialist revolutionaries'? Chomsky HATES all talk of unity between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Chomsky is, of course, on his own admission a Zionist of the 'left wing' variety.

10 Libya had put billions of dollars aside to create an African Monetary Union and African Central Bank to free the continent once and for all from foreign debt slavery.

11 Libya has lots and lots of gold. So much gold in fact that it accounts for as much as half the UK's holdings, and the UK robbed most of the gold they could find during the 19th century. Gaddafi was getting a little worried about the value of those paper notes printed by the privately-owned Federal Reserve in New York which it uses to control the world economy. Gaddafi wanted Libyan oil to be paid for by a gold-backed dinar. This would have turned Libya and Africa into a superpower. Bad news for the resource-robbing West.

12 NATO, the EU and the USA do not like Muammar Gaddafi's model of direct democracy as it allows ordinary people to participate in running the country. Western paliamentary democracies serve the interests of the banks, corporations and financial elite. Gaddafi's vision of popular democracy is a threat to the interests of that financial elite in Africa.

While the corporate media have done everything in their power to present the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt as 'revolutions', the real revolution began in 1969 in neighbouring Libya. The real revolutionaries of the 'Arab spring' are the millions of Libyans who have taken to the streets day after day to protect their freedoms; protect their free health care; free education; free housing; excellent childcare; modern infrastructure;their culture; their pride, their heroic history and the leader they love.

So did Gaddafi 'bomb his own people' Irish Anti-War movment? Did you read the report of the Russian military that proved this was a lie? Did you question any of the reports you heard? Were you not suspicious being as you are, 'revolutionary socialists' of the hysterical hatred Western imperialism has always had for Gaddafi even when they shook his hand? In France, the trotskyite Nouveau Parti Anticapitalite even had the gall to criticise Chavez and Castro for supporting Gaddafi.No wonder many people in france believe they were created by the French secret service!

So, "Irish Anti-War Movement" will you jump up and down calling for the overthrow of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela next when the Pentagon funds some pseudo-leftist outfit against him,( they already are, you know), when twitter, facebook and Al Jazeera start demonising him? Do you agree with your guru's estimation of Chavez that he is becoming a little 'authoritarian'? Your left-wing guru has already been working on softening your reaction to the coming attack on Venezuela, writing letters to Chavez pleading with him to release a corrupt judge and handing the anti-Chavez propaganda to mainstream newspapers.

Will we see the same response from you "Irish anti-war movement" next time your guru appears on the BBC as another 'popular' revolution in Venezuela is presented to you on your television screen followed by your guru's approuval? I suspect we will.

Finale

So, take a look at the pictures below from the television station of the 'GADDAFI REGIME', and tell me, did they make all this up? Can NATO bomb a country for 5 months every day, bombing and bombing and bombing and bombing, tell me can they do all of this and not kill a man, not kill a woman, not kill a child, not kill a baby, not kill many of them,not maim many of them, not terrorise many of them,not murder thousands of them, not diplace and terrorise thousands of them?

Can they do all this, tell me, without destroying the life and fabric of a country, you who jump up and down about Gaza, you who rant and rave about the West Bank, are the Libyan people different? Do they deserve to me massacred? you who shout about getting troops out of Shannon and "hands off Iran" and "free Palestine" and "fuck Israel" and 'revolutionary socialism', and "anti-captialism" and "anti-war" etc.etc. Why are you now BACKING the zionist thugs of Benghazi against a popular democratic regime?

You say 'fuck Israel' but you love the Israelite Bernard Henry Lévy and his rag-tag troop of terrorists and traitors, with their Israeli-made weapons. You say you want socialism then you denounce any country that actually attempts to implement it. So here you are now once again, you Monty Python leftists, singing in unision with imperialism as a sovereign nation is reduced to rubble, chaos and despair. Shame on all of you!