Showing posts with label Kadhafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kadhafi. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2011

Gaddafi family deaths reinforce doubts about Nato’s UN mandate

Posted: May 2, 2011 by crescentandcross

Saif al-Arab Gaddafi's home
The missile reportedly fired during a Nato air strike is seen in the Tripoli house of
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Arab, who died in the attack.

 Nato is facing urgent questions about the legality of its air strike on a Gaddafi family compound at the weekend, which the Libyan government said had killed the leader’s second youngest son, 29-year old Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren under 12. The grandchildren were not named.
The Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, Safiya, had been in the building at the time, but had escaped injury. He said the aim of the attack was clear: to assassinate the Libyan leader.

Nato swiftly scrambled to deny that it was targeting any individuals, insisting that it was only interested in attacking the military command structure.

The prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC that UN resolutions permitted attacks against the regime’s “command and control” sites because their aim was to prevent “a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine”.

But the deaths of Gaddafi’s three grandchildren, if confirmed, will reinforce the doubts of alliance members uncomfortable with Nato’s six-week bombing campaign and generate criticism from countries such as Russia that Nato is pushing beyond its UN security council mandate.

“Statements by participants in the coalition that the strikes on Libya are not aimed at the physical destruction of … Gaddafi and members of his family raise serious doubts,” the Russian foreign ministry said. “The disproportionate use of force … is leading to detrimental consequences and the death of innocent civilians.” The ministry called for “an immediate ceasefire and the beginning of a political settlement process without preconditions.”

The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, said in Caracas: “There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn’t matter who else is killed … this is a murder.”

The attack, which one diplomatic source said had been carried out by Danish airmen possibly in an F16 bomber, ripped through the Gaddafi residence at around 8pm on Saturday night. It was the second time in recent days that an airstrike has come close to the Libyan leader, and Ibrahim indicated that someone within the leader’s circle may have leaked intelligence on his whereabouts.
But in Washington, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser in the Bush administration, warned that the assassination of Gaddafi by Nato aircraft could prove counterproductive.

“The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator – not that we came in and toppled a despot,” he told CNN. “What we really want him to do is to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.”

But senior Republicans expressed little concern over the prospect of Gaddafi becoming a casualty. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News: “Wherever Gaddafi goes, he is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system.”

Reminded that assassinating foreign leaders is illegal, Graham said: “In my view, he’s not a foreign leader, he’s a murderer.”

John McCain, another Republican senator who specialises in foreign affairs, told CBS: “We should be taking out his command and control. If he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.”

Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination who was also on the Sunday talk shows, said it was foolish of Barack Obama to have become involved in Libya. She told Fox: “When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter Libya for humanitarian purposes. The point of what I am saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost, including innocent civilians’ lives.

“What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don’t see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.”

In spite of criticism by Russia that Nato is trying to assassinate Gaddafi, Moscow has stopped short of raising the attacks at the UN security council.

The Libyan government has been pressing Russia and China to challenge the legality of the Nato action. Both have expressed sympathy with the argument that Nato strikes against compounds where Gaddafi and his family live go beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in rebel-held areas.

A UN security council official said on Sunday that there was no sign of Moscow seeking to bring the issue up at the security council. The official said China was taking its cue from Russia. Both abstained in the vote on the resolution sanctioning action against Libya in March.
According to British diplomats, the Gaddafi regime retaliated against the airstrike by dispatching a mob to attack western embassy buildings, which have been abandoned in recent weeks as the hostilities have gathered pace.

A spokeswoman said a building housing the ambassador’s residence had been set on fire, and according to initial reports had been burned down. Sky News journalist Mark Stone, who visited the embassy, reported on Twitter: “Totally burnt out. WW2 memorial smashed on the ground. Burnt out cars. Looted.”

A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity said there was no doubt in London that the mob attacks had been officially sanctioned. “There are no demos allowed to move anywhere in Tripoli unless they are 100% orchestrated by the regime.”

William Hague said: “I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries. The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.”

Omar Jelban, the Libyan ambassador, who has worked as a diplomat in London since 2001, was given 24 hours to leave. Britain expelled five Libyan diplomats in March, on the grounds that they were a threat to national security.

Bombing aftermath: Twisted metal and a TV still on

It was a heavy blow, but not heavy enough to deflect the regime’s minders from their job. Within hours of the Nato attack on the house of Muammar Gaddafi’s youngest son, foreign journalists were being escorted through the shattered building to see for themselves the destructive impact of Nato air power.

The Gaddafi family complex, comprising two residences in a wealthy residential area of Tripoli, was a grotesque combination of the broken and the banal. One building was a wreck of shattered concrete and twisted metal, with an unexploded missile lying in the middle.

Libyan officials said the house had been hit by three missiles but only two had exploded. Dust and smoke rose from the rubble which included smashed toilet bowls, bathroom of smashed sinks and furniture amid demolished ceilings and walls. The kitchen clock had stopped at 8:08. Cooking pots with leftover food, including stuffed peppers, noodles and a stew, had been covered with aluminum foil.

In one room, the television was still turned on and a pile of PlayStation games lay on a sofa, including Modern Warfare 2 and Fifa Soccer 10, according to a Washington Post reporter. A pair of Homer Simpson slippers was half buried in the dust, and fruit lay in a bowl near a small green regime flag. Blood stains were visible on the wrecked furniture.

In a children’s bedroom next door, half an apple, clearly cut earlier in the evening, lay chopped up on a table between two beds. A children’s book lay on the ground. A table football machine stood outside in the garden of the house.

Crowds later gathered at the compound calling for revenge.

In Benghazi meanwhile celebratory gunfire rang out, even though many residents did not believe the news.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sunday, May 1, 2011

America's New Middle East Agenda


A previous article on Syria quoted Middle East analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, explaining Washington's longstanding plan to "creat(e) an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan."

He explained it also includes redrawing the Eurasian map, balkanizing or reconfiguring countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, perhaps Baltic states, the entire Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, and, of course, Libya to assure Western control of its valued resources, besides already having created three Iraqs. The strategy involves "divid(ing) and conquer(ing to serve) Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region."

Currently it's playing out violently in Libya, addressed in numerous previous articles as Western intervention heads closer to invasion, knowing air strikes alone can't topple Gaddafi unless a "lucky" one kills him. It's a key administration goal despite official denials, while defending the right to bomb his compound having no other purpose than assassination.

Notably on April 26, Los Angeles Times writer David Cloud headlined, "NATO widens air war in Libya, targeting key sites in Tripoli," saying:

Predator drones are being used "to strike directly at the pillars of the regime, including (Gaddafi), in the heart of Tripoli," according to a senior NATO officer, explaining:

"This is a shift, absolutely. We're picking up attacks on these command-and-control facilities. If (Gaddafi) happens to be in one of those buildings, all the better," stopping short of saying he, in fact, is the target.

Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the attacks, saying:

"They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say: 'Yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi.' Who permitted this, was there a trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?"

Putin denounced the efforts, saying they exceed the UN resolution's mandate. As a result, Libya asked Russia to convene a new Security Council meeting to address illegitimate NATO action, functioning as the insurgency's air force, taking sides instead of staying neutral in Libya's internal affairs.

China also objects to Western military "advisers" intervening, special forces aiding insurgents besides CIA and MI 6 agents doing it also for months. Now Britain will deploy troops on Tunisia's border with Libya, inching closer to invasion. UK Defense Minister Liam Fox justifies it, saying Britain's prepared for the "long haul," adding:

"It is essential that the international community gives a very clear signal to the Libyan regime that our resolve isn't time-limited....Politically, economically, militarily, we are moving forward," stopping short of explaining key Western goals.

They're unrelated to humanitarian intervention or protecting civilians, the bogus reasons always given (besides WMDs or other spurious security threats) to attack, conquer, colonize, and plunder targeted countries. Now it's Libya's turn at the same Syria experiences Western destabilizing intervention, perhaps ahead of "shock and awe" and whatever else US/NATO planners have in mind.

In fact, the Obama administration threatens the entire region, using "constructive chaos" to create "an arc of instability, chaos, and violence," affecting all Eurasian countries to solidify unchallengeable US control.

Moreover, at a time when "Let them eat cake" arrogance trumps growing public needs, America plans more than ever military spending. In addition, Britain's Fox said the Libyan campaign won't "be limited by pounds, shillings and pence" to conclude the mission successfully.

Nor do royal weddings costing her majesty's subjects a shocking $10 billion, including official understated expenses, security, and declaring a national holiday, depriving millions of Brits of a day's pay they can't afford to lose.

Kill Gaddafi

In America, congressional calls are increasing to assassinate him, Washington's favored regime change method besides externally instigated coups. In recent days, figures like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called for:

"cut(ting) the head of the snake off. Go to Tripoli, start bombing Gaddafi's inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters....The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering 'will this be my last?' The military commanders supporting Gaddafi should be pounded. So I would not let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do."

He wasn't asked to explain how violating UN Resolution 1973, its Charter, as well as international and US law is "right" when daily war crimes keep mounting. Nonetheless, others in Congress agree, including Senator John McCain, preferring winning on the ground only because it's chancy "taking him out with a lucky air strike." Senator Joe Lieberman also says he's "got to start thinking about whether they want to more directly target (him) and his family."

Bipartisan support in both Houses concurs, as well as Obama, despite official denials. In fact, current efforts may be to accomplish Ronald Reagan's failed 1986 objective. At the time, White House press secretary Larry Speakes called killing Gaddafi "a fortunate by-product of our act of self-defense," against what he didn't explain nor apologize for murdering 37 Libyans, including his daughter, as well as injuring dozens more, mostly civilians, those always harmed most in wars and other conflicts.

Earlier, however, House and Senate members from both parties criticized Obama for not seeking congressional authorization for war, saying it exceeded his constitutional authority, but stopping short of wanting attacks stopped.

In fact, under the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, only Congress may declare war, what hasn't happened since December 8, 1941 against Japan, making all US wars since illegal. Obama once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In addition, as a presidential candidate in December 2007, he told the Boston Globe:

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

That was then. This is now as Republicans and Democrats plan authorizing it after the fact either by resolution or a symbolic "sense of the House and Senate" motion or confirmation.

If so, it will legitimize the illegitimate as Congress can't invalidate UN Charter provisions explaining under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.

In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council.

Moreover, so-called "humanitarian intervention" amounts to modern-day colonialism to achieve geopolitical objectives. Besides, America never showed concern for human rights in pursuit of strategic aims.

Notably, dovish US diplomat, advisor, and father of Soviet containment George Kennan (advocating diplomacy over force) explained what became America's post-WW II foreign policy. In his February 1948 "Memo PPS23," he stated:

"....we have 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. (It makes us) the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships (to let us) maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national society. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction...."

"We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism....We should (stop talking about) unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (ideas and practices), the better."

As a result, when America intervenes militarily, it's for policy goals, never for human rights or humanitarian priorities, rhetoric notwithstanding.

Why Gaddafi Is Targeted

Previous articles explained that he wasn't fully on board, or put another way, "with the program." Specific reasons are explained below.

(1) He opted out of AFRICOM, one of nine global Pentagon commands, to control the Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, including its strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial to keep open for world economies. All African countries participate except Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Eritrea, and Libya. He also backed an initiative to create a United States of Africa, whereas Washington wants easily exploitable divisions.

(2) Besides ranked ninth in the world with 42 billion proved barrels of oil reserves (and large amounts of gas), its untapped potential is believed much greater. Moreover, being nearly sulfur-free, it's even more valued for its extremely high quality. At issue isn't access, it's control over who develops, produces and receives it in what amounts.

