Hidden behind propaganda a giant crime against Libya is fact

2011/04/10

Hidden behind propaganda a giant crime against Libya is facthttp://nocheinparteibuch.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/hidden-behind-propaganda-a-giant-crime-against-libya-is-fact-part-i/.
By Noch ein Parteibuch, 4. April 2011.

In the part that regards the Libyan events that article is VERY reliable. It is well worth reading. Highly recommend.

The same in Russian on the Euronews lies materials: Libya: the glorious heroic deeds of peaceful protesters, which were filmed by themselves (Ливия: славные подвиги мирных демонстрантов, снятые ими же самими). — comrade-vader, Posted at 30 March 2011, 03:52. — http://comrade-vader.livejournal.com/27488.html

Though the Noch ein Parteibuch’s article makes false claims that uprising in Tunisia and Egypt were US backed too. They’re not. They were true peoples uprisings. If the US was been able to use it somehow in their own interests in the end, that’s other question. Some declarations in the article on that case simply are not true. Like, i.g., “Western government officials up to US president Barack Obama openly and publicly supported the uprising, making no secret that they demanded president Hosni Mubarak to step down”. Reality was opposed to that. Even now Ali and Mubarak feel themselves fine, nobody asks to bring them in International criminal court and charge them, nobody threatens them and their’s families with extermination.
In Libya on contrary it was not peoples uprising, it was inspired from the outside mutiny/coup attempt under cover of people uprisings in other countries. We have a huge amount of evidences for that now.
Please, don’t confuse the cases. https://comradevader.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/part-1-libya-its-neighbors-and-a-bit-of-political-economy-the-role-of-the-region-in-the-international-division-of-labor/

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Hidden behind propaganda a giant crime against Libya is fact”

  1. einparteibuch said

    Thanks a lot for the recommendation of my article regarding Libya.

    Regarding Egypt, it is very clear that there was enormous power for change from the people itself at work. However, there were external forces at work, too. The most obvious external power was Al Jazeera, from Qatar. It might appear as a side note that the US has got it’s military command for the Persian gulf there.

    But the last statement from Barack Obama before the fall of Mubarak made very clear, on which side the U.S. was. Obama announced:

    “The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient. Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity. …”

    Compare that with the U.S. statements regarding the uprising in Bahrain.

    In Egypt there was U.S. backing for the uprising. Arguable is the extent of the support and the motivation behind it.

    My impression is, that the U.S. delivered the spark for the uprising in Egypt, ie the democracy actvist training and the facebook call for the uprising. Than the U.S. provided some fuel for the uprising, especially backing of favorable coverage of the Egypt uprising by Al Jazeera and US mass media. And in the end, they worked to get the regime change completed as seen in Obamas statement above, but even more important, by backing the mutinity of the “revolutionary” General Sami Hafez Enan.

    So it is clear, that the U.S. had their fingers in the Egypt revolution process. However, as there is hardly any main political process in the world not influenced by the U.S. in one way or another, the extension of U.S. meddling and the true U.S. intent is indeed arguable.

    I concede that the Egypt uprising may well be seen driven by the people itself and all the U.S. meddling was just done with the intention to control the process with the aim to preserve the US-dependent system.

    However, my impression is different. My impression is, that the U.S. sparked the Egypt uprising with the intention to replace an incredible US stooge with a more credible US stooge, to preserve the underlying system in this way, but had and have a lot of problems to manage the “revolutionary” process in Egypt, which they sparked themself, against the wishes of the people.

    Key to my interpretations of the events in Egypt and Tunisia is, that I monitored the social media activities of the “American Islamic Congress”, which is very much a US “establishment” institution and was very supportive of both, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Such strong supportive overt and covert activity is hardly imaginable without US government backing to me.

  2. No, einparteibuch, thank You for Your analysis on Libya.

    As of Egypt and Tunisia I do not share Your view on the matter, but I have no time to argue the question in details.

    I wrote about Egypt previously, but in Russian. I.e.:
    http://comrade-vader.livejournal.com/tag/%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82

    The cited by You words of Obama mean nothing concrete as ever, and it is not to be able to compare with the really ultimative words addressed to Libyan government. In addition there were unmistakable clear claims in defense of Mubarak from Israelis officials ( http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/06/peres-warns-of-dangers-of-egyptian-democracy/ ), US and EU ( http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/05/clinton-warns-of-perfect-storm/ , http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/06/america-s-changing-stance/ , http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/04/thugs-lose-egypt-credibility-cameron/ , http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/03/eu-leaders-prepare-mubarak-farewells/ ), Saudis officials and religious authorities ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-egypt-saudi-idUSTRE71410L20110205 ) and so on. When they had talked about «Mubarak should go», they had always talked it really post factum.
    «Tannock said: “Baroness Ashton basically speaks for the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator is cautious in regime change. Calling for regime change immediately is always a risky issue and also is seen to be interfering in the internal affairs of a country which has been an allied of the West.”»
    ( http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/03/eu-leaders-prepare-mubarak-farewells/ ).
    That’s funny, isn’t it?

    Is or was there something similar on the cases of Libya or Syria? I don’t think so.

    The other argument is a motive for US and Co. to change the regimes. I’ve pointed the motives to change regime in Libya and do not change ones in Egypt and Tunisia. It’s sound evidents, and it’s approved by statistics.
    I can’t see arguments for US to do opposite. For «to replace an incredible US stooge with a more credible US stooge, to preserve the underlying system in this way» there is no need to make such sophisticated plot. It would be enough to give to Mubarak direct order to step down or neutralize him in silent mode (like now, when he has done and are useless, he suddenly feels himself bad and dying).

    You are right about social media. But such media are able to be used not only to destabilize but also to stabilize regimes. Or to resolve any other master problems. If you can not destroy or stop social movement, you should become leader of it. I think that was the purpose of such media-activity by US backed organizations in Egypt and Tunisia. And also the same is Al-Baradei. But people don’t accept them, as I can say.

  3. einparteibuch said

    Regarding Egypt: it’s not that simple for the U.S. to tell a client dictator to go and he will leave. If the U.S. would have called Mubarak to step down and encouraged high ranking army officers to mutiny without all that demonstrations around, Mubarak would have possibly prevailed, and than breaked ties with U.S. and searched for new sponsors of the regime, most likely Israel and China. So that’s not the way to exchange a client dictator. The way the US did it is much more clever.

    Have a look at the “Facebook-girl” who started the #Jan25 Egypt uprising:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Esraa_Abdel_Fattah

    Some quotes:

    “Esraa received the New Generation Democratic Activist Award from Freedom House in June 2010.”

    “Israa Abdel Fattah is above all a civil rights militant, involved with numerous associations, including the Egyptian Democratic Academy. This NGO is financed by the German Friedrich Nauman Foundation for Freedom, and trains young people in media production (radio, video and blogs), and in basic organization administration, legal procedures and election monitoring.”

    So a “Freedom House” and “Friedrich Nauman Foundation for Freedom” sponsored activist started the Egypt uprising. Even the call’s logo was a copy of Freedom Houses Otpor logo. US mass media + Al Jazeera stepped in to promote the facebook call for the #Jan25 uprising.

    A lot of people stepped into the uprising, among others powerful Egypt civil society forces like the Muslim Brotherhood.

    In the end the uprising went as planned. The US told Mubarak to leave, the mutiny of US best friend in Egypt, Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces General Sami Hafez Anan, made it impossible to stay for Mubarak without fighting a civil war between Mubaraks airforce and Anans ground force. The USS enterprise aircraft carrier took an accidental position in front of Egypts coast. And so Mubarak stepped down, as the US demanded. Operation successful.

    See here the Wikipedia entry for Sami Hafez Anan, and some short hints on his role in the Egypt uprising:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sami_Hafez_Anan&oldid=420936789

    However, now there is a risk, that a real revolution develops out of this, just like it happened in Iran 1979, and so, what we see now since Mubarak stepped down, the U.S. and it’s mss media is on brakes in Egypt.

    Regarding the broader US “change” policy of the US for Middle East/North Africa (MENA). One key instrument of te U.S. to lay out it’s MENA regime change program is Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), a U.S. State Department program founded in 2002. It’s targets are: Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia. There exist more US programs, which target a bit diffrent regions, like Mauretania is also on the list for regime change. Other US programs are intended to train African miitary officers in the U.S., long lasting assets to find candidates for US-sponsored coup or mutiny, when needed.

