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!