(3) In January 2009, Gaddafi wanted to nationalize Libyan oil, but his timetable faced internal resistance. According to Pravda.ru's March 25, 2011 article titled, "Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil," he considered the option because of low oil prices at the time, saying:

"The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production."

In February 2009, he asked for public support to distribute Libya's oil wealth directly to the people. However, senior officials feared losing their jobs "due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption." He was also advised about the possibility of capital flight.

As a result, Libya's Popular Committee voted 468 - 64 to delay nationalization plans, even though a 251 majority viewed the change as positive.

Note: Gaddafi didn't consider how powerful insiders manipulate all markets up or down for profit, including oil, irrespective of demand. It's brazen fraud but goes on all the time, especially on Wall Street in collusion with Washington.

(4) Libya's Great Man-Made River (GMMR) is developing an ocean-sized aquifer beneath the desert for irrigation, human consumption, and other uses. At 2007 consumption rates, it could last 1,000 years. No wonder Gaddafi calls his Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) the "Eighth Wonder of the World."

At issue, of course, is privatizing it, making water unaffordable for many, perhaps most Libyans. In other words, neoliberal control will exploit it for maximum profits, not equitable use as a public resource.

(5) Ellen Brown's April 13 article titled, "Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?" raised another, easily overlooked, issue. Who controls Libya's money, the lifeblood of every economy? In 1970, Henry Kissinger said, "Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control people." He neglected to add, control money and you control everything because without it economies collapse.

At issue is whether it's public or private like most nations, including America under the Federal Reserve that isn't federal and has no reserves as Ron Paul explains.

Under Gaddafi, "the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State owned." In other words, it creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, interest free to be used productively for economic growth, not profits and bonuses for predatory bankers.

However, after Washington's led NATO intervention, the privately controlled Central Bank of Benghazi was established to let Western bankers, not Libyans, run things. Money control indeed appears an important reason for intervening, perhaps most important of all.

(6) On April 24, Manlio Dinucci's Global Research article headlined, "Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)," saying:

Besides money, oil, gas, water, and other reasons, the "Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages" an estimated $70 billion, "rising to more than $150 billion (including) foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more."

Confiscation gives US/NATO interests easy money to use for their own purposes, no matter that doing so amounts to grand theft, an American/Western specialty in league with Wall Street and its European counterparts.

"Constructive chaos" takes many forms, including conquering and colonizing nations, then carving up the corpse for profit to the detriment of its people. That's always imperial Washington's grand plan, playing out disruptively throughout the region and violently in Libya.

A Final Comment

A previous article discussed US intervention in Syria. On April 28, Washington Post writers Joby Warrick and Liz Sly headlined, "Senators press Obama to take strong action against Syria," saying:

Besides ongoin wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya, "Sens. John McCain (R.-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R.-SC), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) demanded tangible steps to pressure Assad," issuing a joint letter stating:

"The escalating crackdown by Bashar al-Assad's regime against the Syrian people has reached a decisive point. By following the path of Muammar Gaddafi and deploying military forces to crush peaceful demonstrations, Assad and those loyal to him have lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria."

In fact, as the earlier article explained, "peaceful demonstrations" include provocateurs inciting violence that, in turn, trigger a robust government response, resulting in security force deaths as well as civilians expressing legitimate demands for reform.

According to reports, only sanctions so far are being considered. In fact, they made be step one ahead of already being discussed harsher measures. It takes little insight to imagine what kinds.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 9:56 AM  

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

"... His killing in an air strike is militarily insignificant but diplomatically disastrous"

Via FLC

"... But his killing in an air strike is a grievous strategic error - militarily insignificant but diplomatically disastrous. The propaganda value of such unintended deaths is potentially severe”
Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity. Given the personalistic nature of the regime, and the "all means necessary" clause in UN Resolution 1973, it might be argued that killing Col Muammar Gaddafi and certain members of his family - such as his son Khamis, commander of an elite military brigade - would be permissible, even if it posed a risk to those non-combatants around the regime. Legality, though, indicates neither legitimacy nor prudence. This strike, and the death of Saif al-Arab, have produced little military result at the greatest diplomatic and symbolic cost to Nato...
In the 1991 Gulf War, a US stealth bomber directed two bombs at what was claimed to be a command-and-control bunker, but was in fact an Iraqi civilian shelter.
The result was 315 deaths, including 130 children. Col Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein before him, will take every opportunity to exploit such errors to paint Western powers as indiscriminate aggressors.
Moreover, this is no longer a conventional war in which top-down direction is crucial. Pro-Gaddafi forces in both the besieged western city of Misrata and in the east have adapted to Nato's air power and are using increasingly unorthodox tactics.They need not rely on a stream of detailed orders from Tripoli, and can cause considerable harm to civilians without this guidance.
There is no doubt that, along with the military aim of disrupting command-and-control hubs, Nato sought a psychological effect, conscious of the possibility of "accidental assassination". The problem is that the direction of this effect is unclear. The dramatic visual impact of this air strike, and the death of those disconnected from political and military leadership, will harden the diplomatic opposition to the war, from Russia and China amongst others. more consequentially, it will anger the alliance's warier members, like Germany and Turkey, and inflame parts of Arab and African public opinion..."
Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 10:03 AM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gaddafi Son Killed After Talks Offer Rejected

Local Editor
A NATO air strike killed Moamer Gaddafi's youngest son and three grandchildren but the strongman escaped unhurt, a Libyan spokesman said on Sunday, after rebels and NATO spurned an offer for talks to end the crisis.

The house of Seif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29, "was attacked tonight with full power," government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told reporters, announcing the deaths from Saturday night raids.

The Libyan leader and his wife were in the building but were not harmed, Ibrahim said, calling the strike "a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country."

"The leader himself is in good health; he wasn't harmed. His wife is also in good health; she wasn't harmed, (but) other people were injured," he added.

Ibrahim later said intelligence on Gaddafi's whereabouts appeared to have been "leaked," adding: "They knew about him being there, or expected him for some reason."

The United States avoided comment on reported deaths in the Gaddafi family.

RAIDS

In the attacks, three massive explosions ripped through Gaddafi's headquarters in Tripoli on Saturday evening.

Volleys of anti-aircraft fire rang out following the first two strikes on Bab al-Aziziya. The aerial attacks were followed by a third from the same direction, media sources reported.

Meanwhile, 13 powerful explosions rocked the Libyan port city of Misratah late on Saturday as NATO warplanes struck targets in the opposition-held city.

Earlier in the day, Gaddafi said he would not step down, but he was ready for a ceasefire and negotiations, provided that NATO halted its airstrikes.

Rejecting his offer, NATO announced that it would only consider a ceasefire after Gaddafi forces stop attacking civilians.

The opposition has also dismissed Gaddafi's ceasefire proposal, saying he has no part to play in the country's future.

And despite Gaddafi's calls for a ceasefire, regime forces later rained mortar shells and rockets on Misratah, killing at least 15 people, including a nine-year-old boy.

The regime is trying to block access to Misratah by sea and has threatened to target any ships that enter the port city.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, April 29, 2011

When the Libyan war has started....................

FAD

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=810583265095&id=0b2337ab1e2318d66aaa6957330b59b6


When the Libyan war has started
the son of Qaddafi promised us
a civil war........
When the Libyan war has started
the USA and the NATO promised us
democracy .........
So far , the Qaddafi-clan was fully  right  !!

As for NATO and the USA
they might ,theoretically, bring democracy to Libya
but first let us see if any results did come
in Bosnia, in Iraq ...................and in Afghanistan !!

So far only Qaddafi could  hold a promise !!
and so far , never did the NATO suceed anywhere !!! anything .



Raja Chemayel
Posted by Tlaxcala at 10:47 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian