Berg's Wozzeck Finale and Western devastating wars over the oil, or oil pipes or New World Order...
On February 25, 2011 Obama gave executive order declaring Libya "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," which is ludicrous on its face. ( Now Obama totally tarnishes Nobel Peace Prize with "indiscriminate" military action in Libya and should returned it, before Nobel himself come up from his grave to get it back)
Going out of control, Obama then declared "a national emergency to deal with that threat."
So much for "sitting down and talking with enemies," as Obama promised to do during his political campaign for the US presidency.
All of this happened without any critical comment from the media. Indeed, the media was forcing (with CNN - as leading war propaganda machine) Obama and the "international community" to do something.
To repeat: simply being the commander-in-Chief does not allow the President to wage an offensive war and to destroy another country that does not threaten the United States.
We at AIM were similarly critical of the media for failing to raise these issues when Clinton went to war in Kosovo. That case was even worse than Libya because western powers back then wasn't able to force the U.N. to authorize the military intervention (same with NATO led invasion of Iraq). Clinton and Bush used NATO rather than the U.N. But NATO, which came into being through a treaty as a defensive military force, had been illegally transformed without the benefit of a treaty into an offensive military force.
To make matters worse, Clinton intervened on behalf of the Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Christian Serbs. The result was creation of a rogue Muslim state, Kosovo, in the heart of Europe. Albanian Kosovo already produced Islamic radical who recently attacked and killed U.S. soldiers at the German airport.
Squeezed, bribed and blackmailed U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 on Libya that calls for a no-fly zone and reiterates a "Responsibility to Protect" through explicit language on the "protection of civilians" against the regime.
Obvious U.S. puppet - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the resolution "historic," which is correct, and noted that it "affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community's determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government."
It sounds like a New World Order.
///
Are events unfolding in Libya more about petro-terrorism or about freedom and democracy? How much oil is there in North Africa? Who is in control of that oil? What is the relationship between the West and Muamar Gaddafi? Is he really the terrorist we've all been led to believe he is? Who is the Libyan "opposition" and who are the "rebels" we read about?
Presented with this story are petroleum industry concessions maps for North Africa that people might want to ponder in between the Western propaganda on Libya. Amidst the full-court press of propaganda presented by the western media we find that Muamar Gaddafi is even accused of committing genocide against his own people without any prove.
With the discovery of oil in Libya in 1959, a very poor desert country became a very rich little western protectorate. US and European companies had huge stakes in the extremely lucrative petroleum and banking sectors, but these were soon nationalized by Gaddafi since on September 1, 1969 the pro-western regime that had ruled in Libya was overthrown by Colonel Muamar Gaddafi. Thus Libya overnight joined the list of US 'enemy' or 'rogue' states that sought autonomy and self-determination outside the expanding sphere of western Empire.
In almost all western media accounts, the so-called "opposition" in Libya includes the unspecified, unnamed, unidentified "rebels" of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protesters who began with a 'peaceful sit-in' as reported by The Pravda of The West - The New York Times and uncritically repeated everywhere else.
In Libya today, there is no context or history to the NFSL 'rebels': they are categorically presented as the good guys, no matter that they seem to have appeared out of thin air. No one explains who these people are who are cited by the New York Times, CNN or other western media as sources.
The death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan -- by US - NATO forces -- far surpass anything that might have occurred during internal conflict in Libya. Meanwhile, most 'news' on Libya is based on false accusations and false assertions.
Western media is preparing the ground for the English news consuming masses to see the Western invasion as a "humanitarian" mission in Libya. There is nothing humanitarian about this kind of invasions, and there has never been.
Loading...
@03Srbija It's true, I don't not all the details, and I must admit I was surprised NATO sided with the Jihadists...However I believe NATO's decision was more to do with punishing the last remnants of the old Soviet Empire in my opinion... But that's simply an observation, not a judgment... Best wishes for the future
phoenix11994466 6 months ago
@phoenix11994466 what are you talking about? you have no clue what happend there what neighbours nazzie fasists and jihadists Serbs had no choise but to fight after untold slaughter of their people in their own land Nato is a terrorist amongst terrorists!!
03Srbija 6 months ago
Nice Speach... But you defied the will of NATO, and the whole world... So then you paid the price... Which you were obviously willing to pay, otherwise you would have stopped the slaughtering of your neighbors... So why the tears now?
phoenix11994466 6 months ago