Steven Gaal

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Temper,temper ,temper. NO need to be as angry as punker GG Allin. It was very smart,no,clever (better word here) of you to have diverted the issue. You didnt like my Soros/CIA connection/datum,so I show that they worked on similar (color revolution) projects . So we went down this avenue. In these color Soros revolutions,Soros works with honest left wing groups,but latter on the very conservative IMF/World bank come in with austerity measures and transnational trade agreements. The 'peoples' revolution has a 'hue' change. This is neocolonialism were you get a flag and vote, but it seem the people you vote for are beholden to elite banks/foreign transnational corporations. ^^^^^^^^ You see Soros subverts the left. To me this is 'on point' as too Soros funding leftist inside the USA, (as he Soros said in article cut pasted above) , the "fight...(revolution)....begins at home" . Soros does not use the phrase 'international' regarding his work to change society ( his 'Open Society' project ),but world wide change. This of course means change also inside the USA. THANKS Steve Gaal

POINT ONE ###o### // Colby wont accept the Jerusalem Post as a source. Do we need anymore proof he is a antisemite ?? LINK http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=62634 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT TWO ###o### // ( additional Documentation) Sibel Edmonds: Additional Omitted Points in CIA-Gulen coverage; A Note from ‘The Insider’ Crucial Details Missing in the MSM Coverage of the Recent Intel Chief’s Exposé Last week I wrote about the Washington Post’s incomplete and one-sided coverage of the recently published memoir by former Turkish Intelligence Chief Osman Nuri Gundes exposing CIA Operations via an Islamic Group in Central Asia. Since then I have gone over the same book’s review and coverage by the Turkish mainstream media, and I have interviewed reporters and sources in Turkey who have read the book, followed the coverage, and or are intimately familiar with the topic. With that I now have several additional points on this exposé which further illustrate the journalistically mind-boggling piece marketed by the Post. Writing my previous piece cost me an associate whom I like and respect. It shouldn’t have. I still believe this was a case of institution-Government-editors vs. the journalist, with the former winning. I am not going to weigh my writing, modify my facts, alter the truth, tweak, and censor based on worries of losing a source, or a friend, or even readership. With that said I’ll briefly list my points gathered from documented facts and interviews, and sources familiar with Gundes’ recent book and Gulen. Extensive Coverage in the Turkish Mainstream Media As one might expect, the Turkish mainstream media (all major newspapers, magazines, radio & TV channels) extensively (and very intensely) covered the recent publication of Gundes’ book. The following are the main points on former Turkish Intel Chief Gundes’ CIA-Gulen allegations which were documented and reported by every single media outlet in Turkey (since mid December), including this one written by one of the most prominent journalists at Milliyet: 1- In Central Asia, within Gulen’s Islamic schools, the CIA operatives worked under the guise of ‘American Teachers teaching English.’ Okay, the Washington Post article, going through the exact same publications/articles forgot to add these crucial details, which would have paved the way for journalistic investigation(s) leading to either confirmation or denial. The following is the only detail the article provided: In the 1990s, Gundes alleges, the movement “sheltered 130 CIA agents” at its schools in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan alone In this case, as others had done already, the existence of mysterious American teachers teaching English in Gulen’s schools in Central Asia has already been confirmed. 2- The American Teachers working at Gulen’s Islamic Schools in Central Asia possessed US Diplomatic Passports. I contacted my source, formerly with the State Department, and he confirmed issuing diplomatic status for at least 50 Americans to teach in former Soviet republics. When I asked him whether they were employed by the State Department, he said: ‘Not officially.’ I asked him whether they were connected to the CIA, and he responded, ‘I wouldn’t know.’ I inquired about the direct foreign employer(s) of these American teachers, and this was his response: ‘Private Turkish companies in education fields and several NGOs in Turkey.’ This particular source was retired in 2004. Again, the Washington Post article conveniently omitted this particular detail. Publishing this detail would have required seeking comments from the State Department: “Have you issued diplomatic passports to American teachers in XYZ countries.” Of course, no such inquiry was ever made by the Post. 3- Gundes provided details of a high-level official meeting attended by MIT officials, one of Gulen’s education foundation directors, the Minister of Turkish Education Ministry Department and other high-level bureaucrats, an official from the Prime Minister’s Office, and several owners of Gulen private schools. The location for this briefing where CIA operative teachers with US Diplomatic passports were discussed was at ‘Ogretmen Evi’ and the host was the Director of Foreign Study Program at the Turkish Education Ministry. The meeting was ‘recorded,’ and an official report was prepared. The report included the following details: One of the attending Gulen school owners owned and operated 18 schools for Gulen in Uzbekistan. The CIA operation disguised under ‘Teaching English’ at these 18 schools in Uzbekistan consisted of 70 CIA operatives, operating under a project named ‘Friendship Bridge’ (Operation Code Name). The operatives also submitted reports to a certain arm of the Pentagon. The same operation (name not mentioned) had 60 American-CIA operatives as English teachers in Kyrgyzstan; again carrying US Diplomatic Passports. The meeting (briefing) and analyses were later included in an official government report (Turkish Government) on Gulen’s operations which was ‘published.’ Again, the Turkish media quotes and covers these detailed allegations. None of these details, and what’s alleged as evidence by Gundes, were covered by the Post. After all, how difficult would it be to follow up and check out these American ‘teachers’ with Diplomatic Passports in the named countries? Make some use of the Post’s foreign correspondents and partners stationed/anchored there? No; the Post would not dare open that can of worms. So what do they do instead: Take out all the details, get lies as quotes from the implicated CIA source, and say, ‘hmmmmm, see, nothing there.’ This is consistent with Gulen’s own media networks’, such as Today’s Zaman’s, no-denial denial operation mode. Remember, these are the same groups who deny Gulen’s 100+ charter school operations in the United States (See here), and this, despite all the documentation and hundreds of witnesses’, including former and present Americans teachers who have worked at these charter schools. Today’s Zaman, one of Gulen’s propaganda machine arms, desperately denies Gunes’ exposé, and in doing so in such desperation, it ends up with a jumble of no-denial denial (see here). Another point worth mentioning: You’d think with all the court documents and previous reports on FBI-DOJ and the Homeland Security Department vehemently opposing Gulen’s residency request in court(s), the Washington Post would contact their plentiful DOJ-FBI-DHS sources and ask for statements; right? Well, they didn’t. In the Gulen court case we had the CIA pushing big time for Gulen’s residency request, and DOJ-FBI-DHS opposing it. Why? Why did the FBI-DOJ-DHS oppose Gulen in court? I’d say this much-First Hand information, in this case: Based on FBI-DHS joint investigations of Gulen (White Collar Crime) and the involved files, they had plenty of reasons to oppose. Finally, as a side note, the Post, at least Mr. Stein, was very familiar with my statements regarding Gulen-CIA-Central Asia operations; including the interview I gave to the American Conservative Magazine’s Phil Giraldi. Had Mr. Stein bothered to contact me he would have gotten what the Washington Post wished not to get. I am going to end this post with a short piece provided to our BFP readers in the US by one of my sources in Turkey who has gone through Gunes’ book, and is a journalist with inside information and unique access to those closely involved in Gulen related investigations-operations: Fethullah Gülen & the Origin of the Turkish Deep State By ‘The Insider from Turkey’ Those who think the Turkish/Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen was introduced to the CIA after he had left Turkey and established himself in Pennsylvania are missing the point. Same with those who are under the impression that the Gülen movement is primarily of a religious nature. The first contacts of Gülen with the CIA go back to way before, we learn from the recently published book The witness of takeovers and anarchy by Osman Nuri Gündes, a former operative of the Turkish intelligence outfit MIT. In the eighties Gülen associated himself with fierce anticommunist circles in Turkey supported by the joint CIA and the secretive stay behind network, Gladio. We are talking about the same Gladio which was responsible for a series of far right terrorist attacks in Turkey and who composed the overture of the bloody 1980 takeover. According to Osman Nuri Gündes, Gülen began his own anticommunist organization in the city of Erzurum. He also mentions Gülen with respect to Radio Free Europe, a CIA propaganda project against the Soviet-Union where previous CIA station chief Paul Henze was working as well. Henze has been described as one of the dark forces behind the takeover in 1980. Gülen’s main contact in the CIA however, was Morton Abramowitz, who was stationed in Turkey as a CIA employee before he came there as US ambassador. As mentioned previously on this website, Abramowitz later came to defend Gülen when he ended up having trouble with the US immigration service. So, once upon a time Gülen was very close to structures in Turkey of which the remnants can still be recognized in Ergenekon, the network that targeted not only Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AK-party government, but also the Gülen-movement. This is due to the fact that the previous anticommunist network in Turkey turned away from the CIA in post-Cold War days, while Gülen and his supporters in the Turkish government remained loyal to it. # # # # This article published at Boiling Frogs Post link http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/01/11/additional-omitted-points-in-cia-gulen-coverage-a-note-from-%E2%80%98the-insider%E2%80%99/ ***^---------------------------------------------------- POINT THREE (part one) ###o### // Soros himself talks about regime change. Soros is an elite influence in foreign policy. Soros is intimate with elite foreign policy makers. ---------------------- oooooo -------- America's Global Role Why the Fight for a Worldwide Open Society Begins at Home Author: George Soros Publication: The American Prospect Date: May 27, 2003 May 27, 2003—At the invitation of then–Dean Paul Wolfowitz, I delivered a commencement address at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. I spoke about my vision for a global open society and Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary of defense, seemed to be on the same wavelength. We had both participated in a small group called The Action Council for the Balkans, which was agitating for a more muscular policy against Slobodan Milosevic. We advocated military intervention in Bosnia much sooner than it happened. I remember a lively exchange with Colin Powell when I questioned the Powell doctrine of "we do deserts but we don't do mountains." I was very supportive of Madeleine Albright's activism on Kosovo, where I was in favor of a coalition of the willing: NATO intervention without United Nations authorization. On March 7, 2003, on the eve of war with Iraq, I gave another speech at the same graduate school. This article is adapted from that speech. I was then and continue to be in favor of the removal from power of Saddam Hussein, who was, because of his chemical and biological weapons, an even more dangerous despot than Milosevic. I would like to see regime change in many other places. I am particularly concerned about Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe's regime is going from bad to worse. I also see Muammar Quaddafi as a dangerous troublemaker in Africa. I support a project on Burma, or Myanmar as it is now called, which backs Aung San Suu Kyi as the democratically elected leader. I have foundations in central Asia, and I would like to see regime change in countries such as Turkmenistan. And, of course, I hoped for an easy victory in Iraq, if we went to war at all. ***^---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART THREE (part two) ###o### // "primary aim of US strategy would be to bar the rise of any future competitor that might challenge America's overwhelming military superiority." Containing China: The US's real objective By Michael T Klare Slowly but surely, the grand strategy of the Bush administration is being revealed. It is not aimed primarily at the defeat of global terrorism, the incapacitation of rogue states, or the spread of democracy in the Middle East. These may dominate the rhetorical arena and be the focus of immediate concern, but they do not govern key decisions regarding the allocation of long-term military resources. The truly commanding objective - the underlying basis for budgets and troop deployments - is the containment of China. This objective governed White House planning during the administration's first seven months in office, only to be set aside by the perceived obligation to highlight anti-terrorism after September 11, 2001; but now, despite President George W Bush's preoccupation with Iraq and Iran, the White House is also reemphasizing its paramount focus on China, risking a new Asian arms race with potentially catastrophic consequences. Bush and his top aides entered the White House in early 2001 with a clear strategic objective: to resurrect the permanent-dominance doctrine spelled out in the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for fiscal years 1994-99, the first formal statement of US strategic goals in the post-Soviet era. According to the initial official draft of this document, as leaked to the press in early 1992, the primary aim of US strategy would be to bar the rise of any future competitor that might challenge America's overwhelming military superiority. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^o SOROS can do so by helping China enter the "NEW WORLD ORDER". There are numerous articles and youtube video Soros interviews on this matter. THANKS Steven Gaal

################################ooooo Please do. THANKS SG

Yes youtube has some very good stuff. THANKS Steven Gaal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=youtu.be

Vote yes or no. ------------------------ ==== It is resolved that Webster Tarpley's 46 Drills of 911 data is sufficient evidence to prove that the government made 911 occur. ==== link http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-46-drills-of-911-by-webster-tarpley/ THANKS Steven Gaal

What Caroll Quigley predicted all coming true right before your eyes. See link below please see link http://www.activistpost.com/2011/09/eu-debt-crisis-being-used-to.html .... link will show its all becoming true before your eyes your eyes...... The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." -- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOXXXXXXXX ############################################################### PLEASE READ BELOW FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHATS HAPPENING TODAY REGARDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC TROUBLES see links below a short and long summary of Quigley's Tragedy and Hope link http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/quigley_carroll.tragedy_hope_banking_money_history (long summary Tragedy and Hope) link http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/tragedy_hope_banking_money_history (short summary Tragedy and Hope) THIS BELOW A SHORT summary Quigely Book --------- the whole book also can be purchased online -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------ooooooooxxxxxxxxoooooooo------------- History of Banking and Money Key Excerpts From Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope ---------------------------------------------------------- "The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." -- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20 Carroll Quigley was a professor of history at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976. He also taught at Princeton and at Harvard, and lectured at the Brookings Institution. He was a frequent lecturer at the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. In 1958, he served as a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the National Space Agency. Below are key excerpts on the history of money and banking from Prof. Quigley's masterpiece Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Note: The below excerpts are taken from chapters 5, 9, 20, 65, and 77 of Tragedy and Hope, with a focus on Prof. Quigley's excellent discussion of the role of money and banking in world history. This is a 10-page summary. To go directly to a more in-depth 40-page summary, click here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5—European Economic Developments Commercial Capitalism Western Civilization is the richest and most powerful social organization ever made by man. One reason for this success has been its economic organization, [which] has passed through six successive stages, of which at least four are called "capitalism." Each stage created the conditions which tended to bring about the next stage. The [first stage] of self-sufficient agrarian units (manors) was in a society organized so that its upper ranks—the lords, lay and ecclesiastical—found their desires for necessities so well met that they sought to exchange their surpluses of necessities for luxuries of remote origin. This gave rise to a trade in foreign luxuries (spices, fine textiles, fine metals) which was the first evidence of the stage of commercial capitalism. In this second stage, mercantile profits and widening markets created a demand for textiles and other goods which could be met only by application of power to production. This gave the third stage: industrial capitalism. The stage of industrial capitalism soon gave rise to such an insatiable demand for heavy fixed capital, like railroad lines, steel mills, shipyards, and so on, that these investments could not be financed from the profits and private fortunes of individual proprietors. New instruments for financing industry came into existence in the form of limited-liability corporations and investment banks. These were soon in a position to control the chief parts of the industrial system, since they provided capital to it. This gave rise to financial capitalism. The control of financial capitalism was used to integrate the industrial system into ever-larger units with interlinking financial controls. This made possible a reduction of competition with a resulting increase in profits. As a result, the industrial system soon found that it was again able to finance its own expansion from its own profits, and, with this achievement, financial controls were weakened, and the stage of monopoly capitalism arrived. In this fifth stage, great industrial units, working together either directly or through cartels and trade associations, were in a position to exploit the majority of the people. The result was a great economic crisis which soon developed into a struggle for control of the state—the minority hoping to use political power to defend their privileged position, the majority hoping to use the state to curtail the power and privileges of the minority. This dualist struggle dwindled with the rise of economic and social pluralism after 1945. The Primary Goal of Capitalism Capitalism provides very powerful motivations for economic activity because it associates economic motivations so closely with self-interest. But this same feature, which is a source of strength in providing economic motivation through the pursuit of profits, is also a source of weakness owing to the fact that so self-centered a motivation contributes very readily to a loss of economic coordination. Each individual, just because he is so powerfully motivated by self-interest, easily loses sight of the role which his own activities play in the economic system as a whole, and tends to act as if his activities were the whole, with inevitable injury to that whole. Capitalism, because it seeks profits as its primary goal, is never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift. Any of these may be achieved under capitalism, and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals. [The] stage of commercial capitalism became institutionalized into a restrictive system, sometimes called "mercantilism," in which merchants sought to gain profits, not from the movements of goods but from restricting the movements of goods. Thus the pursuit of profits, which had earlier led to increased prosperity by increasing trade and production, became a restriction on both trade and production, because profit became an end in itself rather than an accessory mechanism in the economic system as a whole. In the course of time, however, some merchants began to shift their attention from the goods aspect of commercial interchange to the other, monetary, side of the exchange. They began to accumulate the profits of these transactions, and became increasingly concerned, not with the shipment and exchange of goods, but with the shipment and exchange of moneys. In time they became concerned with the lending of money to merchants to finance their ships and their activities, advancing money for both, at high interest rates, secured by claims on ships or goods as collateral for repayment. The Operations of Banking Were Concealed So They Appeared Difficult to Master In sum, specialization of economic activities, by breaking up the economic process, had made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest. The process was not only broken up into producers, exchangers, and consumers but there were also two kinds of exchangers (one concerned with goods, the other with money), with almost antithetical, short-term, aims. The problems which inevitably arose could be solved and the system reformed only by reference to the system as a whole. Unfortunately, however, three parts of the system, concerned with the production, transfer, and consumption of goods, were concrete and clearly visible so that almost anyone could grasp them simply by examining them, while the operations of banking and finance were concealed, scattered, and abstract so that they appeared to many to be difficult. To add to this, bankers themselves did everything they could to make their activities more secret and more esoteric. Their activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider. In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. This relationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods. An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants. On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary [and vice versa]. Such changes of prices, either inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in history for the last six centuries at least. Over that long period, their power to modify men's lives and human history has been increasing. Bankers Obsessed With Maintaining Value of Money Rising prices benefit debtors and injure creditors, while falling prices do the opposite. A debtor called upon to pay a debt at a time when prices are higher than when he contracted the debt must yield up less goods and services than he obtained at the earlier date, on a lower price level when he borrowed the money. A creditor, such as a bank, which has lent money—equivalent to a certain quantity of goods and services—on one price level, gets back the same amount of money—but a smaller quantity of goods and services—when repayment comes at a higher price level, because the money repaid is then less valuable. This is why bankers, as creditors in money terms, have been obsessed with maintaining the value of money, although the reason they have traditionally given for this obsession—that "sound money" maintains "business confidence"—has been propagandist rather than accurate. Hundreds of years ago, bankers began to specialize, with the richer and more influential ones associated increasingly with foreign trade and foreign-exchange transactions. Since these were richer and more cosmopolitan and increasingly concerned with questions of political significance, such as stability and debasement of currencies, war and peace, dynastic marriages, and worldwide trading monopolies, they became the financiers and financial advisers of governments. Moreover, since their relationships with governments were always in monetary terms and not real terms, and since they were always obsessed with the stability of monetary exchanges between one country's money and another, they used their power and influence to do two things: (1) to get all money and debts expressed in terms of a strictly limited commodity—ultimately gold; and (2) to get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the ground that they would be handled better by private banking interests. Bankers Create Money Out of Nothing For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. We call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes. In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money ... no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such "created deposits" or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. The Dynasties of International Bankers The merchant bankers of London ... brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. In concentrating, as we must, on the financial or economic activities of international bankers, we must not totally ignore their other attributes. They were, especially in later generations, cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic. They were usually highly civilized, cultured gentlemen, patrons of education and of the arts, so that today colleges, professorships, opera companies, symphonies, libraries, and museum collections still reflect their munificence. For these purposes they set a pattern of endowed foundations which still surround us today. Bankers Felt Politicians Could Not Be Trusted With the Monetary System The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two "axioms" of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly, the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of money. To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation. In most countries the central bank was surrounded closely by the almost invisible private investment banking firms. These, like the planet Mercury, could hardly be seen in the dazzle emitted by the central bank which they, in fact, often dominated. Yet a close observer could hardly fail to notice the close private associations between these private, international bankers and the central bank itself. Two of the five factors which determined the value of money are the supply and the demand for money. The supply of money in a single country was subject to no centralized, responsible control in most countries over recent centuries. Instead, there were a variety of controls of which some could be influenced by bankers, some could be influenced by the government, and some could hardly be influenced by either. Central banks can usually vary the amount of money in circulation by "open market operations" or by influencing the discount rates of lesser banks. In open market operations, a central bank buys or sells government bonds in the open market. If it buys, it releases money into the economic system; if it sells it reduces the amount of money in the community. The change is greater than the price paid for the securities [due to the fractional reserve system]. Central banks can also change the quantity of money by influencing the credit policies of other banks. This can be done by various methods, such as changing the re-discount rate or changing reserve requirements. By changing the re-discount rate, we mean the interest rate which central banks charge lesser banks for loans. By raising the re-discount rate the central bank forces the lesser bank to raise its discount rate in order to operate at a profit; such a raise in interest rates tends to reduce the demand for credit and thus the amount of deposits (money). Lowering the re-discount rate permits an opposite result. The powers of governments over the quantity of money are of various kinds, and include (a) control over a central bank, ( control over public taxation, and © control over public spending. The control of governments over central banks varies greatly from one country to another, but on the whole has been increasing. Since most central banks have been (technically) private institutions, this control is frequently based on custom rather than on law. The powers of the government over the quantity of money in the community exercised through taxation and public spending are largely independent of banking control. Taxation tends to reduce the amount of money in a community and is usually a deflationary force; government spending tends to increase the amount of money in a community and is usually an inflationary force. The total effects of a government's policy will depend on which item is greater. An unbalanced budget will be inflationary; a budget with a surplus will be deflationary. Money Power—Controlled by International Investment Bankers—Dominates Business and Government On the whole, in the period up to 1931, bankers, especially the Money Power controlled by the international investment bankers, were able to dominate both business and government. They could dominate business, especially in activities and in areas where industry could not finance its own needs for capital, because investment bankers had the ability to supply or refuse to supply such capital. Thus, Rothschild interests came to dominate many of the railroads of Europe, while Morgan dominated at least 26,000 miles of American railroads. Such bankers went further than this. In return for flotations of securities of industry, they took seats on the boards of directors of industrial firms, as they had already done on commercial banks, savings banks, insurance firms, and finance companies. From these lesser institutions they funneled capital to enterprises which yielded control and away from those who resisted. These firms were controlled through interlocking directorships, holding companies, and lesser banks. They engineered amalgamations and generally reduced competition, until by the early twentieth century many activities were so monopolized that they could raise their noncompetitive prices above costs to obtain sufficient profits to become self-financing. But before that stage was reached a relatively small number of bankers were in positions of immense influence in European and American economic life. As early as 1909, Walter Rathenau, who was in a position to know (since he had inherited from his father control of the German General Electric Company and held scores of directorships himself), said, "Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves." The Power of Investment Bankers Over Governments The power of investment bankers over governments rests on a number of factors, of which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes, so a government has to go to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts. As experts in government bonds, the international bankers not only handled the necessary advances, but provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied periods to deal with special problems. This is so widely accepted even today that in 1961 a Republican investment banker became Secretary of the Treasury in a Democratic Administration in Washington without significant comment from any direction. Naturally, the influence of bankers over governments during the age of financial capitalism (roughly 1850-1931) was not something about which anyone talked freely, but it has been admitted frequently enough by those on the inside, especially in England. In 1852 Gladstone, chancellor of the Exchequer, declared, "The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." On September 26, 1921, The Financial Times wrote, "Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills." Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan Dominate the Financial World In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally. Such advice could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity. The powers of these international bankers reached their peak in the last decade of their supremacy, 1919-1931, when Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but international relations and other matters as well. On November I l, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of Europe." This was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the Court of the Bank on March 21, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee of the House of Commons five days later. On one occasion ... Mr. Norman is reported to have said, "I hold the hegemony of the world." It might be added that Governor Norman rarely acted in major world problems without consulting with J. P. Morgan's representatives. Chapter 9—The British Imperial Crisis Britain acquired the world's greatest empire because it possessed certain advantages which other countries lacked. We mention three of these advantages: (1) that it was an island, (2) that it was in the Atlantic, and (3) that its social traditions at home produced the will and the talents for imperial acquisition. Cecil Rhodes Organized a Secret Society in 1891 [Cecil] Rhodes (1853-1902) feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be prime minister of the Cape Colony (1890-1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and to join these two extremes together with a telegraph line and ultimately with a Cape-to-Cairo Railway. Rhodes inspired devoted support for his goals from others in South Africa and in England. With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields. In the middle 1890's Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year [equivalent to about $100 million a year in current U.S. dollars] which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account. [An] association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and [William] Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett, and Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a "Circle of Initiates"; while there was to be an outer circle known as the "Association of Helpers" (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization). In 1919 [Rhodes' followers] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919-1927. The power and influence of this Rhodes-Milner group in British imperial affairs and in foreign policy since 1889, although not widely recognized, can hardly be exaggerated. We might mention as an example that this group dominated The Times from 1890 to 1912, and has controlled it completely since 1912 (except for the years 1919-1922). In spite of the terms of the Rhodes wills, Rhodes himself was not a racist. Nor was he a political democrat. He worked as easily and as closely with Jews, black natives, or Boers as he did with English. His greatest weakness rested on the fact that his passionate attachment to his goals made him overly tolerant in regard to methods. He did not hesitate to use either bribery or force to attain his ends if he judged they would be effective. Chapter 20—The Period of Stabilization, 1922-1930 America Becomes the World's Greatest Creditor By 1914 Britain's supremacy as financial center, as commercial market, as creditor, and as merchant shipper was being threatened. At this critical stage in Britain's development, the World War occurred. This had a double result as far as this subject is concerned. It forced Britain to postpone indefinitely any reform of her industrial system to adjust it to more modern trends; and it speeded up the development of these trends so that what might have occurred in twenty years was done instead in five. The war changed the position of the United States in respect to the rest of the world from that of a debtor owing about $3 billion to that of a creditor owed $4 billion. This does not include intergovernmental debts of about $10 billion owed to the United States as a result of the war. At the same time, Britain's position changed from a creditor owed about $18 billion to a creditor owed about $13.5 billion. In addition, Britain was owed about $8 billion in war debts from her Allies ... and owed to the United States war debts of well over $54 billion. Most of these war debts and reparations were sharply reduced after 1920, but the net result for Britain was a drastic change in her position in respect to the United States. The basic economic organization of the world was modified in other ways. The more backward areas of Europe and the world had been industrialized to a great degree and were unwilling to fall back to a position in which they would obtain industrial products from Britain, Germany, or the United States in return for their raw materials and food. This refusal was made more painful for both sides by the fact that these backward areas had increased their outputs of raw materials and food so greatly that the total could hardly have been sold even if they had been willing to buy all their industrial products from their prewar sources. The result was a situation where all countries were eager to sell and reluctant to buy, and sought to achieve these mutually irreconcilable ends by setting up subsidies and bounties on exports, tariffs, and restrictions on imports, with disastrous results on world trade. The only sensible solution to this problem of excessive productive capacity would have been a substantial rise in domestic standards of living, but this would have required a fundamental reapportionment of the national income so that claims to the product of the excess capacity would go to those masses eager to consume, rather than continue to go to the minority desiring to save. Such a reform was rejected by the ruling groups in both "advanced" and "backward" countries, so that this solution was reached only to a relatively small degree in a relatively few countries. The system of international payments which had worked ... before 1914 worked only haltingly after that date, and practically ceased to work at all after 1930. The chief cause of these factors was that neither goods nor money obeyed purely economic forces and did not move as formerly to the areas in which each was most valuable. The chief result was a complete mal-distribution of gold, a condition which became acute after 1928 and which by 1933 had forced most countries off the gold standard. Money Power Seeks to Create a World System of Financial Control in Private Hands Able to Dominate Every Nation on Earth The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. Norman Was the Commander-in-Chief of the World System of Banking Control The commander in chief of the world system of banking control was Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who was built up by the private bankers to a position where he was regarded as an oracle in all matters of government and business. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915-1916, as chairman of the board of the Midland Bank told its stockholders: "I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money.... And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." Montagu Norman's position may be gathered from the fact that his predecessors in the governorship, almost a hundred of them, had served two-year terms, increased rarely in time of crisis. But Norman held the position for twenty-four years (1920-1944). Norman was a strange man whose mental outlook was one of successfully suppressed hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for governments and feared democracy. Both of these seemed to him to be threats to private banking. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life as a kind of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of ... [sound] money. Norman had a devoted colleague in Benjamin Strong, the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong owed his career to the favor of the Morgan Bank. He became governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as the joint nominee of Morgan and of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company in 1914. Two years later, Strong met Norman for the first time, and they at once made an agreement to work in cooperation for the financial practices they both revered. In the 1920's, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments. Norman and Strong Were Mere Agents of the Powerful Bankers Who Remained Behind the Scenes and Operated in Secret It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts. They could dominate governments by their control over ... government loans and the play of the international exchanges. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838). The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and a use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups. Money Power Creates an Ingenious Plan to Create and Control Giant Monopolies [Financial capitalists eventually] sought to sever control from ownership of securities, believing they could hold the former and relinquish the latter. On the industrial side, they sought to advance monopoly and restrict production, thus keeping prices up and their security holdings liquid. The efforts of financiers to separate ownership from control were aided by the great capital demands of modern industry. Such demands for capital made necessary the corporation form of business organization. This inevitably brings together the capital owned by a large number of persons to create an enterprise controlled by a small number of persons. The financiers did all they could to make the former number as large as possible and the latter number as small as possible. The result of this was that larger and larger aggregates of wealth fell into the control of smaller and smaller groups of men. While financial capitalism was thus weaving the intricate pattern of modern corporation law and practice on one side, it was establishing monopolies and cartels on the other. Both helped to dig the grave of financial capitalism and pass the reins of economic control on to the newer monopoly capitalism. On one side, the financiers freed the controllers of business from the owners of business, but on the other side, this concentration gave rise to monopoly conditions which freed the controllers from the banks. Chapter 65—American Confusions, 1945-1950 There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. Chapter 77—Conclusion The hope of the twentieth century rests on its recognition that war and depression are man-made and needless. They can be avoided in the future by turning from ... nineteenth-century characteristics ... and going back to other characteristics that our Western society has always regarded as virtues: generosity, compassion, cooperation, rationality, and foresight, and finding an increased role in human life for love, spirituality, charity, and self-discipline. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo end summary **** -------- Quigely thought that bankers controlling the world was the worlds 'great hope.' The 'tragedy' is that they (bankers) keep it secret. THANKS Steven Gaal

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooo XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooo Colby "It wouldn't surprise me if they are doing this intentionally to get attention." A man who posts on PHYSICS sites,Airline Pilots sites,numerous Skeptic and 911 myth sites,a man with over 10,000 internet posts .....and its others who,"...are doing this intentionally to get attention." . I shake my head in sadness,sadness...... are doing this intentionally to get attention.= there is a name for this , its called 'projection' THANKS SG +++++++++++++ooooooo+++++++++++

Just saying it doesnt make it so, the real world isnt like OZ where repeating something over and over (while clicking your heels/mouse) makes it come true. Unless the reader has several spare hours a collection of 20 odd links is not documentation. If the claims are true the authors should be able to spell out their case more succinctly. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ===============================X===================X=========================== +++++++++++++++x+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++x+++++++++++++++ COLBY SAID REGARDING MY SOROS COLOR REVOLUTION DATUM "Just saying it doesnt make it so, the real world isnt like OZ where repeating something over and over (while clicking your heels/mouse) makes it come true." ++o Sorry,no sir. My goal on the EDUCATION FORUM is education ,not debating points. Colby does not live in KANSAS anymore,but does live in OZ dream world. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooOOOOOOOOOooooooooo CIA Discovered Planning Soft Revolution in Early 2009 link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14082 (SOROS CIA) The Intelligence Ministry official said that $32 million of the $75 million allocated by the U.S. Congress to destabilize Iran was spent on this project. The CIA used institutions such as the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Soros Foundation, AIPAC, and charity organizations and sought the help of William Burns and other people in the United States and agents in the Azerbaijan Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. ============================================oooooooo Mark MacKinnon, Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros. The Globe and Mail: November 23, 2003: link http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia3.html =============================================oooooooo Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III Part 2 link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15767 ===================================================ooooooo Google's Revolution Factory - Alliance of Youth Movements link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23283 (RAND CORPORATION CIA FRONT) ------------------------------------------------------------------oooo------------------------ +++++++++++++++O====o +++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOO========o ++++ CHINA CHINA ++++++OOOOOOOO CHINA CHINA ========o link http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/05/05/podcast-show-42/ Dr. Aland Mizell joins us to discuss the controversial Turkish Imam Fethullah Gulen and his rapidly expanding cult globally and here in the United States. He provides us with a rarely discussed biography of Gulen and his movement, the cults objective of reviving the Ottoman Empires glory and Gulen Missionaries expansion into Central Asia and further around the world. He talks about Imam Gulens charter school empire in the United States, operated under absolute secrecy, the Turkish Missionaries Lobbyists targeting US federal and state governments, Gulens CIA connections and historical joint operations, the connection between Gülen and the Unification church- aka the Moon-cult, the oath of secrecy taken by all Gulen cult members, and more. Also, in the second half of our show we are joined by Bill Thacket, a parent of one of Gulen Charter Schools former students. =======================================----------------------oooo link http://gulentrial.org/gulen/6_defamation_cases.pdf (GULEN SOROS) =====================------------------------------------------------oooo Is Fethullah Gulen Working for the CIA link http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/is-fethullah-gulen-working-for-the-cia/ It is no secret that the CIA and Washington support Gulenists in Central Asia to counter the Iranian version of the Shia religious influence there. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, there was a social, political, and religious vacuum. Central Asian states were weak, so obviously the world would ask who would fill that vacuum. Even at that time when Gulen sent his followers to Central Asia, he asked them to hasten, urging, If you dont go now, later this door could be closed, and others will fill your place. It was not a surprise that Islam filled that vacuum because the majority of the Central Asian countries have a Muslim heritage. Having recently emerged from an atheistic Communism, they more readily embraced their traditional religion. But after the collapse of Soviet Union the balance of power changed as well. Before this downfall, the East was dominated by the Soviet Union and the West by America, but afterwards the United States became the single superpower and thus had its chance to extend its power to Central Asia. ======================================-----------------------oooooooo CHINA: THE NEXT THEMED REVOLUTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOROS, WIKILEAKS & CO. link http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/china-the-next-themed-revolution-brought-to-you-by-soros-wikileaks-co/ (SOROS CHINA)

WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXX++ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooXXXXXXXX++ You are stating that truthers champion fallicies. I counter with the fact that the CIA is trying to supress a investigation/news story into Blee who seems to be have helped make 911 happen. If the truthing idea of government complicity is a fallacy ,why would the CIA be so upset ??? Your not understanding this very simple point seem disingenous. (or your not very bright,sorry that is an alternative explanation,sorry). Independendently I found BLEE to be helping the 911 plot early and late when looking into CIA/911 memos. Later I found that other 'fallacy truthers' had done the work before I had done so regarding Blee. You do recall I have a post on BLEE ??? THANKS sg That's a real stretch, even by your standards, especially since you'd already started a thread about this. I've yet to see evidence the CIA tried to block coverage of the Blee story, apparently the "Press for Truth" folks were threatened with prosecution because their podcast would make the names of CIA covert agents public. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/09/press-for-truth-boys-threatened-with.html XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooOOOO =====================o============== UPDATE=UPDATE The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to 9/11 Press For Truth Producers Nowosielski & Duffy ---------------o------ Boiling Frogs Post By Sibel Edmonds September 15, 2011 CIAs Maneuver: A Case of Bluffing? Buying Time? Or Something More? Last week we broke the story of the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment. It appears the story is still developing, but we now have further details on the case, an analysis by an expert producer, and a few comments on assessing the nature and possible implication of this move by the CIA. I asked Mr. Nowosielski how the CIA was informed about the schedule and the content of their upcoming segment, and he provided us with the following details: We emailed CIA Public Affairs on Thursday morning telling them of our intention to name two current agents in our journalism piece and explained the context of their use the things they were accused of. We also explained that their names had been deduced through open-source materials and that our sources had told us they were working from headquarters. As for the CIAs reaction and response Mr. Nowosielski recounted the following: Their media spokesperson called back almost immediately. After a brief discussion, we emailed him the script for official reply. We also requested an interview with the two to ensure that we were telling the full story accurately. The reply email began This is off the record: and then informed us that we may be violating federal law by including those two names. When we asked him to cite the law, we were told it was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This and follow up calls occurred on Thurs, Fri, and Sat, until we explained that we were not recognizing off the record in our official interactions with the Agency. We have heard nothing further since. My own immediate response to the way in which CIA responded to the producers can be summed up in three questions: 1- Is this one of those fairly common cases where the government agency tries its bluffing tactic to see whether that suffices to intimidate and stop the whistleblower or reporter in question? Because the threat is issued by e-mail, and ludicrously, it starts off by stating off the record. When confident and on solid ground the agencies come after the targets armed with official- legal letters or even court orders. In my days, in my own case as a government whistleblower, and later as the director of NSWBC dealing with many intelligence agencies whistleblowers and also reporters, I have experienced the government agency Bluffing Tactic more than a few times. For example, the FBI tried to stop my interview with CBS-60 Minutes and later attempted to stop the airing of the segment, but when challenged and invited to go ahead and take legal action, they changed their mind; they went away. 2- Is this an attempt by the CIA to buy needed time to take further action against the producers through the Department of Justice? One thing I know is that government bureaucracy takes time. It takes time to get things done when it comes to the government. In this case, the CIA would have to bring and make the case to the Justice Department. The DOJ then would have to go through its own bureaucracy and reviews to decide whether it could turn this into a legal action via the courts. Thus, this could possibly be a case of the CIA trying to buy more time to translate its ludicrous off the record threat issued by a casual e-mail into a real threat with some teeth. If so, wouldnt that mean a window of opportunity for the producers to release the information? Or not? 3- What are the real legal liabilities facing the Producers, since the names of the two culprit CIA analysts are already out in public records? Further, with other sources in addition to the public records outing the names of the analysts who happen to be involved in possible criminal actions, what level of threat are the producers faced with? Again, based on my own experience and the experiences of many government intelligence agencies whistleblowers, the CIA would have to first classify the already public information-documents out there revealing the identities of the two CIA analysts; classification after the fact. Next, they would have to legally pursue the other involved sources who have either confirmed or released those names. The CIA hasnt done that. At least not yet. And what does this mean? Does it mean the producers still have the burden of abiding by the casually issued off the record e-mail by the CIA? Or not? We are still waiting for further analysis by our legal experts and other intelligence sources. Meanwhile I asked our media advisor Kristina Borjesson to give us her take and expert analysis on this case. Internationally acclaimed for her work, Ms. Borjesson has produced for major American and European television networks and published two groundbreaking books on problems of the U.S. press: Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press and Feet to the Fire: the Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak out. Her awards include an Emmy and Murrow Award in TV, the National Press Clubs Arthur Rowse award for Media Criticism, and two Independent Publishers Awards for her books. Here is the analysis of this case by Ms. Borjesson for Boiling Frogs Post: The Pitfalls of Due Diligence for Deep Journalism When independent filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy interviewed Richard Clarke in 2009, the former counterterrorism czar dropped a bomb on camera. Clarke accused former CIA head George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of withholding critical intelligence from the FBI, DOD, White House and Immigration on the presence in the US of two alleged 9/11 hijackers well before 9/11. In their film, Who is Richard Blee? Nowosielski and Duffy also identify two CIA analysts who participated in the cover-up. After interviewing Clarke, the filmmakers tried for more than a year to interest media outlets in their bombshell information. We pitched everywhere and were told no, says Nowosielski, We always held out hope to get funding for it to be a real documentary, which we thought [the subject] deserved. Finally, the filmmakers settled on putting the film out as a podcast. The CIA is now holding up the release of the recording as a result of the filmmakers doing due diligence as reporters. It is a standard practice of good journalism to get in touch with subjects that other subjects in a print or TV news piece are talking about if the talked-about subjects are being accused of malfeasance or illegal or unethical behavior. It is only fair to allow accused subjects to answer and/or defend themselves. It is also then incumbent upon the reporter to get to the bottom of who exactly is telling the truththe accuser or the accused. In this case, the filmmakers contacted CIA public affairs to give the two CIA analysts a chance to defend themselves. They followed proper procedure in contacting the CIA public affairs people, because public affairs (not the analysts) are authorized to decide whether to speak on behalf of the analysts or to allow the analysts to speak for themselves. Nowosielski and Duffy went one step further in their due diligence. They sent their entire script to CIA public affairs. We sent the full piece because we wanted them to know these people were going to be outed. So if theyd been sent in some deep cover thing, we wanted to give them time to pull those people out of those positions. We thought maybe they would be compelled to defend themselves, because people from the 9/11 commission, the FBI…even Tony Shaffer from Able danger [were] piling on, so we thought maybe were misinterpreting this story or they need to defend themselves. No doubt the producers did all their digging and proof-gathering into what the CIA analysts allegedly did before calling CIA public affairs. You call public affairs AFTER you have the goods on their employees, not before getting the goods or to get the goods. Its an ethical protocol, but usually one that is done after its too late for public affairs to shut down sources or otherwise interfere in the reporting process. In this case, contacting CIA public affairs kept the producers on the straight and narrow journalistically, which is a good place to be at all times when reporting on highly sensitive issues. CIA public affairs responded with an emailed threat. Off the record, the CIAs spokesperson wrote, Nowosielski and Duffy might be violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by outing their analysts. The penalty for outing CIA agents without using classified sources includes fines and/or prison time. The spokespersons use of the off the record line is a ploy. When journalists go off the record, it is usually a mutually agreed upon pre-arrangement. The CIAs public affairs persons attempt to silence Nowosielski and Duffy didnt work but it has given them pause. The filmmakers are withholding the release of Who is Richard Blee? so the threat, even though it has no legal force, has for now had the desired effect. But the story probably wont end there. Nowosielski and Duffy are currently in assessment mode. The question they are asking themselves, says Nowosielski, is Are we in a position that we want to face the heat involved in that? Were in no rush; we want to make a good decision. Meanwhile, theyre getting advice from a number of friendly legal quarters

------------------ CIA is connected to COLOR revolutions/Soros is connected to color revolutions. Soros is connected to West China unrest areas and so is the CIA. Soros was/is very close to Rockefeller family that funded false left 50-60s (Soros funds same left people/organizations today). sg XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX #########################################****o COLBY QUOTE // Other than two quotes the page is just a collection of links.?? What ,sorry the fellows links are part of his research. "OTHER THAN ??? You are kidding ? Weak response/analysis.

link http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ War Pretexts from Bush to Obama: Amazing Parallels, Incredible Sameness Tuesday, 13. September 2011 by Sibel Edmonds Laying the Groundwork for the Next War: Yemen Last Tuesday, following his visit to ground zero, Obama’s New Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned the public of upcoming 9/11-like terrorist attacks. After a decade of war with Al Qaeda, the potential for another devastating terrorist assault “remains very real,” Panetta said, and added that the nature of the terrorist threat has evolved to the point that Al Qaeda “nodes” outside Afghanistan and Pakistan are now the most dangerous, before delivering the most significant part of his fear mongering propaganda-speech: “Yemen has risen to the top of the list.” Panetta has been laying the groundwork for the next attack-Yemen- since the early days of his confirmation. Two months ago, on July 9, he stated the following: Panetta said that it was from Yemen — not Pakistan — that the U.S. faces the most potent threat of future terrorist attacks, from an Al Qaeda offshoot known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Is it me or do you sense that troubling and nudging déjà vu feeling? I keep seeing Cheney and Rumsfeld. I hear the echoes of the past involving the imaginary Iraq WMD and Saddam-9/11 connections…I am reading the exact same lines of lies delivered by the exact same kind of liars. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling this way, but let me refresh the memories of those who may have already forgotten. The following is a direct quote from the previous regime’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002 So is this one: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. And here are a few related news clips from the then Vice President, Dick Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.” Cheney said he had seen proof that Saddam Hussein had provided “training” to al Qaeda operatives and all but called Russert a xxxx, saying he had personally told Russert that significant evidence existed of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. In 2007, years after all the carefully-planned propaganda was debunked and exposed as nothing but intentional lies, 41% of Americans still answered ‘Yes‘ to the question “Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?” WAS SADDAM INVOLVED IN 9/11 ATTACKS? Answer = Yes Now 41% 4/2003 53% When it comes to Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s latest propaganda you don’t have to read between the lines. Just read the lines: “Yemen has risen to the top of the list.” You see, the groundwork for the next US offensive is being completed. It didn’t take too much effort to have Americans swallow the Iraq-9/11 ties. Given that even now, a decade later, many still believe in the Saddam-WMD-9/11 fable, will it take much for the current regime to sell Yemen-Al Qaeda-Next 9/11 propaganda? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. The Bush administration dragged our nation into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama regime picked up where Bush left off, expanded our wars into Pakistan and Libya, and now are laying the groundwork for the next war-Yemen. Coming next, probably for our next to-be-elected president, will be Syria, and the ultimate nation to be devoured-Iran. Amazing parallels and incredible sameness that apply to both the propagators and the public.

Point one******** COLBY QUOTE // You are entitled to your opinion but as you pointed out it has no source notes so one just has to take Quigley's word for it, even the best academics can be blinded by their biases or otherwise misinterpret their sources.// COLBY QUOTE Quigley was reading secret papers from one think tank to another. Misinterpret ?? How ?? He had real raw data were elites plan x in secret and 'x" occures afterword (afterward) in the real world. History is on Quigley's side regarding the slow march of the creation of a world federation of Reserve Banks working in the background together (in secret,together,in secret) that control their governments. If you would indulge me and go yourself to youtube for the Ned Beatty speech in the film 'NETWORK'. There is more truth in that speech than in all the MSM . You Mr. Colby seem to swallow the MSM baloney 'whole-hog'. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOxOOOOOOOOooooooooo Point two ******** COLBY QUOTE// But that is besides the point, it was published in 1966 and thus can not 'document' CIA funding of leftists 4 decades later. Your other sources likewise refer to the 50s and early 60s COLBY QUOTE//. Sir the Elite funding of false left pundits had to go deeper and more hidden because of what Quigley made public. ============== GAAL QUOTE// Now why the funding of the false left is complex is that Quigley exposed part of funding structure. // END GAAL QUOTE If you had reseached the GATEKEEPER FLOW CHART you would have found the DATUM below. Your research grade on this topic is F grade. THE FUNDING OF FALSE LEFT PUNDITS BY ELITES CONTINUES TO THIS DAY,CONTRARY TO YOUR F grade UNRESEARCHED OPINIONS. Please see Datum below. THANKS Steven Gaal *********************OOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOXXXXXXXX*** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*** oooo+oooo + link http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2011/04/15/the-nation-magazine-and-the-cia/ The Nation Magazine and the CIA Posted by Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall alternet site 4/15/11 **************oooooooo************ Bob Feldman’s unraveling of the indirect CIA funding received by the Nation and Radio Nation is the most instructive in demonstrating how “pass-through” funding works (see http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/nation_ned_1.html). According to their tax returns, the Nation Institute receives major funding from the MacArthur Foundation and the J. M. Kaplan Family Foundation. Both, according to Frances Stoner Saunders (Who Paid the Piper?: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War), have a history of accepting CIA “pass-through” funding and collaborating with them on cold war projects. The Nation also also has an interesting relationship with a third left gatekeeping foundation the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (FERI), in that publisher, editor and part owner Katrina van den Heuvel serves on the FERI governing board and her father, William vanden Heuvel, on the board of directors. FERI, like its namesake Eleanor Roosevelt has always pursued a clear mandate of supporting the development of anti-communist “parallel left” political groups. Nation editor Katrina van den Heuvel Moreover William van den Heuvel himself has well-established intelligence credentials, as a protege and executive assistant to “Wild Bill” Donovan, the founder and director of OSS (Office of Strategic Services). The OSS, which oversaw intelligence operations during World War II, became the CIA in 1947. In 1953-54 van den Heuvel accompanied Donovan to Thailand, where he served as ambassador (and lead CIA agent) to Thailand. Later as executive assistant to Robert Kennedy, van den Heuvel was the architect of the Kennedy administration’s staunch anti-Castro policy. Other Left Gatekeepers Funding Alternative Media Here is a brief summary of “alternative” media outlets the Feldman has linked to foundations the Church Committee identified as receiving CIA pass-through funding (see http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/legacy/research/edu20/moments/1976church.html?cms_page=edu20/moments/1976church.html). It is also of note that they all systematically marginalize journalistic and academic research into 911 and CIA-linked political assassinations. Feldman’s co-author Eric Salter has drawn up a more detailed flow sheet demonstrating these complex inter-relationships at http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html MacArthur Foundation FAIR The Progressive Working Assets Radio Rockefeller Foundation FAIR The Progressive Working Assets Radio Carnegie Foundation Democracy Now! J. M. Kaplan Family Foundation Democracy Now! Soros Family Foundation Pacifica Radio The Nation Although Soros himself has no known CIA connections, he’s strongly linked to the military industrial complex as a major stockholder in Bush senior’s Carlyle Group and through his direct funding of “color” revolutions in Eastern Europe. Schumann Foundation Mother Jones Alternet Fair Z Magazine Run for many years by “progressive-lite” Bill Moyers, the Schuman Foundation (as evidenced by the projects it funds) has a rabidly pro-capitalist agenda. According to Feldman, Moyers himself has engaged in some pretty anti-progressive behavior, such as orchestrating (as Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary) the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and leaking the transcripts to the media. And his heavy promotion of the rabid anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Joseph Campbell on PBS (see http://www.undueinfluence.com/schumann_foundation.htm, http://www.undueinfluence.com/bill_moyers.htm, http://constantineinstitute.blogspot.com/2009/06/profiles-of-americas-beloved-tv.html and http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/06/17/barry-zwicker-noam-chomsky-and-the-left-gatekeepers/) Feldman notes that the alternative magazine Counterpunch receives no direct left gatekeeper funding, although one of their editors is on the Nation payroll (which does). To be continued.

WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXX++ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooXXXXXXXX++ You are stating that truthers champion fallicies. I counter with the fact that the CIA is trying to supress a investigation/news story into Blee who seems to be have helped make 911 happen. If the truthing idea of government complicity is a fallacy ,why would the CIA be so upset ??? Your not understanding this very simple point seem disingenous. (or your not very bright,sorry that is an alternative explanation,sorry). Independendently I found BLEE to be helping the 911 plot early and late when looking into CIA/911 memos. Later I found that other 'fallacy truthers' had done the work before I had done so regarding Blee. You do recall I have a post on BLEE ??? THANKS sg

COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form.

On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. On Thursday, September 8, 2011, the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment. Nowosielski and Duffy are working with legal advisors and we will have more on this soon. Meanwhile you can listen to our recent exclusive interview with the producers and their discovery here at Boiling Frogs Post: Below see Podcast Show #55: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy Also, here are related interviews with Paul Thompson based on the exposé by the two producers: Part 1 & Part 2. (go to link http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ to get these Part 1 & Part 2 links) The producers’ website was taken down yesterday. We are in touch with them, and we will keep you informed. Please disseminate this stunning new development, the CIA’s panic, and the content of their interview. Thank You. Sibel Edmonds ********************OOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOO+++++ PODCAST #55 link http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/10/podcast-show-55/ (hit play symbol, MP3) Filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy join us to discuss their extensive research, interviews and findings which have resulted in the unmasking of three former top CIA officials- George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee- and their role in withholding intelligence on two key 9/11 hijackers and subsequent cover-ups. Duffy and Nowosielski provide us with a detailed account of their new interview with former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his allegations against the CIA officials- Tenet, Black and Blee – accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments. They discuss two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in this cover up, a joint statement issued by the three accused CIA officials in response to Clarke’s allegations, and more! oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo+ooooooooooooo Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy produced the film “Press for Truth,” which documented the journey of four 9/11 widows as they lobbied the Bush White House to convene an independent commission to probe the attacks. They recently launched a new transparency web site SecrecyKills.com.

Berlett, Chomsky, Cockburn, Corn, Goodman, Said etc. as well as others at publications sites like The Nation, The Progressive, AlterNet, CounterPunch, Village Voice etc. etc. Even extremist dirtbags like Carlos the Jackel and Ward Churchill accepted that AQ/OBL were responsible. Gaal I can't make much sense of your drivel a book written in the 60s can't document covert funding of leftists during the 21st century. ###############################################################= ===============================================================+ Colby I cant make much sense of your drivel for Tragedy and Hope is one of the most important history books ever written. No footnotes/references...oh yeah , I found this unfootnoted Julius Ceasar scroll,yeah I'll follow Colby's advice and throw it out. Quigley either made it up or its true ++ HE was allowed to see the inner papers of the elite. Quigely is a better historian than you are ,sir. Why ?? CAUSE YOU CANT FIND ELITE/CIA funding of the left in 21st century ??? Its hard to believe you have history degree and ACLU work. You do have a search program ?? See below ============================o=============================== ============================+===============================**** link http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FordFandCIA.html The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A documented case of philanthropic collaboration with the Secret Police by James Petras 15 December 2001 Rebelión Introduction The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA's intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford "The best and most plausible kind of funding cover" (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund "a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions" (p. 135). The latter included "human rights" groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important "private foundations" collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation. This essay will demonstrate that the Ford Foundation-CIA connection was a deliberate, conscious joint effort to strengthen U.S. imperial cultural hegemony and to undermine left-wing political and cultural influence. We will proceed by examining the historical links between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the Cold War, by examining the Presidents of the Foundation, their joint projects and goals as well as their common efforts in various cultural areas. Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington's post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: "At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects" (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a "mutual search" for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the "vanguard of Cold War thinking". One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not "so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions" (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors. Given the strong leftist culture in Europe in the post-war period, Perspectives failed to attract readers and went bankrupt. Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140). In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141). McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left. Numerous CIA "fronts" received major FF grants. Numerous supposedly "independent" CIA sponsored cultural organizations, human rights groups, artists and intellectuals received CIA/FF grants. One of the biggest donations of the FF was to the CIA organized Congress for Cultural Freedom which received $7 million by the early 1960s. Numerous CIA operatives secured employment in the FF and continued close collaboration with the Agency (Ibid, p. 143). From its very origins there was a close structural relation and interchange of personnel at the highest levels between the CIA and the FF. This structural tie was based on the common imperial interests which they shared. The result of their collaboration was the proliferation of a number of journals and access to the mass media which pro-U.S. intellectuals used to launch vituperative polemics against Marxists and other anti-imperialists. The FF funding of these anti-Marxists organizations and intellectuals provided a legal cover for their claims of being "independent" of government funding (CIA). The FF funding of CIA cultural fronts was important in recruiting non-communist intellectuals who were encouraged to attack the Marxist and communist left. Many of these non-communist leftists later claimed that they were "duped", that had they known that the FF was fronting for the CIA, they would not have lent their name and prestige. This disillusionment of the anti-communist left however took place after revelations of the FF-CIA collaboration were published in the press. Were these anti-communist social democrats really so naive as to believe that all the Congresses at luxury villas and five star hotels in Lake Como, Paris and Rome, all the expensive art exhibits and glossy magazines were simple acts of voluntary philanthropy? Perhaps. But even the most naive must have been aware that in all the Congresses and journals the target of criticism was "Soviet imperialism" and "Communist tyranny" and "leftist apologists of dictatorship" -- despite the fact that it was an open secret that the U.S. intervened to overthrow the democratic Arbenz government in Guatemala and the Mossadegh regime in Iran and human rights were massively violated by U.S. backed dictators in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and elsewhere. The "indignation" and claims of "innocence" by many anti-communist left intellectuals after their membership in CIA cultural fronts was revealed must be taken with a large amount of cynical skepticism. One prominent journalist, Andrew Kopkind, wrote of a deep sense of moral disillusionment with the private foundation-funded CIA cultural fronts. Kopkind wrote "The distance between the rhetoric of the open society and the reality of control was greater than anyone thought. Everyone who went abroad for an American organization was, in one way or another, a witness to the theory that the world was torn between communism and democracy and anything in between was treason. The illusion of dissent was maintained: the CIA supported socialist cold warriors, fascist cold warriors, black and white cold warriors. The catholicity and flexibility of the CIA operations were major advantages. But it was a sham pluralism and it was utterly corrupting" (Ibid, pp. 408-409)." When a U.S. journalist Dwight Macdonald who was an editor of Encounter (a FF-CIA funded influential cultural journal) sent an article critical of U.S. culture and politics it was rejected by the editors, working closely with the CIA (Ibid, pp. 314-321). In the field of painting and theater the CIA worked with the FF to promote abstract expressionism against any artistic expression with a social content, providing funds and contacts for highly publicized exhibits in Europe and favorable reviews by "sponsored" journalists. The interlocking directorate between the CIA, the Ford Foundation and the New York Museum of Modern Art lead to a lavish promotion of "individualistic" art remote from the people -- and a vicious attack on European painters, writers and playwrights writing from a critical realist perspective. "Abstract Expressionism" whatever its artist's intention became a weapon in the Cold War (Ibid, p. 263). The Ford Foundation's history of collaboration and interlock with the CIA in pursuit of U.S. world hegemony is now a well-documented fact. The remaining issue is whether that relationship continues into the new Millenium after the exposures of the 1960s? The FF made some superficial changes. They are more flexible in providing small grants to human rights groups and academic researchers who occasionally dissent from U.S. policy. They are not as likely to recruit CIA operatives to head the organization. More significantly they are likely to collaborate more openly with the U.S. government in its cultural and educational projects, particularly with the Agency of International Development. The FF has in some ways refined their style of collaboration with Washington's attempt to produce world cultural domination, but retained the substance of that policy. For example the FF is very selective in the funding of educational institutions. Like the IMF, the FF imposes conditions such as the "professionalization" of academic personnel and "raising standards." In effect this translates into the promotion of social scientific work based on the assumptions, values and orientations of the U.S. empire; to have professionals de-linked from the class struggle and connected with pro-imperial U.S. academics and foundation functionaries supporting the neo-liberal model. As in the 1950s and 60s the Ford Foundation today selectively funds anti-leftist human rights groups which focus on attacking human rights violations of U.S. adversaries, and distancing themselves from anti-imperialist human rights organizations and leaders. The FF has developed a sophisticated strategy of funding human rights groups (HRGs) that appeal to Washington to change its policy while denouncing U.S. adversaries their "systematic" violations. The FF supports HRGs which equate massive state terror by the U.S. with individual excesses of anti-imperialist adversaries. The FF finances HRGs which do not participate in anti-globalization and anti-neoliberal mass actions and which defend the Ford Foundation as a legitimate and generous "non-governmental organization". History and contemporary experience tells us a different story. At a time when government over-funding of cultural activities by Washington is suspect, the FF fulfills a very important role in projecting U.S. cultural policies as an apparently "private" non-political philanthropic organization. The ties between the top officials of the FF and the U.S. government are explicit and continuing. A review of recently funded projects reveals that the FF has never funded any major project that contravenes U.S. policy. In the current period of a major U.S. military-political offensive, Washington has posed the issue as "terrorism or democracy," just as during the Cold War it posed the question as "Communism or Democracy." In both instances the Empire recruited and funded "front organizations, intellectuals and journalists to attack its anti-imperialist adversaries and neutralize its democratic critics. The Ford Foundation is well situated to replay its role as collaborator to cover for the New Cultural Cold War. © 2002 James Petras Reprinted for Fair Use Only. James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghampton University, New York, and author of: Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century with Henry Veltmeyer (Zed Books, 2001), The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America with Henry Veltmeyer (McMillan, 2000), Empire or Republic: Global Power or Domestic Decay in the US with Morris Morley (Routledge, 1995), Latin America in the Time of Cholera: Electoral Politics, Market Economics, and Permanent Crisis with Morris Morley (Routledge, 1992), Latin America: Bankers, Generals and the Struggle for Social Justice (Rowman & Littlefield, 1986), Class, State, and Power in the Third World, With Case Studies on Class Conflict in Latin America (Rowman & Littlefield, 1981) The Nationalization of Venezuelan Oil (Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1978), The United States and Chile: Imperialism and the Overthrow of the Allende Government (Monthly Review Press, 1975), Latin America: From Dependence to Revolution (John Wiley & Sons, 1973), Peasants in Revolt; A Chilean Case Study, 1965-1971 (Univ of Texas, 1973), How Allende fell: a study in U.S.-Chilean relations (Spokesman Books), Cultivating revolution; the United States and agrarian reform in Latin America (Random House, 1971) Politics and Social Forces in Chilean Development (University of California Press, 1969). James Petras' web site in english is at: http://www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm #######################****************#########################+++++ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^00000 The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters by Frances Stonor Saunders The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters The "rivetingly told" (Times Literary Supplement) story of the CIA's Cold Warcultural operations, short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award. In The Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders presents for the first time the shocking evidence that the CIA infiltrated every niche of the cultural sphere during the postwar years. In a "hammer-blow of a book"...moreThe "rivetingly told" (Times Literary Supplement) story of the CIA's Cold Warcultural operations, short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award. In The Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders presents for the first time the shocking evidence that the CIA infiltrated every niche of the cultural sphere during the postwar years. In a "hammer-blow of a book" (The Spectator, London) drawing together recently declassified documents and exclusive interviews, the author narrates the extraordinary story of a secret campaign in which some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West were instruments of America's secret service. The CIA's front organizations and the philanthropic foundations that channeled its money organized conferences, founded magazines, ran congresses, mounted exhibitions, arranged concerts, and flew symphony orchestras around the world. Many of the period's foremost intellectuals, artists, and philanthropists appear in the book#58; Isaiah Berlin, Clement Greenberg, Sidney Hook, Arthur Koestler, Irving Kristol, Robert Lowell, Henry Luce, Andr� Malraux, Mary McCarthy, Reinhold Neibuhr, George Orwell, Jackson Pollock, Nelson Rockefeller, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Stephen Spender, among others. While many were unwitting participants in the CIA's cultural operation, others were willing collaborators. In this expose of covert patronage unprecedented in modern history, recently short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award, Saunders has created "a crucial story" (The Times, London) that is "quite unputdownable" (Literary Review).br(less) Hardcover, 528 pages Published April 28th 2000 by The New Press (first published January 1999)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#### ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^#^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+ Not only are there false left people but there are also false 'truth' people. link http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

####################################ooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooooo#######+ POINT ONE of TWO Sorry,you didnt get the pun. Popular Mechanics are lies for the low brow class/Cockburn the 'reading class'. AS to honesty,Cocburn does use 911 Commission material. I can post for days here on the ED Forum about imcompleteness/fraud 911 commission. AS stated before ,I dont agree with Tarpley 100% ++ BUT his 46 Drill DATUM is important. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^########oooooooo########^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+ POINT TWO If the funding of the false left is too complex for 'some' they call it ,'untrue'. Now why the funding of the false left is complex is that Quigley exposed part of funding structure. See linked article below by Craig Lee Merrihue. THANKS Steven Gaal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooooo^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+ 1939: That year H.G. Wells revealed the socialists' plan to create a world government. In his book, The New World Order, he wrote: "There will be no day of days... when a new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, and even as it comes into being it will develop fresh perspectives.... Countless ... people will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it."(p 122,129) ###################################oooooooo############### ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Know Thy Enemy! Dark Genesis and Deep Politics: The New Republic by Craig Lee Merrihue link http://www.mediamonitors.net/craigmerrihue1.html ++oo++ooooooooooo= “What the hell was a partner in the Morgan Bank doing starting a “pinko” journal like The New Republic in the first place?” Jim Martin ++oo++ooooooooooo= *~*~*~*~*~*~* The New Republic magazine has once again been trotted out to play the Trojan-Horse role for which it was hired. Los Angeles Times readers were recently lambasted with yet another shrill diatribe against the Palestinian people from New Republic editor-in-chief Martin Peretz (see “Traveling With Bad Companions; Western supporters of the Palestinian cause are morally blind”, June 23, 2003, Commentary) . Such hysterical obloquy would be simply tiresome were it not for the pernicious effect of such drivel on generations of innocent lives. Those who support the Palestinian cause against Israel, are, at best, in Peretz’s condescending estimation, “myopic romantic{s}”, but more aptly designated as “deluded folk”, “certified kooks”, or by the almost quaintly anachronistic “fellow travelers.” Some of these “certified kooks”, are genuinely mystified by such irrational invective coming from the helmsman of the most venerable flagship for thoughtful liberalism. Deliciously tempting though it may be to pick apart Peretz’s logic or his lack thereof, it is more enlightening to assess by what right the New Republic’ arrogated to itself the moral authority to pontificate through its blow-hard editor-in-chief. The truth is, there is no such moral authority. The New Republic is the cynical creation of self-serving men whose moral mandates seldom rise above the maxim “he who has the gold makes the rules.” One of the most complete expositions of this little-told story is found in Professor Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World In Our Time (Macmillan, 1966). The eminent Dr. Quigley was professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, and had previously taught at Princeton and Harvard---certainly no academic slouch, he. Quigley was also the favorite professor of little Bill Clinton. In fact, in his first presidential nomination acceptance speech, Clinton went out of his way to thank above all others two gone-but-not-forgotten influences who shaped his self-professed belief in the duty of public service: President John F, Kennedy and Professor Carroll Quigley. Clinton attended Georgetown when his professor’s 1300+page tome was probably required reading. Author Jim Martin conjectures that this is probably where the ambitious little suck-butt learned how power really works in the world. The short of it is, the New Republic was founded in 1914 with J.P. Morgan Banking Money (specifically by Willard Straight who had married heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney) to manipulate the political left. In Quigley’s analysis on pages 936-956, this infiltration had a threefold purpose: (1)To keep informed on Left-wing thinking; (2) to provide these liberal groups with a forum which would act as a safety-valve to “blow off steam”; and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity, and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical”. Before launching this Trojan Horse, Cornell graduate Willard Straight had served as Far East expert for the Morgan Banking interests of which he was a partner, living in the region 1902-1910. He also was an assistant to Sir Robert Hard , Director of the Chinese Imperial Customs Service, who was lead man, according to Quigley in the European Imperialist penetration of China. As her name indicates, Willard Straight’s wife, Dorothy Payne Whitney, was the product of an alliance between two of America’s richest families, with giant interests in New York utilities, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil (now Exxon), and much else. One of her brothers married into the equally aristocratic Vanderbilt dynasty, the other wed the daughter of Secretary of State John Hay, who articulated the so-called “open-door” policy in China. Quigley sees the New Republic as the best example of the alliance between Wall Street and Left-wing publications. The original purpose of this particular alliance was “to provide an outlet for the progressive left and to quietly guide it in an Anglophile” direction. The author goes on to say that this task was given to a smug young man just out of Harvard, Walter Lippman, who would be the towering figure in American Journalism until his death in 1974. Lippman was one of the few American members of the mysterious Round Table Group (more on this later), which had been a dominant force in British foreign policy since its formation in 1909. Lippman’s bi-weekly columns appeared in hundred’s of papers over six decades. As a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, and an editor of New Republic, Lippman in 1918, still in his 20s, was given the opportunity to be the official interpreter of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points at the Paris Peace Conference following World War I. Guiding the American Left in an Anglophile direction is a goal that absolutely mystifies most modern Americans, who have lost touch with American democracy’s long history of opposing the philosophy and exploitive designs of the British Empire. After decades of “disneyfication” and tabloid celebrity mongering, few Americans see Monarchy as the bloodline worshipping cult of greed clung to by those who believe they are born to rule over others. Quigley cites Willard Straight’s official biography by Herbert Croly, the first editor of the New Republic, who wrote in 1924, six years after Willard’s untimely death, that “Straight was in no sense a liberal or progressive, but was, indeed, a typical international banker and that the New Republic was simply a mechanism for advancing certain designs of such international bankers, notably to blunt the isolationism and anti-British sentiments so prevalent among many American progressives, while providing them with a vehicle for expression of their progressive views in literature, art, music, social reform, and even domestic politics…the chief achievement of the New Republic, however in 1914-1918 and again in 1938-1948, was for interventionism in Europe and support for Great Britain. So the great journal of liberal democracy’s crowning glory was to shed blood on behalf of the Empire the nation had broken away from. Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight was to support the paper until well in the 1950s. A few years after Willard’s death, she acted upon her true feelings for America’s democratic experiment with a new republic by marrying into British nobility and becoming Lady Elmhirst of Dartington Hall. She took her three young children from America and brought them up English. Once again demonstrating her true devotion to the liberal principles professed by the New Republic, Lady Elmhirst renounced her American citizenship in 1935. Her youngest son, Mike Straight, stood for Parliament, as was his right as a British subject. This situation proved to be no obstacle, however, when he returned to America at age 22 and was immediately appointed to the State Department. Paving the way for her son in America, Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight, transferred her sole ownership of the New Republic to a dummy corporation with her son Mike as president. From this position, Mike Straight may have, in Quigley’s view, “pulled off the most skillful political coup in twentieth century American politics. “ Quigley is referring to the complete removal from the American scene of the Communist Party and Socialist organizations as the serious forces to contend with they had been for several decades. Part Two Only in America. Mike Straight, J.P. Morgan Banker and blue-blood aristocrat, deploys that paragon of liberal journalism, The New Republic, to destroy the Left as a serious political power in America. Not surprisingly, the magazine continues today in its role of Trojan Horse with visceral polemics against all who dare challenge the pro-Israel party line. Straight, although a declared anti-communist, was nonetheless quite cozy with the reds when it suited his purposes. Quigley highlights this collaboration in Straight’s role with the Progressive Party presidential bid of former vice-president Henry A. Wallace in 1948. Ironically, Wallace is denigrated in the opening sentences of Peretz’s diatribe as a gullible “fellow traveler”, although Peretz conveniently neglects to mention Wallace’s sojourn as editor of the New Republic. Straight gave Wallace a bully pulpit in his magazine, and brought in a number of communists like Lew Frank as campaign insiders. In the meantime, Straight worked feverishly to block the candidacies of any state, local, or congressional level aspirants of Wallace’s new Progressive Party. He also worked behind the scenes with his anti-communist friends in labor, veteran, and liberal groups to prevent an endorsement of Wallace’s presidential bid, citing the presence of communists on the candidate’s staff (which Straight himself had brought in). Quigley states that these efforts resulted in nothing less than the shattering of the left-labor coalition of the 1930s (the Popular Front), driving the leftists out of the unions and the labor movement across the country. All of this years before the witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. In the meantime, Straight’s family (the Whitney’s on his mother’s side), founders of Pan-Amercian Airlines, profited handsomely when C.V. Whitney was appointed by President Truman, (who one would think grateful for the destruction of the left), to the most powerful Federal civil aviation post, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics. As an interesting aside, while Mike Straight was at Cambridge, he was a member of a secret fraternal society called “The Apostles.” As John Costello writes in The Mask of Treachery, this group was in turn very close to the Anthony Blunt-Guy Burgess-Kim Philby spy ring. The Apostles were allegedly Marxist aristocrats (figure that out!), and included Lord Victor Rothschild of the powerful and Zionist-financing banking family. According to Costello, “Guy Burgess, in fact was being paid 100 pounds sterling a month as an ‘investment advisor’ to Mrs. Charles Rothschild while an active Soviet Spy.” Oh what a knotted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Straights subterfuge against true progressive politics, perpetrated while the controlling force of The New Republic, played to the development of a Radical Right mythology of liberal plots to undermine the American way of life, and the helped in the branding of left-ism as “un-American.” However, Quigley says that this radical right fairy tale, “like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth.” Quigley then goes on to provide the history, based on his insider access to the group’s papers, of an “anglophile network, which operates, to some extent, the way the radical right believes the Communists act.” The modern form of this malignant misrule had its genesis in the Round Table Groups founded by world pirate Cecil Rhodes (for whom Rhodesia in Africa was named) and the subsequent trustees of his enormous ill-gotten gains. The stated purpose of the group was to federate the English speaking peoples of the world in accord with principles laid down by Cecil Rhodes and William T. Snead. By 1915 there were Round Table groups in seven English speaking countries, with the inventor of “professional and objective journalism", and New Republic icon, Walter Lippman, leading the American contingent. The “chief backbone” of the group was built around “the already existing financial cooperation between the Morgan Bank in New York and a group of international financiers in London led by the Lazard Brothers”, with numerous entities in between. Known as “Lord Milner’s kindergarten” after the venerable English aristocrat’s demise in 1925, several front groups were established in each of the commonwealth nations, and led by a veritable who’s who of moneyed power: Lord Lothian, Lady Astor, the Dulles brothers, the Harrimans, and Morgan bankers too numerous to mention. Front groups were established in each of the member countries. The British entity is the Royal Institute of International Affairs, widely known by the name of its St .James Square location across the street from the Astors, Chatham House. The American Counterpart is the Council on Foreign Relations, publishers of Foreign Affairs magazine, and the source for nearly every Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense for the last 80 years, as well as most Presidents. The CFR has a small, select, by invitation-only membership, which makes its domination of U.S. foreign policy almost ludicrous, were it not so lethal for so many. Sister organizations include the Trilateral Commission, which consists of major players in America, Europe, and Japan, and the so-called Bilderberger group, largely concerned with Euro-American affairs. Quigley claims this group has exerted inordinate influence in public debate not only through media ownership, but through what evolved from the J.P Morgan banks handling of academic endowments. In Quigley’s words, “access to publication and recommendations to academic positions in the handful of great American universities…required similar sponsorship.” In this way, a small, though mighty group determined to a large extent “the individuals who published, who had money, who found jobs, were consulted, and who were appointed to government missions.” Furthermore, Quigley points out that “the names of Wall Street luminaries still adorn these Ivy League campuses,” and that “the chief officials of these universities (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc), were beholden to these financial powers and usually owed their jobs to them.” In summation, the Georgetown professor states, “On this basis…there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy.” It is this same Anglo-American axis threatening peace and justice in the world today. The American branch of this Anglo-oriented cabal is said to have disseminated its influence primarily through five newspapers: The New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the Boston Evening Transcript. In fact, the Christian Science Monitor editor did surreptitious (and anonymous) duty as American correspondent for The Round Table. Lord Lothian, The Round Table’s first editor and secretary of the Rhodes Trust 1925-1939, contributed often to the Monitor. Morgan banking partner Thomas Lamont financially supported or owned outright The Saturday Review of Literature and the New York Post. In fact, Lamont attended the pivotal Paris Peace Conference following World War I, and there befriended his English counterparts who had been organized by Lord Milner’s group. Lest one think Quigley a wide-eyed, wild-haired radical professor, bear in mind his own stated assessment that the goals of this group were, by and large, “commendable”: to federate the English speaking world, establish peace (think today’s Pax Americana), “help backward, colonial, and (to assist) underdeveloped areas advance toward stability along the lines taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the London School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies).” Quigley furthermore dismisses accusations of fascism against this group as communist propaganda”, and that they were really “quite the contrary.” They were “gracious and cultured gentlemen…who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity…and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa and the West Indies.” May the Great Spirit deliver us from such gracious and cultured gentlemen. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith said of modern conservatives: (they are) "engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” Besides, Quigley certainly received his comeuppance and learned with whom he was dealing. Jim Martin cites letters from the early 70s in which the eminent Georgetown Professor writes that the British publisher of Tragedy and Hope , Macmillan, suppressed the book because “they didn’t like its gist. Quigley further wrote that Macmillan was preventing him from assuming copyright to his own book by keeping it technically “in print”, but withholding it from the general public. Martin states that “Quigley photographed each page of the book and sent it to a printer; that’s the only reason it was available at all in America.” The lessons from The New Republic’s history and the Round Table movement which spawned it for today are legion. Progressives will never see power with justice implemented in this world until they fully comprehend the nature and threat of power in the world today, which seeks self-preservation and expansion at without regard to human cost. Without this comprehension of the beasts’ inclination and reach, global civil rights movements will only be tolerated as long as they do not succeed to a great degree. But long before any tangible success will comes infiltration, manipulation, repression, co-option and annihilation. The faring of presidential aspirants Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich presents a case in point. Dean is the darling of the New Republic type crowd, and is therefore, this year’s Trojan Horse model, whether or not the former governor of Vermont is conscious of his designated role. The corporate media has been crowing over Dean’s first place finish among all Democratic contenders in the much ballyhooed “online primary” by Moveon.org, in which an astounding 317,000 people participated. Such was the case on the editorial page of the same L.A. Times which provided the soapbox for Martin Peretz’s ravings, but failed in the same article to mention Dennis Kucinich’s second place showing. This is particularly astonishing in view of the corporate media blackout of this sitting congressman who was once the youngest man ever elected mayor of a major city (Cleveland). That is because Kucinich is a genuine progressive with leadership skill, an egotistical dummy corporation, and a genuine threat to the powers that be. Dean, on the other hand, backs a bloated military budget and has deep relationships with the Israeli right wing. Needless to say, many well-intentioned progressives will fruitlessly attempt to jockey toward justice on the back of this Trojan Horse, only to eventually end up (once again) , with splinters in the rear. The Money Power has absolutely no intention of handing over the reigns to justice and freedom. Nor does it care a twit what mothers and children live and die, or in what squalor. The innocents of Afghanistan and Iraq all had names, as do the subjugated poor everywhere, and were all beloved by someone, somewhere. But the bottom lines to power politics in the world in which we presently have our being are money and murder. If we hope ever to ameliorate that incontrovertible fact in at least some small way, we need to arm ourselves with knowledge of the details of power in the world. Know thy enemy. References: Quigley, Carroll: "Tragedy & Hope-A History of the World in Our Time" (1966) Martin, Jim: "Quigley, Clinton, Straight & Reich," article, Steamshovel Press, #8, Summer 1993 Bracken, Len: "Quigley Live!," article, Steamshovel Press, #10, 1994 Thomas, Ken, "Conspiracy in the Clinton Era," article, Steamshovel Press #10, 1994 Amidon, Beulah: The Nation and the New Republic, article, Survey Graphic Magazine of Social Interpretation, 1939. Website for Whitney-Payne-Straight family tree: www.familytreemaker.com/users//a/y/Thomas-C-Payne/GEN6-0018.html Parmalee, T.A., Herbert Croly, article International Solidarity Movement (ISM) Media Alert and Call for Action _ LA Times

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yes people have "QUESTIONS" about the honesty of 911myth people like Popular Mechaics. link http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-07/popular-mechanics-911-iq-test ***************oooooooo*************+++++ Yes we have "QUESTIONS" about fake left gatekeepers. link http://911review.com/denial/gatekeepers.html

Gaal quote:One does have to ask, are you the only member of COPA that thinks Gaddafi did Lockerbie ? +++++++++KELLY QUOTE:ooooooooooooooooooooo I don't know what the other members of COPA think, but Gaddafi himself acknowledged responsibility for Lockerbie when he paid the 300 plus families of the victimes $2 million each, which he wouldn't have done if he didn't feel guilty. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo ANSWER TO KELLY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ================================+============================================ ========ooooooo=========**** He acknowledged guilt to get $ 100 Billion in oil/development deals. See below,why does BBC lie Bill ? ANSWER = the fix is in. The Anglo/Nato/Americans were thinking several chess moves ahead of Gaddafi to PSYOPS Gaddafi and the lazy thinkers. oooooo--------------------ooooo TO QUOTE THE ARTICLE BELOW VIA Libya's guilt ++ "It's a reasonably reasonable conclusion to arrive at, but a lazy one based on reading the headlines and not the main text or the footnotes and sources. " oooooooooo****************ooooooooooo ===============================================******** Libya's "Admissions of Guilt" By Caustic Logic completed February 15 2010 last update March 23 2011 But They Admitted It!" For those who believe in Libya's guilt for the Flight 103 bombing, among the hardest points to get around is how Libya is perceived to have admitted their guilt. When whole governments act on it as fact, and the villain government finally confesses, well that would seem to confirm one's beliefs and show they had been on the right track all along. It's a reasonably reasonable conclusion to arrive at, but a lazy one based on reading the headlines and not the main text or the footnotes and sources. Those who would like to maintain such assurances should read and be sure they can account for the following points, referring to the 2003 official admission of "responsibility" to the United Nations, an alleged 1993 confession from Colonel Gaddafi himself, and two other lesser examples sometimes cited. Under Prolonged Duress Following he indictment of Libyan agents al Megrahi and Fhimah in late 1991, the UN Security Council under Anglo-American leadership moved to enforce the official truth with sanctions. Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992 imposed an arms and air embargo on Libya, supported with diplomatic restrictions, and establishment of a sanctions committee. The committees work then led to Resolution 883 of 11 November 1993, toughening sanctions. This measure approved the freezing of Libyan funds and financial resources in other countries, reports globalpolicy.org, and banned the provision to Libya of equipment for oil refining and transportation. [1] Eventually all air traffic to and from the nation was barred, all U.S. and French trade with Libya was forbidden, and although a total oil exports embargo was considered too hard on others, their sales shrank as the industry suffered a lack of supplies. An award of up to $4 million was offered by the US Justice Department in 1993 for help in bringing the suspects to justice (poster at left). It seems this reward stemmed from Bruce Smith, a Pan Am pilot and husband of a 103 victim, who first assembled a prize from airline pilot groups and other sources, including his own retirement account, eventually totaling $4 million. [2] The reward was renewed in 1995, and according to the Washington Post: "[The FBI] also placed the pair, believed to be in Libya, on its 10 Most Wanted List. Seeking to rekindle international interest in the bombing, the FBI and State Department said they will work with the U.S. Information Agency to communicate with persons in Libya who might assist in bringing the suspects to court." [3] Col. Gaddafi in fact showed great eagerness to help in that process, seeing a trial as their way out of sanctions, just as the (publicly announced) goal was suppossed to be. But as a 2001 book by Allan Gerson and Jerry Adler summed up the real thinking in Washington, "it was desirable to leave things just as they were," with Libya seeming intransigent and thus deserving of more squueezing. Rather than try thhe perpetrators with their amazing evidence, many felt "Libya would be their prison, and the United States would do its best to keep Kaddafi in there with them." Not to mention the Libyan people who also lived under these long-running punishments. And never mind the families of Flight 103's victims, who wanted to get what they percieved as justice. But this was never an open policy - the sanctions were an unfortunate effect of Tripoli's refusal to comply with terms the book says "appear to have been chosen to make it as difficult as possible for Kaddafi to comply." [4] In October 1995, Libyan officials cited a "tragic toll" from sanctions, a $19 billion dollar wound damaging their agricultural sector significantly, and causing as many as 21,000 preventable deaths since their inception. [4.5] Such reports might be prone to exaggeration, but others started wondering if there were any deaths what the sanctions were about when the Libyans were ready to deal. Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, even Tony Blair started suggesting a little flexibility. Perhaps a trial of the suspects really would be doable outside the United States. By late August 1998 the framework of a trial was established, and used as the measure of Resolution 1192, agreeing to suspend sanctions once the suspects were handed over to the special Scottish court in the Nehterlands at Camp Zeist. Tripoli made it happen, with help from luminaries like Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia and Nelson Mandela of Africa and the venue ideas of Robert Black QC, of Lockerbie. Megrahi and Fhimah were finally flown on a special flight to the Netherlands in early April, and on the 6th were official arrested at Camp Zeist and set to await their trial. Sanctions on Libya were immediately suspended, under threat of re-enforcement (that never did materialize). [5] 1993: Involved and Framed? During this time of intense pressure to get the Libyans to publicly admit their guilt or at least help a court to prove it, a remarkable admission was reportedly taken in 1993, taken down by a prominent American journalist with suspected CIA links, Arnaud de Borchgrave. But it was not mentioned in public for over a decade, it would seem. In an article for NewsMax, from January 2004, de Borchgrave first revealed Gadhafis Secret Message: "On July 6, after a lengthy interview, he went off the record and asked me to deliver a message to the director of Central Intelligence in Washington. He admitted Libya's guilt for the downing of Pan Am 103, but made clear that it was originally an Iranian retaliatory terrorist attack for the downing by the U.S. Navy of a peaceful Iran Air Airbus [...] So the Iranians subcontracted part of the job to a Syrian intelligence service, which, in turn, asked the Libyan Mukhabarat to handle part of the assignment," Col. Gadhafi explained. [6] Mr. De Borchgrave says he did report this behind the scenes to the CIA immediately on returning home from the interview. Vincent Cannistraro, who had headed the CIA's Lockerbie probe in its earliest (shiftiest) phase, continued throughout the 1990s as a voice for Libyan guilt. He has alluded to Libya taking the Iran contract from the Syrians, following the Autumn Leaves operation, but did not give de Borchgrave as a source nor give col. Gaddafi any credit. [7] Again on Megrahis release, in late August 2009, de Borchgrave wrote about the interview, explaining how he asked Gaddafi to explain, off the record, his precise involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The Colonel dismissed all the aides in his tent and went candid, in halting English without benefit of an interpreter. Mostly he decried terrorism and offered to assist the West fight bin Laden-type terror networks. Again, he explained the bombing as payback for the shoot-down of Iran Air 655, an act the Arab world could not accept as an accident: "[R]etaliation, he said, was clearly called for. Iranian intelligence subcontracted retaliation to one of the Syrian intelligence services (there are 14 of them), which, in turn, subcontracted part of the retaliatory action to Libyan intelligence (at that time run by Abdullah Senoussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law). "Did we know specifically what we were asked to do?" said Gaddafi. "We knew it would be comparable retaliation for the Iranian Airbus, but we were not told what the specific objective was," Gaddafi added." [8] So why, when Libya is usually reported as "always insisting on their innocence," did de Borchgraves story and its propaganda power sit in the dark for the crucial years of pressure? Is it the prominent Iranian and Syrian elements? Were the Americans holding out for a Libya-only storyline? That is roughly how it turned out. Interestingly, the colonel reportedly used this admission to reiterate Libya did not lead the operation. If we had initiated the plot, we would have made sure the accusing finger was pointed in the other direction and we would have picked Cyprus, not Malta, where some of the organization was done. The others picked Malta presumably to frame us."" This isn't really a big help when your official storyline is that two Libyan JSO operatives, commanded by their JSO higher-ups, had specifically targetted PA103 via Malta airport, picked because Malta was their own "back door to the West." The JSO got the timers and the radio and the semtex, made the bomb, did up their own feasibility studies we were told, and had their two real movers buy the clothes, secure the suitcase, steal the luggage "taggs" to write that death sentence on, and personally shove it off from Malta on D-day. There is no "framed by the Syrians" in that scenario. And all this when the real evidence Gaddafi may or may not have known about highly suggests the bomb went on PA103 way up in London, with nothing physically to do with Malta at all. Is this just another Libyan non-admission admission? Or worse - an attempt to hijack the West's fantasy narrative and steer it back away from himself? 99/01: Two Other Admission-ish things Allan Gerson and Jerry Adlers 2001 book The Price of Terror failed to mention this account of de Borchgrave while citing the available hints that Gaddafi might have been suffering from a guilty conscience. In a private 1999 interview with another journalist, Milton Viorst, Gaddafi edged towards a kind of confession, the book notes. As Viorst reported it, the leader said" Whether we were responsible for bringing down the French plane [uTA 772] will be decided by a French court. We dont say anything about it. The same is true of Lockerbie. I cant answer as to wether Libya was responsible. Lets let the court decide. [9] That's not a full denial, but nowhere near an admission. But it was ambiguous enough that an aide later told Viorst Gaddafi was not talking officially and referred him to the Foreign Minister for the government's official story (few realize that Gaddafi is not really the government of Libya). Not being published in the book, we can presume this was the same claim of innocence Libya has always maintained. In spring 2001, the book continues, Gaddafi reportedly slipped again, and confessed to diplomat Michael Steiner that Libya had been behind the Lockerbie bombing as well as the LaBelle disco bombing in Germany, but had since stopped terrorism and wanted to make up. The source for this was a cable of a top-level meeting with German and American leaders, including President Bush and Chancellor Schroder. A New York Times article from May 23 cites the leaked cable thus: "Steiner reported on his talks with Qaddafi in Libya. Qaddafi admitted that Libya took part in terrorist actions (La Belle, Lockerbie). He clarified that he had abandoned terrorism and seeks the opportunity to make Libya's new position known. Qaddafi, too, is worried about fundamentalist trends." Americans were upset this was leaked to the public, and it caused quite a row between Steiner, a flamboyant attention-seeker, and others in the German government, but they confirmed that "La Belle" and "Lockerbie" were specifically mentioned by Mr. Steiner in this context. Whatever exactly that proves. [10] Owning Up in '03? Many suspect the Zeist trial was never supposed to happen, as the evidence behind the indictment was too weak to stand up at Trial. The Crown's prosecutors managed to swing it somehow, but it took nearly two years from the handover, and a display of mental gymnastics worthy of the Realpolitik Olympics in the scale and skill of it. On January 31 2001, the three-judge panel made it official Megrahi was legally guilty for the plot, and Fhimah was not guilty. From there, many insisted sanctions should be lifted to reflect Libyas good faith through this process. But Bush and Blair balked, demanding an admission of guilt and contrition, plus compensation to victims families, before they went past suspension. It was a letter, dated 15 August 2003, from Libyas Permanent Representative to the President of the Council Ahmed A. Own, that paved the way. Own's letter explains the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, as Libya calls itself, has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years on solving the problems made theirs resulting from the Lockerbie incident. It was in this spirit that they facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials. [11] Presumably they mean real actions, making this another dodge in some minds. But the letter also pledged Libya to cooperate with any further investigations, and to settle all compensation claims with haste, and to join the international War on Terrorism. It was widely (and reservedly) hailed as a bold… statement. But still evasive. It doesnt clearly state anywhere the suspects or any Libyans were in any way actually guilty of the incident. Nonetheless, after a month of discussion in the Security Council, sanctions were lifted on Sept. 12 2003. France and the US insisted on abstaining, but it was otherwise a unanimous vote of 13. The United States own sanctions would remain in full force due to the general evilness of col. Gaddafy, US officials made clear. (Additional normalizations did happen in 2007). Theres been much oxymoronic harping on this 2003 letter in the West as both an admission of guilt and an arrogant refusal to admit their guilt. The BBCs 2008 Conspiracy Files episode on Lockerbie is a brilliant example. For those that believe al Megrahi was framed, snarls the narrator, Carolyn Katz, one fact remains hard to explain away. Libya agreed to award substantial compensation for Lockerbie. Sanctions were then lifted. [12] Well, ignoring that they just answered their own stumper of a question, its a good question. Why would they agree on their responsibility and get sanctions lifted unless they knew they were guilty? Just to get sanctions lifted? The movie continues: Tripoli accepted responsibility for what it called the Lockerbie incident. But does it admit guilt? Of course not, and by pretending theres some disconnect, theyve primed the audience to see the darkest of cynicism at work. No Other Solution Despite his portrayals as a crazed prophet of death, Moammar Gadaffi proved a shrewd and patient pragmatist in all this. He can't have ever believed his nation actually did the crime, but against "guilty" as a legal truth, he accepted they had no choice but to do the time. Its a type of bind known to breed passive-aggressive tendencies. The Colonels son and likely successor Saif al Islam al Gaddafi (left) seems to understand the dilemma. When he was interviewed at home for the same Conspiracy Files program (latter minutes), he was respectably candid, but came across strangely anyway. Q - Does Libya accept responsibility for the attack on Lockerbie? A - Yes. We wrote a letter to the Security Council, saying that we are responsible for the acts of our employees, or people. But it doesnt mean that we did it, in fact. Q - So to be very clear on this, what youre saying is that you accept responsibility, but youre not admitting that you did it. A - Of course. (edit) Q - Thats… to many people will sound like a very cynical way to conduct your relationship with the outside world. A - What can you do? Without writing that letter, you will not be able to get out of the sanction. Q - So this statement was just word play. It wasnt an admission of guilt. A - No. I admit that we play with the words. And we had to. We had to. There was no other… solution. [13] The BBC are masters, among others, of careful editing, and it helped bolster their whole you dont admit youre guilty thing where people have to explain theres nothing to admit (or fail to explain that, as happened here). Thus he could, with a little imagination, appear to be saying we dont admit it, buuuuut of course we did it, you already know that. Note the cut that removed some of his words from the middle of the exchange, unlikely to have been irrelevant. Thus is clearly established a cynical payout ($2.7 billion) and bit of semantics to buy up and slough off their non-admitted guilt so they could resume trade. They got away with Lockerbie using money and words and are laughing at us and making more money! Immediately after there was no other solution, the video cuts right to the interviewer asking so it was like blood money if you like, which seems to be referring to what was just shown. But really it refers to the American victims' families, whose money, money, money, money attitude (well-known and spearheaded by Victims of PA103 Inc.) was materialistic, greedy, and amounted to trading with the blood of their sons and daughters. It's tactless statement, but with the magic of editing, it can seem to mean so much more! --- Sources: [1] History of UN Sanctions on Libya. href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/195-libya/42383.html [2] Gerson, Allan and Jerry Adler. "The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink. Harper Collins, 2001. [3] Thomas, Pierre and Thomas W. Lippman. $4 Million Reward Offered in Pan Am Case. Washington Post. March 24 1995. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/panam103/stories/reward032495.htm [4] Gerson and Adler pp 101-102 [4.5] "Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism: Libya" The Peterson Institute. Date given as October 14 1996, Source given as International Herald Tribune, 14 October 1995, 13. http://www.petersoninstitute.org/research/topics/sanctions/libya.cfm [5] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/8/23958.shtml [6] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/8/23958.shtml [7] Biewen, John and Ian Ferguson. "Mass Murder Over Scotland." Shadow over Lockerie series. American Radio Works, 2000. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/lockerbie/story/printable_story.html [8] http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/honor-among-terrorists [9] Gerson and Adler, pp 290-291 [10] Cohen, Roger. "German cable on Qaddafi sets off dispute." The New York Times. May 23 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/world/german-cable-on-qaddafi-sets-off-dispute.html?pagewanted=all [11] UN Security Council. Letter dated 15 August 2003... http://www.undemocracy.com/S-2003-818.pdf [12] UN Security Council. 12 September 2003/ Press Release SC/7868: Security Council Lifts Sanctions Imposed on Libya. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm [13] The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie." Prod/Dir Guy Smith, Ex Prod Sam Anstiss, Narr Caroline Catz. BBC Two. First Aired 31 August 2008. 52:49 mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-327765978162851498&hl=en# [14] see 13, 53:40 mark

One does have to ask, are you the only member of COPA that thinks Gaddafi did Lockerbie ? I just ask the question. Why dont we take a poll in Dallas and see ?? NOW IN PART TWO THE DUDES LAWYER ADMITS THE DISCO HELPER WAS MOSSAD,ADMITS,ADMITS,WOW !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ==================================ooooooo===================== **********************************++++++++******************** PART ONE August 31, 2011 Lockerbie and the Belgian Nurses Gaddafi’s Libya as Demon by DIANA JOHNSTONE The current ideology to justify aggressive war is based on a dogmatic dichotomy between Democracy and Dictators. The pro-war party in the West has been shifting the center of international law and order from the United Nations to a more exclusive club of “democracies” which alone have “legitimacy”. The core of this club is the English-speaking world, plus Israel, the European Union, and Japan. This “International Community” of democracies is understood to possess the unique moral right to decide when the leader of any country outside their charmed circle may be denounced as a “dictator” and overthrown with the help of a NATO bombing campaign. This ideology assumes that Democracies respect human rights, whereas dictators by definition are criminals who systematically violate human rights and may be contemplating “genocide against their own people”. Certain details, such as the fact that the United States has the largest prison population in the world in both absolute and relative terms, and uses convicts for cheap labor in the arms industry, are not allowed to interfere with this dualistic world view. The mainstream media maintain this dichotomy by sustained bias in their coverage of countries labeled “dictatorships” – which may include some countries whose leaders are in fact elected, such as Venezuela, Russia, Serbia under Milosevic, Belarus, but who attempt to follow policies contrary to the dictates of the self-designated “International Community”. Not all such countries may actually by attacked militarily, but the image created will make military attack easily justifiable if and when the time comes. Selective reporting reduces the country to its Dictator and a minority of “pro-democracy protesters”. The Dictator is portrayed as a criminal, with no virtues that could possibly justify any popular support within his own country. The Case of Libya The case of Libya illustrates the way this works. Decades of one-sided media coverage firmly established Libyan leader Moammer Gaddafi as an insane criminal. To the Western public whose only knowledge of Libya came from Western media reports, it would seem obvious that the Libyan people must unanimously want to get rid of such a leader. It is obvious that there are people in Libya who hate Gaddafi and want to get rid of him. What is not obvious is exactly what they want to put in his place and just how representative they really are of the population as a whole. In the West, the main reason to hate Gaddafi in recent years has been the Lockerbie bombing. For two decades, the allegation that the Libyan leader was responsible for the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been kept in the public eye by mainstream media. Last February, leaders of the emerging rebellion in Libya gave interviews with Western media claiming to have documentary proof that Gaddafi ordered the terrorist attack that killed 270 people. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, former Libyan justice minister who heads the “National Transitional Council” in Benghazi told The Daily Telegraph that: “The orders were given by Gaddafi himself”. Few in the West are likely to object that if the NTC leaders really possess such proof , they have been complicit in the crime for decades. Nor will Western media raise the question as to why the wily Gaddafi would leave “documentary proof” of orders to commit a terrorist act lying around for 23 years. These claims serve to bond the NTC leaders with the Western powers, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, and to suggest a community of legality between them against “the criminal Gaddafi”. They help build the fiction of “legitimate, representative leaders of the Libyan people” whose views of human rights, democracy and the misdeeds of the evil dictator Gaddafi coincide with Western attitudes, as expressed by Western politicians and media. By implication, the Libyan people have known all along that their leader is a mass murderer. This must be one reason the decent citizens want to get rid of him. But is this true? Lockerbie in Libya My visit to Libya in January 2007, to attend an international conference on the International Criminal Court, gave me the opportunity to hold private conversations with a number of well-educated Libyans who clearly knew a lot more about the West than the West knew about them. I was particularly interested in getting the take of unofficial Libyan citizens on two issues that at the time dominated Western perception of Libya: Lockerbie and the affair of the Bulgarian nurses. I should mention that I never got near Gaddafi, and the conference was sponsored by academics who held diverse opinions on important issues, often unlike those of the Leader, which didn’t seem to bother anyone. But on the issue of Lockerbie, I discovered two general widespread points of agreement. On the one hand, nobody believed that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. It was taken for granted that Libya had been unfairly accused for political reasons. On the other hand, it was clear that the sanctions imposed by the West to punish Libya for its alleged guilt had caused hardship and discontent. The power of the West both to impose sanctions and to project its images amounts to serious interference in the domestic politics of targeted countries, since very many people, especially the young, want to live in a “normal” country and may resent leaders who cause them to be treated as pariahs by the West. Therefore, it was understood that Gaddafi had finally given in to Western pressure to accept responsibility – but not guilt – for Lockerbie merely in order to get the unpopular sanctions lifted. The fact that he agreed to turn over two Libyan citizens to a Western court to be tried for the crime and to pay over two billion dollars of compensation to the victims was explicitly not an admission of guilt, but rather a response to blackmail by Great Powers in order to normalize relations and improve daily life. This did not surprise me, since over the years I had read a lot about the Lockerbie case. Indeed, a great deal has been written exposing the weakness of the prosecution’s case, based on a totally implausible scenario (a bomb to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight was allegedly sent via airports in Malta, Frankfurt and London), technical “evidence” that had been tampered with by CIA agents, and a witness who was richly rewarded for testimony which did not fit the facts. All this has been told many times, for instance Andrew Cockburn in the CounterPunch newsletter, or the London Review of Books, “The Framing of al-Megrahi” by British lawyer Gareth Peirce. But the fact that the case has been repeatedly exposed by careful analysis as a probable frame-up has not made the slightest impression on mainstream media and politicians who continue to blast Gaddafi as the monster who ordered the Lockerbie massacre. One may add that at the time of the event in 1988, it was widely assumed that Iran had ordered the attack in retaliation for U.S. downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf. When the United States, switching from its anti-Iran alliance with Iraq to war against Saddam Hussein, decided to accuse Libya instead, no motive was ever produced. But when a “dictator” has been stigmatized as a monster, no motive is needed. He just did it because that is the sort of thing evil dictators are supposed to do. The two accused Libyan airline employees working in Malta had been put on trial in 2000 by three Scottish judges without a jury in a specially built court in the Netherlands. One of the Libyans was acquitted and the other, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The United Nations observer at this peculiar trial, Hans Köchler, called the guilty verdict “incomprehensible”, “arbitrary, even irrational” and noted “an air of international power politics” surrounding the proceedings. On November 12, 2006, the Glasgow Sunday Herald quoted top State Department legal advisor Michael Scharf, who was the counsel to the US counter-terrorism bureau when the two Libyans were indicted for the bombing, as calling the case “so full of holes it was like Swiss cheese” and said it should never have gone to trial. He claimed the CIA and FBI had assured State Department officials there was an “iron-clad” case against the two Libyans, but that in reality the intelligence agencies knew well in advance of the trial that their star witness was “a xxxx”. But Great Powers can’t back down. Their sacred “credibility” is at stake. In short, they must keep lying to preserve the illusion of infallibility. At the time I was in Tripoli, the defense team of the convicted Libyan was trying to appeal the conviction to a higher court. I was able to call on one of the lawyers on Megrahi’s defense team. I spent a long time in her office, trying to overcome her reluctance to speak about the case. Finally, she agreed to talk to me when I promised to keep our conversation to myself, so as not to risk harming the appeal. By now, the circumstances have changed drastically. Here, briefly, is what she told me. The Scottish judges were under enormous pressure to convict the two Libyans. After all, for years their guilt had been trumpeted by the United States demanding that they be “brought to justice”. A special court had been set up with the obvious purpose of convicting them. Yet the evidence which would merit conviction in a proper Scottish court was simply not there. The best the judges dared to do was to acquit one of the defendants and pass along the responsibility for acquitting the other to a higher court. But to the dismay of the Libyan defense team, the designated court of appeals evaded the dangerous issue by disqualifying itself. So now an appeal was being prepared for another high court, complete with new evidence further discrediting the prosecution case. And in fact, five months later, on June 28, 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which had been investigating the case since 2003, recommended that Abdel Basset al-Megrahi be granted a second appeal against his conviction. The Commission said it had uncovered six separate grounds for considering that the conviction may have been an injustice. The announcement caused a sensation in the small circles following the affair. It seemed that Scottish justice was courageous enough to assert itself and allow hearings that would expose the CIA frame-up. That sort of thing may happen in movies, but the real world is something else. A sordid bargain What happened after that helped set the stage for the NATO attack on Libya this year. Time passed. It was two years later, in April 2009, that the appeal finally was due to get underway. But meanwhile, behind the scenes, secret bargaining was going on, amid leaks and rumors. On August 21, 2009, on grounds that he was suffering from terminal cancer, Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland by the Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill and allowed to “go home to die”. Now, it so happens that in 2007, Tony Blair went to Libya to negotiate a British-Libyan agreement with Gaddafi covering law, extradition and prisoner transfer. Under this Prisoner Transfer Agreement, Libyan authorities asked for Megrahi to be sent home due to his illness. The catch was that the Prisoner Transfer Agreement could be applied only when no legal proceedings were outstanding. So in order to benefit from it, Megrahi had to drop his appeal. The matter is confused by the fact that he was formally released on “compassionate” grounds. One way or another, the deal was clear: al-Megrahi could go home, but the appeal was dead. Hans Kochler, UN-appointed special observer to the Lockerbie trial, thought Megrahi may have been subjected to “morally outrageous” blackmail to abandon his appeal against his will. The sordid aspect of this bargain is that it deprived Megrahi of the right to clear his name, while leaving the CIA frame-up officially unexposed. There was nothing to counter the chorus of protestations from Hillary Clinton on down denouncing Scotland for having “freed the Lockerbie bomber”. Two years later, news that Megrahi has failed to die has elicited further indignation from Western media, who see this as proof that the UK had “sold the Lockerbie bomber for Libyan oil”. Naturally, the impression must be conveyed that the sly Libyan dictator tricked the naïve but greedy Brits into selling out their principles for petroleum. But it is just as likely that it was the naïve Libyan dictator who was tricked by the unscrupulous British into thinking he had made a “gentleman’s agreement”. Rather than pursue an appeal which risked causing acute embarrassment to Western authorities, Megrahi could be released and the matter forgotten. The popular rejoicing at Megrahi’s return home was muted in Libya, but Western media pretended to be scandalized that a convicted mass murderer received a hero’s welcome. In reality, he was welcomed home discreetly as an innocent man who had been unjustly convicted, not as a mass murderer. And whenever he has been able to make himself heard, he has reiterated his desire to clear his name. The Bulgarian nurses The other subject I asked about while I was in Tripoli in 2007 was the plight of the Bulgarian nurses. In 2004, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor working in a Benghazi hospital were sentenced to death for allegedly having infected children with the HIV virus. Everyone in the West, myself included, assumed this was an outrageous injustice. When I raised the issue with highly Westernized, liberal Libyan intellectuals, I fully expected to hear strong criticism of the dictator for persecuting defenseless health workers. I was quite surprised when the reaction was somewhat different. “Of course they are innocent”, I said. The gentleman with whom I was talking, whom I could loosely describe as anti-Gaddafi, shook his head. “That’s not so clear”, he replied. And so I began to learn what was explained a few months later by Harriet Washington in a New York Times column, namely that: “The evidence against the Bulgarian medical team, like H.I.V.-contaminated vials discovered in their apartments, has seemed to Westerners preposterous. But to dismiss the Libyan accusations of medical malfeasance out of hand means losing an opportunity to understand why a dangerous suspicion of medicine is so widespread in Africa. “Africa has harbored a number of high-profile Western medical miscreants who have intentionally administered deadly agents under the guise of providing health care or conducting research.” My conversations in Libya did not convince me that the Bulgarian health workers were guilty, but they did give me a new insight into the Libyan viewpoint. On the African continent, it was easy for even highly rational people to believe that foreign health workers might have been paid to infect children, either for experimental purposes or to “destabilize” the public health system. Secondly, it became clear that this was not a case of “the dictator Gaddafi” persecuting innocents. The arrest, alleged torture and conviction of the Bulgarian nurses were carried out by authorities in Benghazi. Indeed, last March 11, the day after France recognized the rebel National Transitional Council as the “sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people”, Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borisov complained to a European summit in Brussels that key members of that council in Benghazi “are the people who tortured the Bulgarian medics for eight years and that this cost us nearly $60 million” in reparations to the infected children and their families. In January 2007, I was also assured by people in Tripoli that the death sentence against the nurses would never be carried out. This was true. In August of that same year, the medical workers were freed by the Gaddafi family and allowed to go home to Bulgaria after a much publicized trip to Libya by President Sarkozy’s wife at the time, Cecilia. This liberation was presented as a final reconciliation between Gaddafi’s Libya and Europe. I abstained from writing about this for years, because I feel I do not know enough about Libya. But now I see others, who know even less, loudly advocating NATO support to rebels in a civil war whose real motives and consequences are obscure. My first conclusion is to point out that just because a country is not a Western-style democracy does not mean that everything that happens there is “dictated” by a “dictator”. The term “dictator” serves to comfort the laziness of media and politicians who do not care to bother to investigate the complexities of an unfamiliar society. My second and final conclusion is that we in the West have neither the right nor the ability to “fix” those unfamiliar societies such as Libya which we dismiss as “dictatorships”. As the financial crisis threatens to bring living standards in much of the West below what they were in Gaddafi’s Libya before NATO intervened there, our Western “democracy” is in danger of being gradually reduced to a mere ideological excuse to attack, ravage and pillage other people’s countries. Diana Johnstone is author of Fools’ Crusade. She can be reached at diana.josto@yahoo.fr ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^#############^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^################# oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo+ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo******** PART TWO German TV exposes CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing #################ooooooo################## oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb1-a27.shtml By a German correspondent 27 August 1998 A documentary broadcast August 25 by German public television presents compelling evidence that some of the main suspects in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, the event that provided the pretext for a US air assault on Libya, worked for American and Israeli intelligence. The report, aired by Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF television), is of the greatest relevance to events of the past three weeks, in which attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have become the justification for US missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, and a shift in American foreign policy to an even more unbridled use of military force internationally. With Washington declaring "war against terrorism" and arrogating to itself the right to use its military might unilaterally against any target anywhere in the world, the German TV report raises the most serious and disturbing questions. All the more so, since the US media and leading Republican politicians, within hours of the American embassy bombings, began citing Reagan's 1986 air attack on Libya as an exemplary response to terrorist attacks, and pressed Clinton to carry out similar military action. The air strike on Libya On April 15, 1986 US war planes bombed the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. They destroyed the home of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and killed at least 30 civilians, including many children. Gaddafi himself, the main target of the air strike, was not hurt. Two hours later President Ronald Reagan justified the unprecedented attack on a sovereign country and its head of state in a national television address. The US, Reagan claimed, had "direct, precise and irrefutable" proof that Libya was responsible for a bomb blast in a West Berlin discotheque. The explosion 10 days earlier at the disco La Belle, a favorite nightspot for US soldiers, had killed three people and injured 200. Since November of 1997 five defendants have been on trial in a Berlin court for their alleged involvement in the La Belle attack. But in the course of more than half a year the case has proceeded very slowly. ZDF television, which carried out its own investigation into the case, explained why in the August 25 documentary produced by its political magazine Frontal. What the German documentary reveals The Frontal report arrives at the following conclusions: 1) The lead defendant presently on trial, Yasser Chraidi, is very possibly innocent, and is being used as a scapegoat by German and American intelligence services. 2) At least one of the defendants, Musbah Eter, has been working for the CIA over many years. 3) Some of the key suspects have not appeared in court, because they are being protected by Western intelligence services. 4) At least one of those, Mohammed Amairi, is an agent of Mossad, the Israeli secret service. The man charged with being the mastermind of the La Belle attack, 38-year-old Yasser Chraidi, was a driver at the Libyan embassy in East Berlin in 1986. He later moved to Lebanon, from whence he was extradited to Germany in May 1996. Frontal interviewed the two Lebanese responsible for the extradition of Chraidi: the former public prosecutor Mounif Oueidat and his deputy Mrad Azoury. Both confirm that the German authorities used deceit to have Chraidi extradited. According to Azoury, he received no evidence that Chraidi was actually involved in the attack; there were only "hints." Oueidat states that the Germans showed tremendous interest in getting Chraidi. "The Americans were behind this demand," he says. "This was obvious. They spurred on the Germans to speed up the extradition." Eventually Chraidi, declared to be a "top terrorist," was flown to Germany in a spectacular security operation. But a Berlin judge found the evidence presented by the prosecution so weak, he threatened to release Chraidi within three weeks unless more proof was presented. At this point another man was brought into the case, who, according to Frontal, "was obviously supposed to be spared by the prosecution until then." On September 9, 1996, the very day the Berlin judge threatened to release Chraidi, Berlin public prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, Berlin police inspector Uwe Wilhelms and a Mr. Winterstein of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) met Musbah Eter in the Mediterranean island state of Malta. CIA involvement The meeting had been prepared by the BND, which maintains close connections to its American counterpart, the CIA. Musbah Eter was running an international business in Malta, which, according to Frontal, served as a cover for extensive intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The German authorities wanted him on a murder charge. But during the Malta meeting a deal was struck: "Immunity for Eter, if he incriminates Chraidi for La Belle." The next day Eter went to the German embassy and testified. As a result, the warrant against him was scrapped and he was allowed to travel to Germany. In the words of Frontal, Eter is "the key figure in the La Belle trial." At the time of the disco bomb attack he worked for the Libyan embassy in East Berlin. But he paid regular visits to the US embassy. According to Christian Ströbele, the lawyer for Chraidi, this highly unusual fact is proven by extensive notes of the East German secret police, who watched Eter very closely at the time. There are many indications that Eter was actively involved in the La Belle bombing. According to interrogation transcripts studied by Frontal, he had the detailed knowledge of a participant. He even admitted that he brought the operating instructions for the bomb to the flat of a codefendant. Frontal asserts that besides the defendants in the present trial, another group was involved in the La Belle bombing--a group of professional terrorists, working for anybody who paid them, led by a certain "Mahmoud" Abu Jaber. Members of this group, according to Frontal, "have barely been bothered by the prosecution and live securely in other countries." In the months preceding the La Belle attack they lived in East Berlin and met, almost on a daily basis, with the present defendants. Hours before the attack they moved to West Berlin, where the bomb exploded. Their movements were monitored by the East German and Russian secret services, who concluded that they were working for Western intelligence. The Russian KGB, in a document cited by Frontal, gave the opinion that American counterintelligence planned to use "Mahmoud" to concoct a case for the involvement of Libyan terrorists in the attack. According to the same KGB document, "Mahmoud" had warned West Berlin intelligence two days before the explosion. Frontal followed the traces of Mohammed Amairi, the right-hand man of "Mahmoud" Abu Jaber, who, according to the documents it has studied, "was particularly involved in the preparation of the La Belle attack." An agent of Mossad Amairi left Germany for Norway in 1990, when a warrant was issued for his arrest. He now lives in the Norwegian town of Bergen, where Frontal found and interviewed him. He stopped the interview when he was asked what secret service he had been working for. His lawyer, Odd Drevland, finally told the story. When Amairi moved to Norway he was arrested and branded "a danger to the country" on the front page of tabloids. But then the Israeli secret service Mossad took charge of him and "everything changed." "Was Amairi a Mossad agent?" asked Frontal. "He was a Mossad man," answered Drevland. In the meantime, Norway has granted asylum to Amairi and he will soon receive Norwegian citizenship. The Berlin prosecutor has lifted the warrant against him. "These secret service intrigues present a task for the Berlin court that is almost insoluble," concludes the Frontal report. "But one thing is certain, the American legend of Libyan state terrorism can no longer be maintained." There are striking parallels between the 1986 bombing of Libya and last week's missile strikes against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Once again Washington claims to have "proof" to justify its use of deadly force. But as the Frontal report shows, such claims cannot be trusted. Twelve years after the bombing of Libya, Reagan's proof turns out to be anything but irrefutable. Instead there is powerful evidence that the La Belle attack was a carefully prepared provocation. It may come as a shock to many Americans, all the more so given the utterly venal and lying role of the US media, but US intelligence services are well versed in the most unscrupulous and bloody methods, not excluding those that result in injury or death to Americans. No serious consideration of the August 7 East African bombings can rule out the possibility of a provocation, organized either directly or indirectly by US agencies. Certainly the US embassy bombings, with their terrible human toll--for the most part, African--provided a welcome pretext for forcing through a desired shift in policy and obtaining public support for unilateral military action. Indeed, within hours of the US embassy bombings, the International Herald Tribune had published a column declaring the attacks were "acts of war and the United States could take reprisals against the bombers under international law without the approval of the United Nations." We wait with interest to see whether any of the American television networks--CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN--or any of the establishment newspapers will even take note of the German exposé of the events surrounding the bombing of Libya. We have no expectation that they will. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******

Libya: "The Price of Freedom" Highest Standard of Living in Africa by Joachim Guilliard April 27,2011 ink http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24518 Translation from German by John Catalinotto Original article: Libyen – Überlegungen zum drohenden „Preis der Freiheit" Libya has the highest living standard in Africa. The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country has excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. There has been little reaching the European public in the past few years about Libya, whose relationship with the West had normalized. European leaders met with their Libyan counterpart Muammar al-Gadhafi often and business flourished. In the course of preparation for war, the country was suddenly transformed into the most evil dictatorship. Even many war opponents accepted this characterization as their own and now want to overthrow the "tyrant." But if Libyan society can really be reduced to the "revolutionary leader" Gadhafi in Libya, is the situation really worse than in a hundred other countries and are there not many more factors that determine the living conditions of a country, besides Western-style "freedoms"? For Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine, the "degree of repression" in Libya is not "more pervasive and severe" than in other authoritarian countries. Even according to Amnesty International's country reports of human rights conditions, that of Libya differs little from many other countries; regarding the Arab allies in the NATO war alliance, such as Saudi Arabia, it is even much worse. The UN Human Rights Council has praised the country in its latest report on the "universal periodic review" of Libya, which was made late last year, even for its progress on human rights. Many countries -- including Venezuela and Cuba, but also Australia and Canada -- raised in their statements some aspects that still deserve special mention. (See also UN Praised Libya's Human Rights Record, Mathaba, April 8, 2011) For the Western media, this report, whose final debate has now been shifted abruptly from March to June, is a scandal (for them it’s the result of there being many "less civilized" members of the Human Rights Council, those from the world’s South). But what these countries did was to view living conditions from a different perspective, one that places a strong emphasis on the realization of social rights, i.e., the satisfaction of basic needs, including adequate income, food, housing, health care and education. Also in this regard the situation in Libya is, from the point of view of corruption and high youth unemployment, thoroughly unsatisfactory. Compared with other countries, however, the Libyans are still in good shape and have a lot to lose from the NATO intervention. Although the media often refers to youth unemployment of 15 to 30 percent, it does not mention that in Libya, in contrast to other countries, all have their subsistence guaranteed. The relatively high standard of living also explains why Gadhafi definitely still has support in the country -- particularly, according to Libya expert Andreas Dittmann, among the older generations, who remember the old days. "In Libya, there may be millions who dislike Gaddafi but like much of what he accomplished," according to the famous Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung (The West's War Against Gadhafi - Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity, IPS, Global Research , April 6, 2011) Sanctions and low oil prices slowed development When in 1969 the U.S. and the British-backed King Idris was overthrown, Libya was still a poor, undeveloped country weighed down by its colonial past despite ongoing oil exports that began in 1961. The gradual nationalization of oil production allowed for accelerated economic development and rapid improvements in living conditions. With the sharp fall in oil prices 1985-2001, this development came to a standstill. The 1993 UN-imposed sanctions enormously aggravated Libya’s economic difficulties. The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita declined from $6,600 in 1990 to $3,600 in 2002 (World Bank, World Development Indicators) and has grown only after the lifting of UN sanctions in September 2003. (The United States lifted its unilateral sanctions in stages from 2004 until June 2006.) In 2008, the GDP per capita, expressed in purchasing power, according to UNDP Database, reached $16,200 U.S. (For comparison, the GDP of Egypt was in the same year $5,900, that of Algeria and Tunisia $8,000. Saudi Arabia had a GDP of about $24,000, Kuwait and Qatar of $72,000 and $51,500 dollars respectively.) The economic sanctions blocked the modernization of Libya’s infrastructure and in especially brought all development plans, besides in the petroleum industry also in others, to a virtual standstill. (Jean-Pierre Sereni, The subtleties of Libyan crude, Le Monde diplomatique, April 8, 2011, free version at Counterpunch) The economic decline accordingly slowed the development also in social sectors. In the measure of its "Human Development Index" (HDI), which investigates the root values of some basic indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy development to evaluate the living standard of a country, Libya also slumped in the mid-1990s from 67th to 73rd place. High standard of living achieved After government revenue, supported by rising oil prices, richly flowed once more, living conditions have clearly improved. The country now ranks 53rd on the HDI index, better than all other African countries and also better than the richer and Western-backed Saudi Arabia. Using "Government subsidies in health, agriculture and food imports," along with "a simultaneous increase in household income," could "extreme poverty" be virtually eliminated, stated the UNDP in its monitor of the millennium development goals of the UN. (Millennium Development Goals: Goal 1 - Goal 8, UNDP Libya Office) The life expectancy rose to 74.5 years and is now the highest in Africa. It is now almost one and a half years higher than in Saudi Arabia, which was the reverse of the situation in 1980 (UNDP Database) The infant mortality rate declined to 17 deaths per 1,000 births and is not nearly as high as in Algeria (41) and also lower than in Saudi Arabia (21). (WHO, Global Health Indicators 2010) Libya is also ahead in the care of pregnant women and the reduction of maternal mortality. Malaria was eradicated completely. According to the UNDP, a lack of human resources in health care still presents a problem, but "the gradual reintegration of the country into the international economy after the lifting of sanctions" is leading "to better availability of health care. The government provides all citizens with free health care and achieved high coverage in the most basic health areas." The illiteracy rate dropped to 11.6 percent in Libya, and is well below that of Egypt (33.6 percent), Algeria (27.4 percent), Tunisia (22 percent) and Saudi Arabia (14.5 percent). (See Human Development Report 2010) The UNDP-calculated Education Index, which in addition to literacy also includes the number of pupils in secondary schools and university students, is even higher than that of small super-rich emirates Kuwait and Qatar, which can hardly be compared with the Arab territorial states. (See UNDP, Arab Human Development Report 2009 and UNDP, Human Development Report 2009) The UNDP certified that Libya has also made "a significant progress in gender equality," particularly in the fields of education and health, while there is still much to do regarding representation in politics and the economy. With a relative low "index of gender inequality" the UNDP places the country in the Human Development Report 2010 concerning gender equality at rank 52 and thus also well ahead of Egypt (ranked 108), Algeria (70), Tunisia (56), Saudi Arabia (ranked 128) and Qatar (94). Even Argentina (ranked 60) seems worse in this regard. In view of these achievements, the positive Human Rights assessment of developments in Libya should hardly be a surprise. The example of Iraq In 1980, Iraq also had a relatively high living standard, even higher than that of Libya. This collapsed massively under the murderous UN embargo [1990-2003]. Their "liberation" from Saddam Hussein then toppled Iraqi society completely into the abyss. The collapse is still going on. Millions of Iraqis are starving, and the lack of food is still increasing. Half of the nearly 30 million people are now living in extreme poverty. Some 55 percent have no clean drinking water, 80 percent are not connected to the sewage system. Electricity is available only an hour here, an hour there; the once good health and education systems are flattened. Had the development of the conditions in the 1980s continued, the infant mortality rate would now well below 20 per 1000 births. In fact, according to a study by the aid agency Save the Children, by 2005 it had increased to 125. Iraq had been recognized by UNESCO in 1987 for its education system; illiteracy had been almost eliminated. Now, the illiteracy rate has already increased to over 25 percent in some areas it is already 40-50 percent among women. In general, Iraqi women have lost their once very good position in society. According to UNDP's index, they fell to the level of Saudi Arabia. (See Iraq - The Forgotten Occupation) There is no reason to assume that a "regime change" in Libya enforced by the NATO states would come out much better for the country (not to mention a long civil war and partition of the country altogether). Finally, the attacking forces and their agenda is almost identical and in many ways the leadership of the insurgency resembles the Iraqis that the U.S. set up in the government there -- that is, radical Islamic organizations and pro-Western, neo-liberal advocates of a complete opening to imperialism, and privatization of the economy of the country. Note Wikipedia is only partially useful regarding access to statistical data. As soon as it is playing a role in a current political debate, there is a danger of manipulation. After David Rothscum published on Feb. 23, 2011 his article, "The World Cheers As The CIA Libya Plunges Into Chaos" published in which he and others wrote that living in Libya, a lower percentage of people below the poverty line than in the Netherlands, the information in the Wikipedia article "List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty" to which Rothscum referred were changed. According to the Article-History on Feb. 15 a value of 7.4 percent could be found, since March 6 a reference is made in a footnote, without any listing of a source, that "around a third of the Libyans live at or below the national poverty line." :: Article nr. 77210 sent on 28-apr-2011 05:04 ECT www.uruknet.info?p=77210 *************--------******* ################################################========######################### ========================================================================****

link http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-ten-myths-in-the-war-against-libya/ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO August 31, 2011 A Victory for the Libyan People? ooooo The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya -----------------------------ooo--------- by MAXIMILIAN C. FORTE Since Colonel Gaddafi has lost his military hold in the war against NATO and the insurgents/rebels/new regime, numerous talking heads have taken to celebrating this war as a “success”. They believe this is a “victory of the Libyan people” and that we should all be celebrating. Others proclaim victory for the “responsibility to protect,” for “humanitarian interventionism,” and condemn the “anti-imperialist left”. Some of those who claim to be “revolutionaries,” or believe they support the “Arab revolution,” somehow find it possible to sideline NATO’s role in the war, instead extolling the democratic virtues of the insurgents, glorifying their martyrdom, and magnifying their role until everything else is pushed from view. I wish to dissent from this circle of acclamation, and remind readers of the role of ideologically-motivated fabrications of “truth” that were used to justify, enable, enhance, and motivate the war against Libya—and to emphasize how damaging the practical effects of those myths have been to Libyans, and to all those who favoured peaceful, non-militarist solutions. These top ten myths are some of the most repeated claims, by the insurgents, and/or by NATO, European leaders, the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and even the so-called “International Criminal Court”—the main actors speaking in the war against Libya. In turn, we look at some of the reasons why these claims are better seen as imperial folklore, as the myths that supported the broadest of all myths—that this war is a “humanitarian intervention,” one designed to “protect civilians”. Again, the importance of these myths lies in their wide reproduction, with little question, and to deadly effect. In addition, they threaten to severely distort the ideals of human rights and their future invocation, as well aiding in the continued militarization of Western culture and society. 1. Genocide. Just a few days after the street protests began, on February 21 the very quick to defect Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, stated: “We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli. The airplanes are still bringing mercenaries to the airports”. This is excellent: a myth that is composed of myths. With that statement he linked three key myths together—the role of airports (hence the need for that gateway drug of military intervention: the no-fly zone), the role of “mercenaries” (meaning, simply, black people), and the threat of “genocide” (geared toward the language of the UN’s doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect). As ham-fisted and wholly unsubstantiated as the assertion was, he was clever in cobbling together three ugly myths, one of them grounded in racist discourse and practice that endures to the present, with newer atrocities reported against black Libyan and African migrants on a daily basis. He was not alone in making these assertions. Among others like him, Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights, told Reuters on March 14 that if Gaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi, “there will be a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda”. That’s not the only time we would be deliberately reminded of Rwanda. Here was Lt. Gen Roméo Dallaire, the much worshipped Canadian force commander of the U.N. peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in 1994, currently an appointed senator in the Canadian Parliament and co-director of the Will to Intervene project at Concordia University. Dallaire, in a precipitous sprint to judgment, not only made repeated references to Rwanda when trying to explain Libya, he spoke of Gaddafi as “employing genocidal threats to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’”. This is one instance where selective attention to Gaddafi’s rhetorical excess was taken all too seriously, when on other occasions the powers that be are instead quick to dismiss it: U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner waved away Gaddafi’s alleged threats against Europe by saying that Gaddafi is “someone who’s given to overblown rhetoric”. How very calm, by contrast, and how very convenient—because on February 23, President Obama declared that he had instructed his administration to come up with a “full range of options” to take against Gaddafi. But “genocide” has a well established international legal definition, as seen repeatedly in the UN’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where genocide involves the persecution of a “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Not all violence is “genocidal”. Internecine violence is not genocide. Genocide is neither just “lots of violence” nor violence against undifferentiated civilians. What both Dabbashi, Dallaire, and others failed to do was to identify the persecuted national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and how it differed in those terms from those allegedly committing the genocide. They really ought to know better (and they do), one as a UN ambassador and the other as a much exalted expert and lecturer on genocide. This suggests that myth-making was either deliberate, or founded on prejudice. What foreign military intervention did do, however, was to enable the actual genocidal violence that has been routinely sidelined until only very recently: the horrific violence against African migrants and black Libyans, singled out solely on the basis of their skin colour. That has proceeded without impediment, without apology, and until recently, without much notice. Indeed, the media even collaborates, rapid to assert without evidence that any captured or dead black man must be a “mercenary”. This is the genocide that the white, Western world, and those who dominate the “conversation” about Libya, have missed (and not by accident). 2. Gaddafi is “bombing his own people”. We must remember that one of the initial reasons in rushing to impose a no-fly zone was to prevent Gaddafi from using his air force to bomb “his own people”—a distinct phrasing that echoes what was tried and tested in the demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On February 21, when the first alarmist “warnings” about “genocide” were being made by the Libyan opposition, both Al Jazeera and the BBC claimed that Gaddafi had deployed his air force against protesters—as the BBC “reported”: “Witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city”. Yet, on March 1, in a Pentagon press conference, when asked: “Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?” U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replied, “We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that”. Backing him up was Admiral Mullen: “That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever”. In fact, claims that Gaddafi also used helicopters against unarmed protesters are totally unfounded, a pure fabrication based on fake claims. This is important since it was Gaddafi’s domination of Libyan air space that foreign interventionists wanted to nullify, and therefore myths of atrocities perpetrated from the air took on added value as providing an entry point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to “protect civilians”. David Kirpatrick of The New York Times, as early as March 21 confirmed that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior”. The “vastly inflated claims” are what became part of the imperial folklore surrounding events in Libya, that suited Western intervention. Rarely did the Benghazi-based journalistic crowd question or contradict their hosts. 3. Save Benghazi. This article is being written as the Libyan opposition forces march on Sirte and Sabha, the two last remaining strongholds of the Gaddafi government, with ominous warnings to the population that they must surrender, or else. Apparently, Benghazi became somewhat of a “holy city” in the international discourse dominated by leaders of the European Union and NATO. Benghazi was the one city on earth that could not be touched. It was like sacred ground. Tripoli? Sirte? Sabha? Those can be sacrificed, as we all look on, without a hint of protest from any of the powers that be—this, even as we get the first reports of how the opposition has slaughtered people in Tripoli. Let’s turn to the Benghazi myth. “If we waited one more day,” Barack Obama said in his March 28 address, “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world”. In a joint letter, Obama with UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy asserted: “By responding immediately, our countries halted the advance of Gaddafi’s forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented. Tens of thousands of lives have been protected”. Not only did French jets bomb a retreating column, what we saw was a very short column that included trucks and ambulances, and that clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi. Other than Gaddafi’s “overblown rhetoric,” which the U.S. was quick to dismiss when it suited its purposes, there is to date still no evidence furnished that shows Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of “tens of thousands” of lives as proclaimed by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. This was best explained by Professor Alan J. Kuperman in “False pretense for war in Libya?”: “The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially—including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi….Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields….Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre….Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The ‘no mercy’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those ‘who throw their weapons away’. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight ‘to the bitter end’”. In a bitter irony, what evidence there is of massacres, committed by both sides, is now to be found in Tripoli in recent days, months after NATO imposed its “life-saving” military measures. Revenge killings are daily being reported with greater frequency, including the wholesale slaughter of black Libyans and African migrants by rebel forces. Another sad irony: in Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, well after Gaddafi forces were repulsed, not even that has prevented violence: revenge killings have been reported there too—more under #6 below. 4. African Mercenaries. Patrick Cockburn summarized the functional utility of the myth of the “African mercenary” and the context in which it arose: “Since February, the insurgents, often supported by foreign powers, claimed that the battle was between Gaddafi and his family on the one side and the Libyan people on the other. Their explanation for the large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money”. As he notes, black prisoners were put on display for the media (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention), but Amnesty International later found that all the prisoners had supposedly been released since none of them were fighters, but rather were undocumented workers from Mali, Chad, and west Africa. The myth was useful for the opposition to insist that this was a war between “Gaddafi and the Libyan people,” as if he had no domestic support at all—an absolute and colossal fabrication such that one would think only little children could believe a story so fantastic. The myth is also useful for cementing the intended rupture between “the new Libya” and Pan-Africanism, realigning Libya with Europe and the “modern world” which some of the opposition so explicitly crave. The “African mercenary” myth, as put into deadly, racist practice, is a fact that paradoxically has been both documented and ignored. Months ago I provided an extensive review of the role of the mainstream media, led by Al Jazeera, as well as the seeding of social media, in creating the African mercenary myth. Among the departures from the norm of vilifying Sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans that instead documented the abuse of these civilians, were the Los Angeles Times, Human Rights Watch which found no evidence of any mercenaries at all in eastern Libya (totally contradicting the claims presented as truth by Al Arabiya and The Telegraph, among others such as TIME and The Guardian). In an extremely rare departure from the propaganda about the black mercenary threat which Al Jazeera and its journalists helped to actively disseminate, Al Jazeera produced a single report focusing on the robbing, killing, and abduction of black residents in eastern Libya (now that CBS, Channel 4, and others are noting the racism, Al Jazeera is trying to ambiguously show some interest). Finally, there is some increased recognition of these facts of media collaboration in the racist vilification of the insurgents’ civilian victims—see FAIR: “NYT Points Out ‘Racist Overtones’ in Libyan Disinformation It Helped Spread”. The racist targeting and killing of black Libyans and Sub-Saharan Africans continues to the present. Patrick Cockburn and Kim Sengupta speak of the recently discovered mass of “rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli”. Even while showing us video of hundreds of bodies in the Abu Salim hospital, the BBC dares not remark on the fact that most of those are clearly black people, and even wonders about who might have killed them. This is not a question for the anti-Gaddafi forces interviewed by Sengupta: “‘Come and see. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries,’ shouted Ahmed Bin Sabri, lifting the tent flap to show the body of one dead patient, his grey T-shirt stained dark red with blood, the saline pipe running into his arm black with flies. Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed?” Recent reports reveal the insurgents engaging in ethnic cleansing against black Libyans in Tawergha, the insurgents calling themselves “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin,” vowing that in the “new Libya” black people from Tawergha would be barred from health care and schooling in nearby Misrata, from which black Libyans had already been expelled by the insurgents. Currently, Human Rights Watch has reported: “Dark-skinned Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans face particular risks because rebel forces and other armed groups have often considered them pro-Gadhafi mercenaries from other African countries. We’ve seen violent attacks and killings of these people in areas where the National Transitional Council took control”. Amnesty International has also just reported on the disproportionate detention of black Africans in rebel-controlled Az-Zawiya, as well as the targeting of unarmed, migrant farm workers. Reports continue to mount as this is being written, with other human rights groups finding evidence of the insurgents targeting Sub-Saharan African migrant workers. As the chair of the African Union, Jean Ping, recently stated: “NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries. All blacks are mercenaries. If you do that, it means (that the) one-third of the population of Libya, which is black, is also mercenaries. They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them”. (To read more, please consult the list of recent reports that I have compiled.) The “African mercenary” myth continues to be one of the most vicious of all the myths, and the most racist. Even in recent days, newspapers such as the Boston Globe uncritically and unquestioningly show photographs of black victims or black detainees with the immediate assertion that they must be mercenaries, despite the absence of any evidence. Instead we are usually provided with casual assertions that Gaddafi is “known to have” recruited Africans from other nations in the past, without even bothering to find out if those shown in the photos are black Libyans. The lynching of both black Libyans and Sub-Saharan African migrant workers has been continuous, and has neither received any expression of even nominal concern by the U.S. and NATO members, nor has it aroused the interest of the so-called “International Criminal Court”. There is as little chance of there being any justice for the victims as there is of anyone putting a stop to these heinous crimes that clearly constitute a case of ethnic cleansing. The media, only now, is becoming more conscious of the need to cover these crimes, having glossed them over for months. 5. Viagra-fueled Mass Rape. The reported crimes and human rights violations of the Gaddafi regime are awful enough as they are that one has to wonder why anyone would need to invent stories, such as that of Gaddafi’s troops, with erections powered by Viagra, going on a rape spree. Perhaps it was peddled because it’s the kind of story that “captures the imagination of traumatized publics”. This story was taken so seriously that some people started writing to Pfizer to get it to stop selling Viagra to Libya, since its product was allegedly being used as a weapon of war. People who otherwise should know better, set out to deliberately misinform the international public. The Viagra story was first disseminated by Al Jazeera, in collaboration with its rebel partners, favoured by the Qatari regime that funds Al Jazeera. It was then redistributed by almost all other major Western news media. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, appeared before the world media to say that there was “evidence” that Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his troops in order “to enhance the possibility to rape” and that Gaddafi ordered the rape of hundreds of women. Moreno-Ocampo insisted: “We are getting information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape” and that “we have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government”. He also exclaimed that Viagra is “like a machete,” and that “Viagra is a tool of massive rape”. In a startling declaration to the UN Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice also asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape. She offered no evidence whatsoever to back up her claim. Indeed, U.S. military and intelligence sources flatly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas”. Rice is a liberal interventionist who was one of those to persuade Obama to intervene in Libya. She utilized this myth because it helped her make the case at the UN that there was no “moral equivalence” between Gaddafi’s human rights abuses and those of the insurgents. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also declared that “Gadhafi’s security forces and other groups in the region are trying to divide the people by using violence against women and rape as tools of war, and the United States condemns this in the strongest possible terms”. She added that she was “deeply concerned” by these reports of “wide-scale rape”. (She has, thus far, said nothing at all about the rebels’ racist lynchings.) By June 10, Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was part of a “massive hysteria”. Indeed, both sides in the war have made the same allegations against each other. Bassiouni also told the press of a case of “a woman who claimed to have sent out 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse”. However, his teams asked for those questionnaires, they never received them—“But she’s going around the world telling everybody about it…so now she got that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have a potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused,” Bassiouni said. He also pointed out that it “did not appear to be credible that the woman was able to send out 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not functioning”. In fact, Bassiouni’s team “uncovered only four alleged cases” of rape and sexual abuse: “Can we draw a conclusion that there is a systematic policy of rape? In my opinion we can’t”. In addition to the UN, Amnesty International’s Donatella Rovera said in an interview with the French daily Libération, that Amnesty had “not found cases of rape….Not only have we not met any victims, but we have not even met any persons who have met victims. As for the boxes of Viagra that Gaddafi is supposed to have had distributed, they were found intact near tanks that were completely burnt out”. However, this did not stop some news manufacturers from trying to maintain the rape claims, in modified form. The BBC went on to add another layer just a few days after Bassiouni humiliated the ICC and the media: the BBC now claimed that rape victims in Libya faced “honour killings”. This is news to the few Libyans I know, who never heard of honour killings in their country. The scholarly literature on Libya turns up little or nothing on this phenomenon in Libya. The honour killings myth serves a useful purpose for keeping the mass rape claim on life support: it suggests that women would not come forward and give evidence, out of shame. Also just a few days after Bassiouni spoke, Libyan insurgents, in collaboration with CNN, made a last-ditch effort to save the rape allegations: they presented a cell phone with a rape video on it, claiming it belonged to a government soldier. The men shown in the video are in civilian clothes. There is no evidence of Viagra. There is no date on the video and we have no idea who recorded it or where. Those presenting the cell phone claimed that many other videos existed, but they were conveniently being destroyed to preserve the “honour” of the victims. 6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Having asserted, wrongly as we saw, that Libya faced impending “genocide” at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces, it became easier for Western powers to invoke the UN’s 2005 doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. Meanwhile, it is not at all clear that by the time the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 that the violence in Libya had even reached the levels seen in Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. The most common refrain used against critics of the selectivity of this supposed “humanitarian interventionism” is that just because the West cannot intervene everywhere does not mean it should not intervene in Libya. Maybe…but that still does not explain why Libya was the chosen target. This is a critical point because some of the earliest critiques of R2P voiced at the UN raised the issue of selectivity, of who gets to decide, and why some crises where civilians are targeted (say, Gaza) are essentially ignored, while others receive maximum concern, and whether R2P served as the new fig leaf for hegemonic geopolitics. The myth at work here is that foreign military intervention was guided by humanitarian concerns. To make the myth work, one has to willfully ignore at least three key realities. One thus has to ignore the new scramble for Africa, where Chinese interests are seen as competing with the West for access to resources and political influence, something that AFRICOM is meant to challenge. Gaddafi challenged AFRICOM’s intent to establish military bases in Africa. AFRICOM has since become directly involved in the Libya intervention and specifically “Operation Odyssey Dawn”. Horace Campbell argued that “U.S. involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM” and an “opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention”. In addition, Gaddafi’s power and influence on the continent had also been increasing, through aid, investment, and a range of projects designed to lessen African dependency on the West and to challenge Western multilateral institutions by building African unity—rendering him a rival to U.S. interests. Secondly, one has to ignore not just the anxiety of Western oil interests over Gaddafi’s “resource nationalism” (threatening to take back what oil companies had gained), an anxiety now clearly manifest in the European corporate rush into Libya to scoop up the spoils of victory—but one has to also ignore the apprehension over what Gaddafi was doing with those oil revenues in supporting greater African economic independence, and for historically backing national liberation movements that challenged Western hegemony. Thirdly, one has to also ignore the fear in Washington that the U.S. was losing a grip on the course of the so-called “Arab revolution”. How one can stack up these realities, and match them against ambiguous and partial “humanitarian” concerns, and then conclude that, yes, human rights is what mattered most, seems entirely implausible and unconvincing—especially with the atrocious track record of NATO and U.S. human rights violations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and before that Kosovo and Serbia. The humanitarian angle is simply neither credible nor even minimally logical. If R2P is seen as founded on moral hypocrisy and contradiction—now definitively revealed—it will become much harder in the future to cry wolf again and expect to get a respectful hearing. This is especially the case since little in the way of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation preceded the military intervention—while Obama is accused by some of having been slow to react, this was if anything a rush to war, on a pace that by very far surpassed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Not only do we know from the African Union about how its efforts to establish a peaceful transition were impeded, but Dennis Kucinich also reveals that he received reports that a peaceful settlement was at hand, only to be “scuttled by State Department officials”. These are absolutely critical violations of the R2P doctrine, showing how those ideals could instead be used for a practice that involved a hasty march to war, and war aimed at regime change (which is itself a violation of international law). That R2P served as a justifying myth that often achieved the opposite of its stated aims, is no longer a surprise. I am not even speaking here of the role of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in bombing Libya and aiding the insurgents—even as they backed Saudi military intervention to crush the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, nor of the ugly pall cast on an intervention led by the likes of unchallenged abusers of human rights who have committed war crimes with impunity in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I am taking a narrower approach—such as the documented cases where NATO not only willfully failed to protect civilians in Libya, but it even deliberately and knowingly targeted them in a manner that constitutes terrorism by most official definitions used by Western governments. NATO admitted to deliberately targeting Libya’s state television, killing three civilian reporters, in a move condemned by international journalist federations as a direct violation of a 2006 Security Council resolution banning attacks on journalists. A U.S. Apache helicopter—in a repeat of the infamous killings shown in the Collateral Murder video—gunned down civilians in the central square of Zawiya, killing the brother of the information minister among others. Taking a fairly liberal notion of what constitutes “command and control facilities,” NATO targeted a civilian residential space resulting in the deaths of some of Gaddafi’s family members, including three grandchildren. As if to protect the myth of “protecting civilians” and the unconscionable contradiction of a “war for human rights,” the major news media often kept silent about civilian deaths caused by NATO bombardments. R2P has been invisible when it comes to civilians targeted by NATO. In terms of the failure to protect civilians, in a manner that is actually an international criminal offense, we have the numerous reports of NATO ships ignoring the distress calls of refugee boats in the Mediterranean that were fleeing Libya. In May, 61 African refugees died on a single vessel, despite making contact with vessels belonging to NATO member states. In a repeat of the situation, dozens died in early August on another vessel. In fact, on NATO’s watch, at least 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya have died at sea since the war began. They were mostly Sub-Saharan Africans, and they died in multiples of the death toll suffered by Benghazi during the protests. R2P was utterly absent for these people. NATO has developed a peculiar terminological twist for Libya, designed to absolve the rebels of any role in perpetrating crimes against civilians, and abdicating its so-called responsibility to protect. Throughout the war, spokespersons for NATO and for the U.S. and European governments consistently portrayed all of the actions of Gaddafi’s forces as “threatening civilians,” even when engaged in either defensive actions, or combat against armed opponents. For example, this week the NATO spokesperson, Roland Lavoie, “appeared to struggle to explain how NATO strikes were protecting civilians at this stage in the conflict. Asked about NATO’s assertion that it hit 22 armed vehicles near Sirte on Monday, he was unable to say how the vehicles were threatening civilians, or whether they were in motion or parked”. By protecting the rebels, in the same breath as they spoke of protecting civilians, it is clear that NATO intended for us to see Gaddafi’s armed opponents as mere civilians. Interestingly, in Afghanistan, where NATO and the U.S. fund, train, and arm the Karzai regime in attacking “his own people” (like they do in Pakistan), the armed opponents are consistently labeled “terrorists” or “insurgents”—even if the majority of them are civilians who have never served in any official standing army. They are insurgents in Afghanistan, and their deaths at the hands of NATO are listed separately from the tallies for civilian casualties. By some magic, in Libya, they are all “civilians”. In response to the announcement of the UN Security Council voting for military intervention, a volunteer translator for Western reporters in Tripoli made this key observation: “Civilians holding guns, and you want to protect them? It’s a joke. We are the civilians. What about us?” NATO has provided a shield for the insurgents in Libya to victimize unarmed civilians in areas they came to occupy. There was no hint of any “responsibility to protect” in these cases. NATO assisted the rebels in starving Tripoli of supplies, subjecting its civilian population to a siege that deprived them of water, food, medicine, and fuel. When Gaddafi was accused of doing this to Misrata, the international media were quick to cite this as a war crime. Save Misrata, kill Tripoli—whatever you want to label such “logic,” humanitarian is not an acceptable option. Leaving aside the documented crimes by the insurgents against black Libyans and African migrant workers, the insurgents were also found by Human Rights Watch to have engaged in “looting, arson, and abuse of civilians in [four] recently captured towns in western Libya”. In Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, revenge killings have been reported by The New York Times as late as this May, and by Amnesty International in late June and faulted the insurgents’ National Transitional Council. The responsibility to protect? It now sounds like something deserving wild mockery. 7. Gaddafi—the Demon. Depending on your perspective, either Gaddafi is a heroic revolutionary, and thus the demonization by the West is extreme, or Gaddafi is a really bad man, in which case the demonization is unnecessary and absurd. The myth here is that the history of Gaddafi’s power was marked only by atrocity—he is thoroughly evil, without any redeeming qualities, and anyone accused of being a “Gaddafi supporter” should somehow feel more ashamed than those who openly support NATO. This is binary absolutism at its worst—virtually no one made allowance for the possibility that some might neither support Gaddafi, the insurgents, nor NATO. Everyone was to be forced into one of those camps, no exceptions allowed. What resulted was a phony debate, dominated by fanatics of one side or another. Missed in the discussion, recognition of the obvious: however much Gaddafi had been “in bed” with the West over the past decade, his forces were now fighting against a NATO-driven take over of his country. The other result was the impoverishment of historical consciousness, and the degradation of more complex appreciations of the full breadth of the Gaddafi record. This would help explain why some would not rush to condemn and disown the man (without having to resort to crude and infantile caricaturing of their motivations). While even Glenn Greenwald feels the need to dutifully insert, “No decent human being would possibly harbor any sympathy for Gadaffi,” I have known decent human beings in Nicaragua, Trinidad, Dominica, and among the Mohawks in Montreal who very much appreciate Gaddafi’s support—not to mention his support for various national liberation movements, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Gaddafi’s regime has many faces: some are seen by his domestic opponents, others are seen by recipients of his aid, and others were smiled at by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There are many faces, and they are all simultaneously real. Some refuse to “disown” Gaddafi, to “apologize” for his friendship towards them, no matter how distasteful, indecent, and embarrassing other “progressives” may find him. That needs to be respected, instead of this now fashionable bullying and gang banging that reduces a range of positions to one juvenile accusation: “you support a dictator”. Ironically, we support many dictators, with our very own tax dollars, and we routinely offer no apologies for this fact. Speaking of the breadth of Gaddafi’s record, that ought to resist simplistic, revisionist reduction, some might care to note that even now, the U.S. State Department’s webpage on Libya still points to a Library of Congress Country Study on Libya that features some of the Gaddafi government’s many social welfare achievements over the years in the areas of medical care, public housing, and education. In addition, Libyans have the highest literacy rate in Africa (see UNDP, p. 171) and Libya is the only continental African nation to rank “high” in the UNDP’s Human Development Index. Even the BBC recognized these achievements: “Women in Libya are free to work and to dress as they like, subject to family constraints. Life expectancy is in the seventies. And per capita income—while not as high as could be expected given Libya’s oil wealth and relatively small population of 6.5m—is estimated at $12,000 (£9,000), according to the World Bank. Illiteracy has been almost wiped out, as has homelessness—a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi era, where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centres around the country”. So if one supports health care, does that mean one supports dictatorship? And if “the dictator” funds public housing and subsidizes incomes, do we simply erase those facts from our memory? 8. Freedom Fighters—the Angels. The complement to the demonization of Gaddafi was the angelization of the “rebels”. My aim here is not to counter the myth by way of inversion, and demonizing all of Gaddafi’s opponents, who have many serious and legitimate grievances, and in large numbers have clearly had more than they can bear. I am instead interested in how “we,” in the North Atlantic part of the equation, construct them in ways that suit our intervention. One standard way, repeated in different ways across a range of media and by U.S. government spokespersons, can be seen in this New York Times’ depiction of the rebels as “secular-minded professionals—lawyers, academics, businesspeople—who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law”. The listing of professions familiar to the American middle class which respects them, is meant to inspire a shared sense of identification between readers and the Libyan opposition, especially when we recall that it is on the Gaddafi side where the forces of darkness dwell: the main “professions” we find are torturer, terrorist, and African mercenary. For many weeks it was almost impossible to get reporters embedded with the rebel National Transitional Council in Benghazi to even begin to provide a description of who constituted the anti-Gaddafi movement, if it was one organization or many groups, what their agendas were, and so forth. The subtle leitmotif in the reports was one that cast the rebellion as entirely spontaneous and indigenous—which may be true, in part, and it may also be an oversimplification. Among the reports that significantly complicated the picture were those that discussed the CIA ties to the insurgents (for more, see this, this, this, and that); others highlighted the role of the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and USAID, which have been active in Libya since 2005; those that detailed the role of various expatriate groups; and, reports of the active role of “radical Islamist” militias embedded within the overall insurgency, with some pointing to Al Qaeda connections. Some feel a definite need for being on the side of “the good guys,” especially as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan offer any such sense of righteous vindication. Americans want the world to see them as doing good, as being not only indispensable, but also irreproachable. They could wish for nothing better than being seen as atoning for their sins in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a special moment, where the bad guy can safely be the other once again. A world that is safe for America is a world that is unsafe for evil. Marching band, baton twirlers, Anderson Cooper, confetti—we get it. 9. Victory for the Libyan People. To say that the current turn in Libya represents a victory by the Libyan people in charting their own destiny is, at best, an oversimplification that masks the range of interests involved since the beginning in shaping and determining the course of events on the ground, and that ignores the fact that for much of the war Gaddafi was able to rely on a solid base of popular support. As early as February 25, a mere week after the start of the first street protests, Nicolas Sarkozy had already determined that Gaddafi “must go”. By February 28, David Cameron began working on a proposal for a no-fly zone—these statements and decisions were made without any attempt at dialogue and diplomacy. By March 30, The New York Times reported that for “several weeks” CIA operatives had been working inside Libya, which would mean they were there from mid-February, that is, when the protests began—they were then joined inside Libya by “dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers”. The NYT also reported in the same article that “several weeks” before (again, around mid-February), President Obama Several “signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels,” with that “other support” entailing a range of possible “covert actions”. USAID had already deployed a team to Libya by early March. At the end of March, Obama publicly stated that the objective was to depose Gaddafi. In terribly suspicious wording, “a senior U.S. official said the administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would evolve ‘organically,’ like those in Tunisia and Egypt, without need for foreign intervention”—which sounds like exactly the kind of statement one makes when something begins in a fashion that is not “organic” and when comparing events in Libya as marked by a potential legitimacy deficit when compared to those of Tunisia and Egypt. Yet on March 14 the NTC’s Abdel Hafeez Goga asserted, “We are capable of controlling all of Libya, but only after the no-fly zone is imposed”—which is still not the case even six months later. In recent days it has also been revealed that what the rebel leadership swore it would oppose—“foreign boots on the ground”—is in fact a reality confirmed by NATO: “Special forces troops from Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gadhafi regime”. This, and other summaries, are only scratching the surface of the range of external support provided to the rebels. The myth here is that of the nationalist, self-sufficient rebel, fueled entirely by popular support. At the moment, war supporters are proclaiming the intervention a “success”. It should be noted that there was another case where an air campaign, deployed to support local armed militia on the ground, aided by U.S. covert military operatives, also succeeded in deposing another regime, and even much more quickly. That case was Afghanistan. Success. 10. Defeat for “the Left”. As if reenacting the pattern of articles condemning “the left” that came out in the wake of the Iran election protests in 2009 (see as examples Hamid Dabashi and Slavoj Žižek), the war in Libya once again seemed to have presented an opportunity to target the left, as if this was topmost on the agenda—as if “the left” was the problem to be addressed. Here we see articles, in various states of intellectual and political disrepair, by Juan Cole (see some of the rebuttals: “The case of Professor Juan Cole,” “An open letter to Professor Juan Cole: A reply to a slander,” “Professor Cole ‘answers’ WSWS on Libya: An admission of intellectual and political bankruptcy”), Gilbert Achcar (and this especially), Immanuel Wallerstein, and Helena Sheehan who seemingly arrived at some of her most critical conclusions at the airport at the end of her very first visit to Tripoli. There seems to be some confusion over roles and identities. There is no homogeneous left, nor ideological agreement among anti-imperialists (which includes conservatives and libertarians, among anarchists and Marxists). Nor was the “anti-imperialist left” in any position to either do real harm on the ground, as is the case of the actual protagonists. There was little chance of the anti-interventionists in influencing foreign policy, which took shape in Washington before any of the serious critiques against intervention were published. These points suggest that at least some of the critiques are moved by concerns that go beyond Libya, and that even have very little to do with Libya ultimately. The most common accusation is that the anti-imperialist left is somehow coddling a dictator. The argument is that this is based on a flawed analysis—in criticizing the position of Hugo Chávez, Wallerstein says Chávez’s analysis is deeply flawed, and offers this among the criticisms: “The second point missed by Hugo Chavez’s analysis is that there is not going to be any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya” (yes, read it again). Indeed, many of the counterarguments deployed against the anti-interventionist left echo or wholly reproduce the top myths that were dismantled above, that get their geopolitical analysis almost entirely wrong, and that pursue politics focused in part on personality and events of the day. This also shows us the deep poverty of politics premised primarily on simplistic and one-sided ideas of “human rights” and “protection” (see Richard Falk’s critique), and the success of the new military humanism in siphoning off the energies of the left. And a question persists: if those opposed to intervention were faulted for providing a moral shield for “dictatorship” (as if imperialism was not itself a global dictatorship), what about those humanitarians who have backed the rise of xenophobic and racist militants who by so many accounts engage in ethnic cleansing? Does it mean that the pro-interventionist crowd is racist? Do they even object to the racism? So far, I have heard only silence from those quarters. The agenda in brow-beating the anti-imperialist straw man masks an effort to curb dissent against an unnecessary war that has prolonged and widened human suffering; advanced the cause of war corporatists, transnational firms, and neoliberals; destroyed the legitimacy of multilateral institutions that were once openly committed to peace in international relations; violated international law and human rights; witnessed the rise of racist violence; empowered the imperial state to justify its continued expansion; violated domestic laws; and reduced the discourse of humanitarianism to a clutch of simplistic slogans, reactionary impulses, and formulaic policies that privilege war as a first option. Really, the left is the problem here? Maximilian Forte is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His website can be found at http://openanthropology.org/ as can his previous articles on Libya and other facets of imperialism.

War stops independent AFRICAN CURRENCY. U.S. military intervention is always about material and political gain, and never about ideals. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo*** link http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml Gold, Oil, Africa and Why the West Wants Gadhafi Dead By Brian E. Muhammad -Contributing Writer- | Last updated: Jun 7, 2011 - 7:59:09 PM Muammar Gadhafi's decision to pursue gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments may have sealed his fate Colonel Muammar Gadhafi Photo: MGN Online -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attacking Col. Gadhafi can be understood in the context ofAmerica and Europe fightingfor their survival, which anindependent Africa jeopardizes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (FinalCall.com) - The war raging in Libya since February is getting progressively worse as NATO forces engage in regime change and worse, an objective to kill Muammar Gadhafi to eradicate his vision of a United Africa with a single currency backed by gold. Observers say implementing that vision would change the world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United States and its NATO partners have determined “Gadhafi must go,” and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner. “If they kill Brother Gadhafi, I submit to you that American interests in Africa will come under severe strain,” warned the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan on WPFW-FM's "Spectrum Today” program with Askia Muhammad. “That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader in the recent history of Africa's coming into political independence,” he continued. The Muslim leader said America needs access to the mineral resources in Africa to be a viable power in the 21st century. Minister Farrakhan further pointed out in the April 1 radio interview that the current plot to kill Col. Gadhafi comes at a time of great distress and decline for America. The fall of the dollar is a manifest loss of America's prestige and influence among the nations of the earth and an indicator of her end. Graphic: MGN Online “How's America's wealth today? How is she doing financially? What is the deficit? Some say it's about $56 trillion counting Social Security and Medicare. That's a big number. She's printing money, but there's nothing backing it,” said Min. Farrakhan. In the book, “The Fall of America,” the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote, “One of the greatest powers of America washer dollar. The loss of such power will bring any nation to weakness, for this is the media of exchange between nations.” “The English pound and the American dollar have been the power and beckoning light of these two great powers. But when the world went off the gold and silver standard, the financial doom of England and America was sealed,” he explained. Mr. Muhammad said further that “the Fall of America is now visible and understandable. “Long has Allah (God) been gradually removing the power of the great and mighty America while few have noticed it. This has been done by degrees, and they do not perceive it.” Mr. Muhammad warned America's fall serves as a sign of fate for her European counterparts. Analysts say introducing the gold dinar as the new medium of exchange would destroy dependence on the U.S. dollar, the French franc and the British pound and threaten the Western world. It would “finally swing the global economic pendulum” that would break Western domination over Africa and other developing economies. Attacking Col. Gadhafi can be understood in the context of America and Europe fighting for their survival, which an independent Africa jeopardizes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Gadhafi's creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte (Libya) and the African Monetary Fund to be based in Cameroon will supplant the IMF and undermine Western economic hegemony in Africa.” —Gerald Pereira, an executive board member of the former Tripoli-based World Mathaba -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Gadhafi's creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte (Libya) and the African Monetary Fund to be based in Cameroon will supplant the IMF and undermine Western economic hegemony in Africa,” said Gerald Pereira, an executive board member of the former Tripoli-based World Mathaba. The moves are also bad for France because when the African Monetary Fund and the African Central Bank in Nigeria starts printing gold-backed currency, it would “ring the death knell" for the CFA franc through which Paris was able to maintain its neocolonial grip on 14 former African colonies for the last 50 years. “It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi,” said Prof. Jean-Paul Pougala of the Geneva School of Diplomacy. “The idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other currencies,” said political analyst Anthony Wile in an editorial for The Daily Bell online. According to the International Monetary Fund, Libya's Central Bank is 100 percent state-owned and estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. If Col. Gadhafi changed the purchasing terms of his oil and other Libyan commodities sold on the world market and only accepted gold as payment; a policy like that wouldn't be welcomed by the power elites who control the world's central banks. “That would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal,” said Mr.Wile. Furthermore, pricing oil in something other than the dollar would undercut the pedestal of U.S.. power in the world. Although in trouble, the dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with Saudi Arabia in 1971 in which the Saudis, as the world's largest oil producer, agreed to accept only dollars for oil, Mr. Wile observed. The Libyan affair has sparked a divide in the world community with the African Union and nations like Venezuela, China and Cuba—and until recently Russia—on one side as voices of reason, caution and respect for international law and honoring the UN mandate which set the parameters for engagement in Libya. On the other side are war hawkish America, France, Britain and Italy pursuing regime change and actively trying to assassinate Col. Gadhafi, though they deny that aim. “Why all of a sudden, this rush to destroy Gadhafi?” asked Min. Farrakhan during his March 31 press conference on America's Middle East and Libya policy. “I know why you are angry with him; because he never agreed with your policies when it came to sucking the resources of Third World peoples, and putting in place dictators that would be amenable to America's policies.” Other analysts concur that the control of Africa is front and center as the prize in the scramble to kill Col. Gadhafi and preserve Western domination on the world stage, making the African Union critical at this time. The AU stood with Libya since NATO forces began their missile bombardment. The AU has also accused Western nations of marginalizing an African solution to an “African problem.” The AU criticized NATO for bombing Tripoli, targeting Gadhafi family compounds and violating the stated UN mandate to uphold a no fly-zone and protect civilians. AU negotiations to end the conflict were brokered by South African President Jacob Zuma, which the Libyan government accepted, but were discarded by the rebels who set preconditions—in conjunction with NATO—that demanded Col. Gadhafi's removal. Graphic: MGN Online The AU is the framework the Libyan leader was using to establish African self determination and economic self-sufficiency. Col. Gadhafi financed the restructuring of the former Organization of African Unity—formed by African leaders Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and others—into the AU and revived the concept of a United States of Africa with one continental army and a single currency backed by gold. However critics of U.S. foreign policy objectives in Africa say efforts toward the continent becoming a unified bloc have been consistently weakened for fear that Africa will leverage more equity and control in the arena of global economics. But the plan for an independent African currency backed by gold appears to be the real reason behind the frenzied attack on Col. Gadhafi. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS (Bank for International Settlements), and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets.” —John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a government and leader arose that desired to use the resources of that nation for its people, America—through the CIA—would plan insurrections, coups, terrorist activities and even assassination of good leaders, observed Min. Farrakhan. Despite the ire of Western foes, Muammar Gadhafi gained the clout to lead creation of a single currency because of strong oil profits versus a small population. “The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS (Bank for International Settlements), and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets,” wrote John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” on Johnperkins.com. It is redolent of Saddam Hussein advocating similar policies shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq, he said. “Gadhafi knew how to play the West at their own game. He dared to wield real economic power in the name of Africa and anyone who dares to do so will feel the full wrath of Empire,” remarked. Perrier. With the hopes of breaking Col. Gadhafi, foreign governments froze nearly $70 billion of Libyan assets belonging to the Libyan Investment Authority, the 13th largest international investment fund in the world. Although designed to hurt Col. Gadhafi, it injures Africa, because Libya assists with development projects throughout Africa. An example of such projects was installing independent satellite communications across Africa, cutting off an expensive dependency on Europe for the same services. Col. Gadhafi infused $300 million into the project after the IMF, America and Europe broke repeated promises of finance. In the 1990s forty-five African governments started RASCOM—Regional African Satellite Communication Organization—so Africa would have its own satellite and control communication costs on the continent. Before RASCOM, costs for telephone calls to and from Africa were the highest worldwide and the continent was burdened with an annual $500 million fee paid to Europe for satellite usage. African satellites cost a onetime payment of $400 million and no annual fee—a move for self determination led by Col. Gadhafi that agitated Europe. The rebels and collaborators Since the beginning of the hostilities, the 69-year-old Gadhafi has consistently called for ceasefires and a political solution only to be rebuffed and have NATO missiles aimed at him and his family. However, with the stakes so high, what kind of Libya will emerge if Col. Gadhafi is killed? “It will not be the rebels and the transitional council who will take power in Libya—it will be the imperialist powers who take over and the implications for Libya will be a complete re-colonization,” said Mr. Pereira. Some nations officially recognized the NTC as the new legitimate government; however the NTC will face severe challenges as a government post Gadhafi. The NTC and other rebel groups lack cohesive unity, strengthening possibilities for ongoing civil strife. Furthermore, the insurgency has become a nightmare wrought with hard financial and military questions. Xinhua News-English reported the group is cash poor and has difficulty raising money; while the only commodity available to them is oil, which still belongs the Gadhafi government and is embroiled in UN sanctions. “I don't have any resources. Not a single dinar came in to the treasury,” lamented NTC oil and finance head Ali Tarhouni during a May 29 press conference. “We only exported one shipment (of oil) and got $150 million for that. So far we've spent $408 million on fuel. It's not a good number.” The Benghazi-based rebels include remnants of the monarchy deposed by the 1969 Al-Fateh revolution. Several times over the years, the royalists attempted assassination of Col. Gadhafi and destabilization of the revolution, but lacked military ability and popular support. On May 24, U.S. assistant secretary of state Jeffery Feltman announced the NTC will establish an office in Washington at the invitation of President Barrack Obama. Comparable arrangements exist with France and Britain. For now, after several months of military intervention, betrayal by former comrades of the revolution and continued assassination attempts by NATO, Muammar Gadhafi is still standing. For the imperialists however, his elimination means the future of their power in Africa. “Make no mistake, if NATO succeeds in Libya it will be a massive setback for the entire continent,” said Mr. Pereira. Related news: Libya's Official Jamahiriya News Channel on the Web (Ljbc.net) Imperialist bombardment, assault on Libya continues (FCN, 05-19-2011) Why the West Want the Fall of Muammar Gaddafi(Analysis by Jean-Paul Pougala, 04, 2011) ‘U.S. provoking China and Russia in Libya,Mediterranean'(Tehran Times, 04-28-2011) West 'getting away with murder' in Libya(FCN, 04-27-2011) Farrakhan Questioned on Libya(WPFWRadio Interview, 04-03-2011) A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels(WSWS, 03-28-2011) Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective(FCN, 03-08-2011) Massive Disinformation War against Libya for US/West Military Intervention? [The 4th Media](03-01-2011) British intelligence paid al-Qaeda cell to assassinate Col. Gadhafi, blocked Libya's Interpol arrest warrant of Bin Laden (11-10-2002) TIME, 1986 - LIBYA: Real and Illusionary Events (TIME, 10-13-1986) How the U.S. Government destabilized foreign governments(FCN, 07-22-1985) How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars(Info Clearing House) Secret ties between CIA, drugs revealed(FCN, 1996) ********************oooooooo*************** #######################X################## link http://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/u-s-military-intervention-in-libya-aimed-to-squelch-gold-backed-african-dinar/ Failed Empire Chronicling the collapse of a failed society U.S. Military Intervention in Libya Aimed to Squelch Gold-Backed African Dinar 7 Comments Posted by Andrew B. on May 18, 2011 Wars are never actually fought for the reasons sold to the masses: Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth. Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars. It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. … And it has happened before. In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro. A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs. Embroiled in wars of aggression throughout the Middle East, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would accept the standard rhetoric about protecting human rights and promoting democracy as motivation for our latest war in Libya. But judging by the absence of protest in the United States, and the sheer lack of meaningful coverage in the MSM, it would appear that most Americans have bought the fictional narrative. The prospect of Gaddafi attempting to create an alternative, gold-backed currency would certainly have frightened Western powers, as the current system of profiteering is heavily based on the worthless dollar – a fiat currency. It seems entirely plausible that the true motivation for the invasion of Libya may well have been this fear of an independent African currency. We cannot say with any degree of certainty that this was, in fact, the main motivation for the invasion. What we can say without question, however, is that the official line of promoting human rights and democracy is an absolute farce. War is a business venture, and it is not undertaken without specific lucrative goals in mind. Libya’s vast oil reserves undoubtedly played a role in the U.S. decision to invade, but oil in itself is unlikely to offer a strong enough incentive. If that were the case, after all, why haven’t we attacked Venezuela? In order for a military intervention to take place, there must be a veritable witches’ brew of temptations, which make the potential fruits of aggression so great that the corporate warlords simply cannot resist. In Afghanistan we had the Trans-Afghanistan natural gas pipeline, the trillion-dollar mineral reserves, and the option of having a permanent U.S. presence is such a strategic geopolitical location. In Iraq we had the world’s second largest proven oil reserves and the opportunity to cement U.S. hegemony in the Middle East with the construction of military bases on the scale of small cities. And in Libya, of course, we have oil reserves, a strategic location and now, it seems, the grave necessity to crush a move towards African independence and the undermining of the dollar as a global benchmark currency. Don’t buy the lies, folks. U.S. military intervention is always about material and political gain, and never about ideals.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ++++ ##############################################*** Bill you are too focused on Middle East/ NAVY. Talking about Africa.Oil/resources not freedom, BLOOD for mineral wealth, 'ye old' "IMPERIALISM" by any other name. 'Freedom' word is to trick the non-thinkers.......... ----------------------------ooo--------------- link http://newsflavor.com/world/africa/future-news-western-union-and-nato-forces-conquered-african-union/ link http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/africa-battleground-for-natos-21st-century-strategic-concept/ 0000000000 In the words of Scheffer: “You see here the new NATO, the NATO that has the capacity to be expeditionary. In the 21st century you have to be prepared to project stability over long distances….” Associated Press at the time cited then-NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command Marine General James Jones (later the Obama administration’s first National Security Advisor) as envisioning the role of the NATO Response Force as one that “could entail naval patrols to protect tankers off the coast of West Africa or security for storage and production facilities in areas such as the oil-rich Niger Delta.” Immediately after assuming the dual commands in January 2003 Jones laid the groundwork for the permanent deployment of U.S. and NATO military assets in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea off the continent’s western shores. [3] ---------------o----------- key words above --- permanent deployment.......oil.....(no freedom) THANKS Steven Gaal