    That the U.S. was suprised by the uprisings in MENA is definitely a false impression. David Ignatius – a very US-establishment figure – explained recently, that “change” in MENA was deliberate US policy. I mentioned it in my article: In August 2010, Barack Obama issued the „Presidential Study Directive 11″, asking US government agencies to prepare for regime changes in the arab world. U.S.-Israel lobbyist David Ignatius wrote: This document cited „evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region’s regimes“ and warned that „the region is entering a critical period of transition.“ See here:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/03/obamas_calculated_gamble.html

    So, if the „Presidential Study Directive 11″ is real and if the U.S. had not their finger in inciting the uprisings themselves, how could Barack Obama know months in advance that the uprisings in MENA were coming?

    I think, it’s a deliberate US policy for “change” in MENA what we see here. Change does not necessarily mean “regime change”, but could mean regime change as in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. In it’s client states Morocco and Jordan, U.S. desired change means “reform”.

    • But it was perfectly simple in Georgia and Ukraine when there were so called orange ‘revolutions’. There were behind-the-scenes reshuffle of presidents, and some fishy performance on the public. Old presidents just had been retired on the pension and had been golden handshaked. Otherwise they just would make those presidents an offer which those ones could not refuse.

      I don’t think the stupid girl had started anything. Just another political careerist puppet. There are thousands such bubbles for nothing in Russia. Pro- and anti-government ones. And nobody really cares about them. And it’s not them who started war in Libya. Not even close.

      Muslim Brotherhood are puppets too. First they denied the protests, then they join it, then they were trying to stop it (in unison with Obama, Israel, SA and Al Baradei, what of itself is funny).

      einparteibuch, wikipedia is not authority for me. And as I said previously I see no motives for such sophisticated conspiracy. It’s totally irrational.
      US and EU positions on the cases of Tunisia and Egypt were the same as for Yemen, Bahrain and other allied Muslim tyrannies in the region (some of them are bombing Libya for Democracy™). It’s perfectly clear for me.

      It’s possible to invent any conspiracy model (I can ‘prove’ You anything on guesswork), but only economical interests are real drivers of imperialists’ policies and such ones say «no» to regime changes in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and so on, and say sound and unmistakable «yes» for it in Libya, Algeria, Syria, Côte d’Ivoire, etc.
      Also see this: https://comradevader.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/jean-paul-pougala-the-lies-behind-the-wests-war-on-libya/

  4. einparteibuch said

    Just an addendum from the sources you cited yourself:

    Hillary Clinton has warned the Middle East is facing a “perfect storm” of unrest and is urging its nations to embrace democracy.

    She just didn’t say that it was the U.S., who is the weather maker for this “perfect storm” for democracy. But in the following sentence she is a bit more explicit:

    “The status quo is simply not sustainable,” Clinton said, “so for all our friends in the region including governments and people, the challenge is to help our partners take systematic steps to usher in a better future where peoples’ voices are heard, their rights respected and their aspirations met.”

    That is the policy of “change” fo the whole region. If the U.S. didn’t want change, Clinton would have said “priority is to restore order, security and stability.”

    http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/05/clinton-warns-of-perfect-storm/

    That Frank Wisner jr said, the U.S. didn’t want Mubarak step down, though the U.S. said so before, was an accident. Frank Wisner was only hours later rebuffed by a U.S. government speaker, saying Wisner had said that as his personal opinion, but did not speak for the US government.

    • Oh, come on! Clinton had said its politically correct warning in context of their message: «We shouldn’t hurry to change Mubarak or there would be some troubles».

      “Any changes must be mapped,” warned Angela Merkel, adding that the EU should mould a new partnership to map that change. We are neighbours around the Mediterranean,” she said, adding that the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is planning a visit.
      Evoking memories of the run-up to German reunification in 1989, Merkel also urged those hungry for change in Egypt to be patient.
      The EU and the US have called for a swift but orderly transition of power.

      Ashton I’ve cited before. Well, and some shallow spells about Democracy™ included, as ever.
      Nothing similar to what they have said and done in Libya.

  5. Akan cHb said

    The whole Africa needs an independant press.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: