Category Archives: OTAN


US Navy boots on the Libyan ground ~ After asking the NATO bombing on Jamahiriya and permitting Qatar import of terrorist gangs, rats of the dummy Libyan government pleads UN help for fighting off post-Gaddafi chaos

This gallery contains 1 photos.

NATO supported, and used those same rebels to owerthorw Gaddafi, and McCain said ” I was visiting brave rebels”. Now those same “brave rebels” are not good any more for NATO. Now they are “bad guys” and NATO will kick … Continue reading


New September 11, New Phase of NATO-US Invasion of Libya

This gallery contains 4 photos.

* THE STORY – News agencies around the world reported on the attack of militants on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on the evening of September 11. The attack took place because of the movie which was insulting the … Continue reading


August 20 – International Event Day to Condemn North Atlantic Terrorist Organization Aggression

This gallery contains 1 photos.

* August 20th 2011 is the date that the North Atlantic Terrorist Alliance (NATO) began its onslaught on Tripoli, Libya, to bomb mercenaries from that country, Qatar, Jordan, Afghanistan and other parts of the wider region into the capital, lead … Continue reading


For what are fighting the gangs of rats? For the “revolution”? For “social justice”? No, to decide who manages, on behalf of Americans, the Libyan oil

This gallery contains 1 photos.

* For what are fighting the gangs of rats? For the “revolution”? For “social justice”? No, to decide who manages, on behalf of Americans, the Libyan oil In recent days we have witnessed clashes between gangs of NATO mercenaries, traitors … Continue reading


Operazioni ‘Odyssey Dawn’ and ‘Unified Protector’

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Sin dal 20 marzo 2011, data d’inizio delle operazioni finalizzate al raggiungimento dei principali obiettivi fissati dal Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite con le risoluzioni 1970 e 1973, ovvero stabilire una no fly zone sui cieli libici e proteggere … Continue reading


Collection of 7 Video/Reports and Analysis on the Zion/Yankee project of aggression against Libya, Syria, Middle East and Iran: final target Russia

This gallery contains 1 photos.

A Collection of Video/Reports and Analysis on the Zion/Yankee project of aggression against libya, Syria, Middle East and Iran: final target Russia * Collection from Russia Today up to December 29, 2011 * Start a war to avoid a war? … Continue reading



This gallery contains 2 photos.

Les Etats arabes, otages de leur Ligue: Entre l’immobilisme, la subordination et l’attrape-nigaud par Djerrad Amar- 23/12/201 Depuis sa création en 1945 par sept pays arabes, dont la Syrie, la «Ligue des États arabes» a pour objectif d’unifier la «nation … Continue reading


NATO war crimes probe: NATO faces ICC war crimes probe (Video+Text)

This gallery contains 2 photos.

NATO’s actions in Libya will be investigated for alleged war crimes by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. According to the Libyan health Department, NATO airstrikes killed over a thousand civilians. The international court will assess the actions of … Continue reading

UN and NATO Enjoin in Multi-State Terrorism

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”.

Ephesians: 6:12



UN and NATO Enjoin in Multi-State Terrorism

by Felicity Arbuthnot – October 23rd, 2011 – Dissidentvoice

What a decade it has been for assassinations, liquidations, exterminations — for State terrorism led by the Land of the Free. Summary executions include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. On 5th February 2003, General Colin Powell stated that he headed a deadly terrorist network within Iraq – just six weeks before the US headed a deadly terrorist network, in an illegal invasion, which entirely destroyed Iraq.

On 7th June 2006, at Hibhib, near Baquba, al-Zarqawi was killed by two five hundred-pound bombs, dropped by USAF F-16 jets, killing five others including his wife and child. Legality, trying in law those accused of wrong doing, is, seemingly, so yesterday.

President Saddam Hussein and some of his sovereign government were subject to a kangaroo Court, laughable had it not shamed and disgraced the word “legal” at every level.Then he was lynched… … …

… … … Hilary Clinton and her partners in crime, were, of course, shown “watching” this gruesome slaying by illegal immigrants who had entered ally Pakistan without bothering to request permission for air space or passage. It then had to be admitted there was, in fact, no transmission from a video previously said to be screened from one of the assassins helmets. Hollywood meets Capitol Hill?

Subsequently this tasteless, part fictional scenario with Ms Clinton’s hand over her mouth, feigning personal “shock and awe” was, the gullible were informed, due to “an allergy.”

Her repellent performance on CBS shortly after Gaddafi’s death, assassination, execution, street dragging – early days for the exact sequence of another bloody illegality — was Madam Clinton for real. She near punched the air, roared with laughter and announced:

“We came, we saw, he died.”

“Did this have anything to do with your visit?” she was asked on 18th October.

“Nnn …” Then:  “I’m sure it did.”

… … … you can read the full article in PDF or here … … …


Hundreds killed in NATO night attack

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Hundreds killed in NATO night attack Muammar Gaddafi’s spokesman accused NATO of killing more than 350 people in the town of Sirte overnight, as well as thousands of civilians in the last 17 days. In a telephone call to Reuters … Continue reading


La Vera Guerra Inizia Ora + Video-Intervista ad Abayomi Azikwe

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Abayomi Azikwe on the neo-colonial Takeover by NATO Il Consiglio nazionale di transizione si è impegnato a cedere il 35 per cento del petrolio della Libia alla Francia. Fonte: Libertè-Algerie LA GUERRA VERA INIZIA ORA PEPE ESCOBAR – Asia Times … Continue reading

Nato-rats, French-Zionists & English-colonialists in Tripoli (Sept. 15, 2011)


Sarkozy: “next to Libya will be Syria”

Cameron: “we will free the Libyan money, so we will sell them more weapons, helicopters and airplanes”

NTC-rats: “we are the perfect “Islamic” waiters for bankers, and we’ll give the African gold in the safes of the Zionists ”

Videoclip from PressTV television
Reloaded by


Libya’s sieged cities. Marinella Correggia: see how to bomb of questions the Nato press office!

Libya’s sieged cities: see how to bomb of questions the Nato press office! Marinella Correggia – September 12, 2011 – LibyanFreePress If you watch sometimes the Nato press briefings you will see that the international press only asks for stupid/easy/nondisturbing questions. … Continue reading

I piloti canadesi si rifiutano di bombardare aree densamente popolate, i Nato-rats no

Canadian Pilots Refuse to Bomb Libya

I piloti canadesi si rifiutano di bombardare


Mentre i piloti canadesi si rifiutano di bombardare zone densamente popolate ed obiettivi civili (coerentemente non accettano di provocare “danni collaterali civili”, visto che lo scopo della missione Nato era, a parole, quello di difendere i civili, non di ucciderli), i mercenari-Nato invece non si fanno scrupoli e sparano a zero su tutto e su tutti. Questo la dice lunga sulle reali intenzioni e sensibilità umana dei “ribelli”.


Mentre i mercenari-Nato non si fanno scrupoli

Los rebeldes Libios bombardean Sirte

Libia: la Nato bombarda l’acquedotto

Ilvero volto criminale degli umanitaristi euro-sion-petrolmonarchi-yankee della Nato.

La Nato bombarda l’acquedotto , la rete di distribuzione dell’acqua e le società che potrebbero riparare i danni, mettendo in crisi la popolazione e le città.

Un danno enorme, ad un’infrastruttura, come tante in Libia, voluta e fatta edificare da Muhammar Al-Gaddafi.

TESTO in PDF: Nato Bombarda Acquedotto LibicoTESTO in PDF: Nato Bombarda Acquedotto Libico


La Nato ha fatto strage a Sirte

This gallery contains 2 photos.

“La Nato ha fatto strage a Sirte” foto Ap/Lapresse TGCOM, 31 agosto 2011 – L’aviazione della Nato avrebbe ucciso a Sirte un migliaio di “fedeli che stavano compiendo la preghiera dell’Eid al Fitr”, la festa di fine Ramadan. L’accusa arriva … Continue reading


BEFORE and AFTER the “NATO-rats” liberated Tripoli (italiano-english)

This gallery contains 1 photos.

BEFORE and AFTER the “NATO-rats” liberated Tripoli NATO = North Atlantic Terrorist Organization 2 million people in Tripoli, 99% Gaddafi supporters. NATO brings boat loads of rebels knowing full well a bloodbath was the only possible outcome. How humanitarian. Think … Continue reading


LIBIA E SIRIA (1): Parvus bellum in principio fiet magnus in termino?

This gallery contains 7 photos.

LIBIA E SIRIA (1): Parvus bellum in principio fiet magnus in termino?  1°) LA LIBIA Prologo Il professor Agostino Sanfratello, che risiede in Libano e può seguire da vicino lo svolgersi delle rivoluzioni “primaverili” del medio oriente, ha scritto tre … Continue reading

La NATO (euro-yankee) detta la politica di Al-Qaeda

Responsabile dei servizi di sicurezza libici accusa LA NATO di sostenere AL-QAEDA

 Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer –Activist Post

La “guerra al terrore” americana è una farsa progettata per togliere  libertà agli americani consolidando la ricchezza e il potere nelle mani dell’élite.

Da quando è iniziata la guerra al terrorismo, assolutamente nessun progresso misurabile è stato fatto e l’intera nomenclatura assegnata a questa “guerra” rafforza questo fatto dimostrando che questa è una guerra che è destinata a continuare per sempre, in tutto il mondo.

Per coloro che sono ancora preda dell’illusione che stiamo combattendo il terrorismo, il nostro supporto ai ribelli apertamente legati ad al Qaeda in Libia ( lo stesso gruppo al Qaeda responsabile per l’invio di militanti in Iraq per uccidere i soldati americani) dovrebbe aver frantumato questa illusione.

Il capo dei servizi di sicurezza libici , che sono i reali servizi di sicurezza libici non i ribelli criminali di guerra affiliati ad al-Qaeda, Abdullah al-Snousi, l’ha chiarito molto bene in una dichiarazione in data odierna.

La seguente dichiarazione è stata pubblicata sul blog in diretta di Al Jazeera in Libia,  ma non è stato specificato a chi è stata fatta questa dichiarazione o in quale luogo.

“Quello che stiamo affrontando ora in questa guerra è la NATO guidata da al-Qaeda. I funzionari europei e occidentali stanno mentendo al loro popolo quando dicono che stanno combattendo il terrorismo. Infatti stanno combattendo con il terrorismo contro il popolo libico e stanno eseguendo gli ordini di al Qaeda.

Ciò che troviamo veramente strano è che gli stessi che ci hanno mostrato questi elementi come terroristi sono le stesse persone che adesso supportano proprio questi elementi terroristi. Ora la coalizione internazionale non è contro il terrorismo, ma tra l’Occidente e il terrorismo. E i miei colleghi, i capi dei servizi segreti di tutto il mondo sanno di cosa sto parlando. Capo libico dei servizi di sicurezza Abdullah Al-Snousi “.

Sono in disaccordo che la guerra è “guidata da al-Qaeda”, in quanto sarebbe del tutto sciocco pensare che al Qaeda detta la politica americana.

Rettifico, stabilendo che  è l’America che detta la politica ad Al-Qaeda.

Il semplice fatto è che stiamo sostenendo terroristi in Libia e incoraggiando attivamente un gruppo di individui con forti legami con i terroristi per rovesciare il regime di Gheddafi, per sostituirsi al potere.

Proprio come i regimi autoritari di tutto il mondo, la leadership ribelle non è stata scelta o approvata dal popolo della Libia.

Essi si sono dichiarati gli unici rappresentanti legittimi del popolo della Libia e rapidamente sono stati accettati come tali dai governi occidentali.

Le nazioni occidentali a sostegno di questi ribelli affiiati ad Al-Qaeda poi, a dispetto delle convenzioni di Vienna, hanno rubato territorio sovrano libico e l’hanno consegnato agli illegittimi inviati ribelli.

Possiamo solo sperare che una volta che questi ribelli prenderanno il pieno controllo sulla Libia la governeranno correttamente e democraticamente, ma purtroppo tutti i segni attuali dimostrano che questo non sarà il caso.

Perché? Perché le forze di opposizione hanno già iniziato a servire i loro padroni globalisti vendendo loro petrolio greggio dolce e istituendo una banca privata centrale per trasformare la Libia da ricco paese Africano indipendente in una nazione impoverita schiava del debito obbligata verso i cartelli bancari, come il FMI , la Banca Mondiale e la Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali.

Tutto ciò che possiamo fare a questo punto è sostenere il diritto del popolo libico ad un governo democraticamente eletto e, purtroppo, non è questa la strada che attualmente si sta seguendo.

Madison Ruppert è l’editor e il Proprietario -Operatore dell’archivio di notizie alternative e di analisi End The Lie e non ha alcuna affiliazione con qualsiasi ONG, partito politico, scuola di economia o altra organizzazione/causa. Se avete domande, commenti o correzioni non esitate a contattarlo all’indirizzo

Fonti: Activist Post 21 Agosto 2011
Traduzione: Anna Moffa per

Adattamento di LibyanFreePress

Ultime da Tripoli – (Redazionale del 22/08/2011)

Analisi e testimonianze da Tripoli:

in Redazione con Jacinta Ryan

Redazionale di LibyanFreePress
22 agosto 2011, ore 18.00

Nel Video: Intervista con Thierry Meyssan

Crepitii di armi da fuoco, boati d’esplosioni, deflagrazioni delle bombe sganciate dalla North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO), misti a notizie frammentate, a volte confuse e contradditorie, su quel che realmente accade a Tripoli, sono gli ingredienti di questi momenti di tensione e apprensione per la sorte della Libia e della sua popolazione sin’ora in sintonia col governo legittimo di Tripoli, inclusi gli amici e corrispondenti che aiutano questa piccola redazione a diffondere il maggior numero possibile di informazioni e video, in tutte le lingue e ad ogni latitudine, per rompere il muro di omertà e falsità che circonda questa sporca guerra d’aggressione coloniale, in pieno terzo millennio.
Perchè, oltre alle bombe euro-americane sganciate sulla Jamahiriya, il punto forte di questa guerra è la malainformazione, la disinformazione, la manipolazione degli avvenimenti e la creazione di notizie false.
E lo scopo e motivo d’esistere di questa piattaforma per la diffusione di news-on-line è infatti proprio quello di contrastare la mafia mediatica euro-yankee.
Per meglio decifrare gli ultimi avvenimenti, questa mattina abbiamo parlato con la nostra amica e stretta collaboratrice, Jacinta Ryan, free-lance australiana, sposata con un libico, professore della “Alfateh University”, che da sei anni è residente nel centro di Tripoli, a due passi dalla Piazza Verde, la quale ci ha raccontato ed evidenziato particolari importanti.
Intanto una cosa è chiara: i mercenari Nato-Al Qaedisti, i così detti “ribelli” (dalla stampa asservita) di Bengasi, non hanno affatto il totale controllo della capitale.
E’ vero che i giornalisti forestieri sono assediati al Rixos Hotel, ma sino a ieri sera si poteva ancora, facendo molta attenzione ai “cecchini umanitari Nato”, entrare ed uscire dall’albergo. Questa mattina ancora Thierry Meyssan aveva parlato al telefono con Jacinta Ryan, per confermare che tutti all’interno dell’hotel stavano bene, che alcuni dirigenti politici e membri del governo di Gheddafi erano ancora al suo interno, ben armati, e che i bombardamenti Nato erano momentaneamente cessati.
Tutti attenderebbero una scorta di veicoli ONU (non Nato, viste le frequentazioni poco raccomandabili jihadiste) e delle organizzazioni “umanitarie” ancora presenti a Tripoli, per poter raggiungere le rispettive ambasciate, l’aeroporto o il porto.
“Attenderebbero”, al condizionale: perchè in realtà nessuna delle “forze umanitarie” ha la volontà e capacità di effettuare una sortita dalle proprie residenze diplomatiche per raggiungere i giornalisti e trasferirli in luoghi più sicuri. E’ stato infatti loro detto di trovare il modo di raggiungere, con mezzi propri, le ambasciate.
Particolarmente a rischio sarebbe la posizione di 4 o 5 giornalisti, gli unici che abbiano avuto il coraggio e l’onestà intellettuale di raccontare e analizzare gli avvenimenti degli ultimi mesi senza bavagli politicamente corretti.

Tutto il resto delle decine di corrispondenti per le varie testate giornalistiche internazionali, TV e Stampa, non correrrebbero invece alcun rischio, essendo stati visti esultanti, indice e medio della mano alzati a “V”, in segno di vittoria, sfacciatamente, e durante la conferenza stampa del dr. Moussa Ibrahim di ieri, il quale denunciava in tale occasione le centinaia di civili ammazzati dai bombardamenti Nato, implorando le nazioni e le popolazioni del mondo ad intervenire nelle opportune sedi per chiedere ai propri governi di porre fine al massacro.
Testimoni oculari, tra cui Jacinta Ryan, hanno assistito alla vergogna, etica e professionale, del sabbah mediatico di prezzolati scribacchini e mezzi busti, i quali, dopo essere stati trattati con guanti di velluto, protetti, rispettati e agevolati nel proprio lavoro di informazione, vilmente si prendevano beffe di chi li aveva sin’ora ospitati, di chi si era fidato della loro inesistente professionalità, e macabramente gioivano della sopraffazione di decine, centinaia, migliaia di vite di civili, uomini, donne, bambini, democraticamente massacrati dall’impero del crimine per il New World Order.
Una vergognosa accozzaglia di cialtroni e parassiti mediatici, stipendiati profumtamente dai contribuenti, occidentali e petrol-monarchici (canone-tasse-pubblicità), danzano sui cadaveri della gente di Jamahiria e presto continueranno il loro lavoro di brainwashing nelle vostre putride ed inquinate metropoli. Riceveranno probabilmente, per questa prova di fedeltà ai banksters di Wall street, un avanzamento di carriera ed un aumento di stipendio.
Intanto la popolazione di Tripoli se ne sta barricata in casa, perchè, nonostante la situazione sia ancora fluttuante, restano sparsi qua e là troppi focolai di guerra, cecchini appostati e nascosti,  ed i check-points governativi sono il bersaglio preferito dell’aviazione euro-yankee.
Ma la gente di Tripoli ancora crede sia possibile ricacciare le bande di predoni che vorrebbero impossessarsi del potere, e resiste, insieme ai militari fedeli al governo di Muammar Gheddafi. Tutti sono armati e pronti a reagire. Nessuno vuole abbandonare le case e farsi prendere, come vorrebbero i comandi Nato, dal panico.
L’autorità di Tripoli ha intanto ripristinato l’uso di internet, anche se la linea è debole e instabile.
Inoltre sono stati automaticamente ricaricati, di 50 dinari l’uno, tutti i telefoni cellulari della popolazione.
Ora ditemi: avete mai sentito parlare di un tiranno che, in un momento di attacco da parte della popolazione insorta contro di lui, distribuisca a tale popolazione armi, ricarichi loro i cellulari affinchè possano restare meglio in contatto, faciliti l’accesso ad internet?
Veramente uno strano tiranno.
In qualsiasi modo vadano le cose nelle prossime ore, anche se tutto volgesse a discapito della legittima autorità di Jamahiria, quella della leadership di Muammar Gheddafi, una cosa ci è chiara: non abbiamo assistito ad una “rivoluzione” popolare e spontanea, ma ad una pianificata manovra militare e di intelligence,  per destabilizzare l’area afro-mediorientale sensibile geostrategicamente ed appetibile per via delle immense ricchezze energetiche.
Ed infine i “rats” di Bengasi, che non godono dell’appoggio popolare e dell’approvazione delle tribù libiche, nulla avrebbero potuto senza il preponderante aiuto militare delle nazioni più forti ed organizzate dell’occidente coalizzato, senza parlare della connivenza fratricida delle petrolmonarchie arabe.
Per concludere: tutte le cose che vi abbiamo appena narrato erano state da Jacinta Ryan raccontate pure ad un “giornalista” de “La Repubblica”, con la speranza che potessero raggiungere un più ampio pubblico anche in Italia. Ma non essendo esse nella vulgata desiderata e temendo il corrispondente per il proprio stipendio e carriera, sono state cestinate.
Se questi sono uomini…

Manifestiamo in questa tragica occasione tutta la solidarietà e amicizia nei confronti dell’eroica popolazione di Tripoli e di tutta la Libia, del legittimo governo della Jamahiria, del colonnello Muammar Gheddafi e dei fedeli patrioti libici.

Redazionale di LibyanFreePress
22 agosto 2011, ore 18.00

Jacinta Ryan può essere contattata, in inglese, presso


Press Conference Moussa Ibrahim after Rebels Entered Tripoli

Press Conference Moussa Ibrahim after Rebels Entered Tripoli – August 21, 2011

Moussa Ibrahim speaks of 1300 people killed from 12.00 noon until 23.00 on August 21 with 5000 wounded. He expressed his fear that many families who are well-known people supporting Gaddafi are afraid that they will be killed by the Rebels to settle scores. They either need to fight or get killed.

He mentioned the killing of a civilian who was simply walking on the street. He was killed because he was a supporter of the Jamahiriya.

NATO has killed quite a lot of these 1300 people by bombing checkpoints and everything else that they have relentlessly bombed today.

He asks NATO to order their Rebels to return in order to prevent a massacre taking place in Tripoli. NATO is held responsible for this blood bath. They made sure the Rebels could enter Tripoli and settle the scores.

Let’s just hope it will not turn out as terrible as Moussa Ibrahim predicts, but his account seems logical. Both parties are filled with fear and hatred towards each other.

Majer-Zlitan Massacre by NATO (Eng-Ita-Esp)

Press Conference by Moussa Ibrahim

on Majer-Zlitan Massacre by NATO (August 9, 2011)

Libia, Majer-Zlitan: la NATO massacra 85 civili, di cui 33 bambini, 32 donne, 20 uomini. “Per motivi umanitari” come ci spiegano i nostri “politici-burattini” nelle mani dell’usurocrazia finanziaria e bancaria mondiale.

Il popolo della Libia di Jamahiriya e di Tripoli sappia però che non tutti in Europa sono così stupidi da non aver capito il complotto/cospirazione contro la Libia ed i popoli/Nazioni del mondo, e faremo il possibile per diffondere la Verità sul crimine che si sta compiendo ai danni della Libia e di tutti noi.

Ognuno ha il suo ruolo, ognuno fa la sua parte: buona fortuna fratelli della Jamahiriya ancora libera (Nota di Redazione)

Libia acusa a la OTAN de asesinar a 85 civiles a Majer-Zlitan

NATO Airstrike Kills Mother and two Children in Zlitan

NATO Bombs Falling on Civilians Kills Family

NATO attacks on national TV headquarters and installations in Tripoli

On video: Press Conference (Dr. Moussa Ibrahim), August 3, 2011 –

NATO helps Rebels bombard peaceful cities in Libya 

(by WolkenZwemmer)


NATO attacks on national TV headquarters and installations in Tripoli

Reporters Without Borders condemns NATO airstrikes on the Tripoli headquarters of the state-owned national TV broadcaster Al-Jamahiriya and two of its installations on 30 July. According to Al-Jamahiriya, three of its journalists were killed and 21 others were wounded in the airstrikes but this could not be immediately verified.

The impossibility of immediate verification is yet another reminder of the difficulty of establishing what is happening in a war when there are no journalists on the ground or their ability to work is severely curtailed. “We appeal again to the authorities in Tripoli to let journalists work freely,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said.

We remind NATO that news media are civilian installations and cannot be regarded as military objectives,” Julliard said. “Even if Al-Jamahiriya is clearly used by the Gaddafi regime as a propaganda outlet, it does not in any way legitimize these attacks. Other means, such as support for independent media, must be used to minimize the regime’s propaganda and threats.”

We call for a transparent investigation into the circumstances of these airstrikes. Military attacks on civilian installations constitute war crimes and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. It is essential to establish who was responsible.”

In a statement, NATO said it carried out the air strikes in order to silence the regime’s “terror broadcasts” and put a stop its “use of satellite television as a means to intimidate the Libyan people and incite acts of violence against them.”

This is not the first time that NATO has targeted news media. A commission of enquiry created by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia criticized NATO for bombing Serbian television headquarters in 1999. The commission ruled that the broadcaster’s propaganda activities did not suffice to make it a legitimate military target.

In 2003, a US and UK-led military coalition deliberate targeted the Baghdad bureaux of two Arab TV stations (Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV), the Palestine Hotel (used as a base by many of the foreign journalists operating in Baghdad) and the Iraqi national TV stations headquarters. This was also strongly condemned by Reporters Without Borders.,40729.html

La OTAN bombardea objetivos civiles

30 julio 2011: la OTAN bombardea nuevamente objetivos civiles


Daily NATO War Crimes in Libya

Daily NATO War Crimes in Libya

by Stephen Lendman – July 29, 2011 – Mathaba

Among them is waging war on truth, Western managed news calling lawless imperial wars liberating ones, as George Orwell predicted in his book 1984: War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength

No wonder John Pilger says journalism is the first casualty of war, adding:

“Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognised in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries….”

In their book, “Guardians of Power,” David Edwards and David Cromwell explained why today’s media are in crisis and a free and open society at risk. It’s because press prostitutes substitute fiction for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent marginalized, and supporting wealth and power substitutes for full and accurate reporting.

It’s a cancer, corrupting everything from corporate-run print and broadcast sources, as well as operations like BBC and what passes for America’s hopelessly compromised public radio and TV. They put out daily managed and junk food news plus infotainment, treating consumers like mushrooms – well-watered and in the dark.

During wars, in fact, they cheerlead them, reporting agitprop and misinformation no respectable journalist would touch.

On the Progressive Radio News Hour, Middle East/Central Asia analyst Mahdi Nazemroaya, in Tripoli, said some journalists also perform fifth column duties, collecting intelligence and locating targets to supply NATO bombing coordinates, notably civilian targets called military ones.

In a July 28 email, he said tell listeners that “NATO is trying to negotiate with the government in Tripoli.” More on that below. He added that they’re also “planning a new stage of the war against the Libyan people through (predatory) NGOs and fake humanitarian missions.” A likely UN Blue Helmet occupying force also, paramilitaries masquerading as peacekeepers Gaddafi controlled areas won’t tolerate.

NATO, in fact, calls civilian targets legitimate ones, including one or more hospitals, a clinic, factories, warehouses, agricultural sites, schools, a university, one or more mosques, non-military related infrastructure, a food storage facility, and others.

Notably on July 23, a Brega water pipe factory was struck, killing six guards. It produces pipes for Libya’s Great Man-Made River (GMMR) system (GMMR), an ocean-sized aquifer beneath its sands, making the desert bloom for productive agriculture, and supplying water to Libya’s people.

The previous day, a water supply pipeline was destroyed. It will take months to restore. The factory produced vital pipes to do it, a clear war crime like daily others. Moreover, the entire GMMR is threatened by a shortage of spare parts and chemicals. As a result, it’s struggling to keep reservoirs at a level able to provide a sustainable supply. Without it, a humanitarian disaster looms, very likely what NATO plans as in past wars.

On July 27, AFP said that:

“NATO warned that its warplanes will bomb civilian facilities if (Gaddafi’s) forces use them to launch attacks.” At the same time, a spokesman said great care is taken to minimize civilian casualties.

NATO lied. Daily, it’s attacking non-military related sites to destroy Libya’s ability to function in areas loyal to Gaddafi. Earlier, in fact, a spokesman claimed there was “no evidence” civilian targets were hit or noncombatants killed, except one time a major incident was too obvious to hide. Reluctantly it admitted a “mistake,” covering up a willful planned attack, knowing civilians were affected.

Libya (satellite) TV calls itself “a voice for free Libya….struggling to liberate Libya from the grip of the Gaddafi regime….” In fact, it’s a pro-NATO propaganda service, reporting misinformation on air and online.

On July 25, it headlined, “No evidence to support Gaddafi’s allegations that civilian targets were hit,” when, it fact, they’re struck daily.

Nonetheless, it claimed only military sites are bombed, saying Tripoli-based journalists aren’t taken to affected areas, “suggesting NATO’s gunners are hitting military targets, at least in the capital.”

In fact, corporate and independent journalists are regularly taken to many sites struck. Independent accounts confirm civilian casualties and non-military facilities bombed. Pro-NATO scoundrels report managed news, complicit in daily war crimes.

On July 28, Libya TV claimed “captured Gaddafi soldiers say army morale is low,” when, in fact, most Libyans support Gaddafi. Millions are armed. Gaddafi gave them weapons. They could easily oust him if they wish. Instead, they rally supportively, what Western media and Libya TV won’t report.

Moreover, captured soldiers say what they’re told, likely threatened with death or torture if they refuse, especially in rebel paramilitary hands, under NATO orders to terrorize areas they control.

As a result, civilian casualties mount, up to 1,200 or more killed and thousands wounded in pro-Gaddafi areas, many seriously as war rages. In addition, unknown numbers of combatant casualties on both sides aren’t known, nor is the civilian toll in rebel held areas.

Nonetheless, daily sorties and strikes continue. Since mid-July alone through July 27, they include:

July 14: 132 sorties and 48 strikes

July 15: 115 sorties and 46 strikes

July 16: 110 sorties and 45 strikes

July 17: 122 sorties and 46 strikes

July 18: 129 sorties and 44 strikes

July 19: 113 sorties and 40 strikes

July 20: 122 sorties and 53 strikes

July 21: 124 sorties and 45 strikes

July 22: 128 sorties and 46 strikes

July 23: 125 sorties and 56 strikes

July 24: 163 sorties and 43 strikes

July 25: 111 sorties and 54 strikes

July 26: 134 sorties and 46 strikes

July 27: 133 sorties and 54 strikes

Daily patterns are consistent. However, information on numbers and types of bombs, as well as other munitions aren’t given. Instead, misinformation claims a humanitarian mission protects civilians – by terrorizing, killing, and injuring them, solely for imperial aims. It’s why all US-led wars are fought, never for liberating reasons.

The entire campaign is based on lies. It’s standard war time procedure, to enlist popular support for campaigns people otherwise would reject.

In fact, no humanitarian crisis existed until NATO arrived. Moreover, in paramilitary controlled areas, Amnesty International confirmed only 110 pro and anti-Gaddafi supporter deaths combined, most likely more of the former than latter as rebel cutthroats rampaged through areas they occupy. Currently, the numbers of dead and injured civilians are many times that amount, largely from NATO attacks.

NATO, in fact, is code language for the Pentagon, paying the largest share of its operating and military budgets. Except for Germany and Britain, other members pay small shares, most, in fact, miniscule amounts.

Since NATO began bombing on March 19, daily attacks inflicted lawless collective punishment against millions in Gaddafi supported areas. Affected is their ability to obtain food, medicines, fuel and other basic supplies, exposing another lie about humanitarian intervention.

On July 25, OCHA’s fact-finding team said Tripoli contained “pockets of vulnerability where people need urgent humanitarian assistance.” Medical supplies are running low. The last major delivery was in January, and concerns are increasing about the “unsustainable food supply chain for the public distribution systems, especially as Ramadan approaches (on or around August 1 to about August 29) and the conflict persists.”

Moreover, “Libyan oil experts warned that fuel stocks could run out in two weeks.” Public transportation costs have tripled. Food prices have also soared. Tripoli residents experience electricity cuts, and clean water supplies are endangered.

Before conflict erupted, Libyans had the region’s highest standard of living and highest life expectancy in Africa because Gaddafi’s oil wealth provided healthcare, education, housing assistance and other social benefits. Imperial war, of course, changed things. Libyans now hang on to survive.

Seeking an End Game

On July 26, UPI headlined, “NATO seeks urgent exit strategy in Libya,” knowing this phase of the war is lost. Nonetheless, future strategies and campaigns will follow.

For now, however, “NATO is seeking an urgent exit strategy (to end) fighting and decide the future of (Gaddifi), even if that means letting him stay in the country though out of power, it emerged Tuesday after British and French foreign ministers met in London.”

In tribal Libya, Gaddafi’s power, in fact, is far less than reported, social anthropologist Ranier Fsadni saying:

“Gaddafi’s feeling for tribal Libya is certainly one factor that explains how he has managed to rule the country for so many years. (However), (t)here is no tribal office giving a single man a monopoly of institutional power at the apex….Several factors account for his longevity in power,” including sharing Libya’s oil wealth.

UPI said diplomacy is driven by a failed military campaign. As a result, “(i)ntense mediation efforts are underway at different levels at the United Nations and Europe, in African, European and Middle Eastern capitals and Russia.”

Neither side is commenting, but some observers think operations may wind down in weeks, based on an unannounced face-saving solution, despite continued destabilization and future conflict planned. It’s similar to Balkan and Iraq war strategies, a combination of tactics until Washington prevailed.

Libya faces the same end game, though years could pass before it arrives. As a result, Libyans can expect continued hardships. When imperial America shows up, that strategy persists until it prevails, no matter the pain and suffering inflicted.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at


Libya to prosecute NATO in international courts

Libya to prosecute NATO in international courts

Rianovosti – Libya intends to prosecute NATO in international courts for the Western military alliance’s attempts to physically eliminate country’s leader Muammar Gaddafi and members of his family, the Libyan Justice Ministry said in a statement.

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued on Monday an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, accusing him of torturing and killing opponents of his regime.

“The so-called International Criminal Court is only a cover for operations of NATO, which repeatedly tried to physically eliminate the leader of the Revolution [Gaddafi] and his family members,” the statement said.

The ministry added that such actions of NATO are “war crimes,” which must be prosecuted in international criminal courts.

The warrants issued by the Hague-based court on Monday also cover Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi.

A statement, read out by presiding judge Sanji Monageng, said the ICC had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the three men ordered murders and persecution of civilians.

Gaddafi, who as “the recognized and undisputed leader of Libya had absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control” over the state, designed a state policy “aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against the regime,” the Pre-Trial Chamber I said.

Saif al-Islam is “the most influential person” within Gaddafi’s inner circle, the warrant says, although he holds no official position.

Thousands of people have died in the five-months-old conflict, and more than 650,000 people have been displaced.

Related: A NATO-led operation to protect Libyan civilians entered its 100th day on Monday.

NATO is an outlaw, the ICC is its accomplice

NATO is an outlaw, the ICC is its accomplice

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey – Pravda.Ru – 28.06.2011


The International Criminal Court at The Hague is a pariah in the world of Justice and International Law; those who work for it are traitors to their cause, the Institution itself is an insult to every fibre of civilisation and a knife in the back of the notion that the law prevails and is applied without bias.

It is patently clear nowadays that the ICC is a tool in the hands of NATO – a cynical tool which bases itself on the pseudo-precept that it follows the law, a manipulative organism which twists legal principles and applies them with two weights and measures. What is amazing, is that those behind the ICC and NATO think that the public will believe them.

NATO has committed war crimes in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. NATO has committed terrorist attacks occasioning murder in all three theatres of war. Nothing happened, the ICC remained silent. Arrest warrants have been served for David Cameron and Barack Obama in police stations near their places of work and residence for the murder of Colonel Gaddafi’s three grandchildren and other civilians in Libya. Monitoring the situation, we see that nothing has yet happened.

NATO’s violation of the law

NATO’s remit in Libya were UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) which, summarised, concentrated on no boots on the ground in Libya among NATO forces and this is not the case – violation 1; the enforcement of a no-fly zone, which does not include strafing civilian structures  – violation 2; measures to protect civilians from being attacked does not mean attacking government forces fighting hundreds of heavily armed terrorists – violation 3.

Under the UN Charter it is illegal to take sides in an internal conflict – violation 4; it is illegal to murder or attempt to murder government officials – violation 5; with no formal declaration of war, with no remit from the Military Committee of the UNSC, any action occasioning murder is illegal – violation 6; ditto attempted murder – violation 7; ditto actions occasioning grievous bodily hard – violation 8; ditto actual bodily harm – violation 9; ditto criminal damage – violation 10.

Under the Geneva Conventions it is illegal to attack civilian structures with military hardware – violation 11; it is also illegal to deploy in theatres of conflict munitions and weaponry which will have an affect after such conflict. The alleged use of cluster bombs by NATO and of Depleted Uranium (there are several precedents) could provide violation 12.

At least eleven, possibly 12, violations of international law in Libya, countless others in other operations, and the ICC says nothing. The judges of the ICC receive their instructions and insult their academic area, the fundamental principles of law and their professional class with barefaced arrogance. I challenge Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo to investigate the above charges and to pronounce himself.

The joke which is the ICC

Two international lawyers have exposed the joke which the ICC is. Within just a few hours, lawyers Themba Langa (South Africa – Counsel to Muammar al-Qathafi, Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi and Abdullah al-Senussi) and Fabio Maria Galiani (Italy – Legal advisor and member of the defence team) uncovered no less than eight points of law proving that the ICC is a kangaroo court without one iota of legal validity, yet again proved in this case. Their points are summarised as follows, my observations in brackets.

They point out that for a start the Court has no jurisdiction in Libya because it was never ratified there, that anyway notwithstanding this, under international customary law a Head of State has immunity (did they take Saddam Hussein to The Hague?. Indeed the ICC has no jurisdiction in the USA, so why should it have any in Libya?)

Secondly they point out that the referral to the ICC by the UN Security Council is a violation of jurisdiction, independence and impartiality because it instructs the Court to exclude prosecution for certain persons and in following this directive, the ICC itself is in violation of its own constituent Statutes; thirdly the UNSC does not have the power to dictate terms over Libya to the ICC and anyway under international customary law, the ruling yesterday by the ICC is invalid in countries not signatories to the Rome Treaty which set up the Court.

Fourthly, if in the following instances, the Prosecutor has still not decided whether to open a case on Georgia (because the evidence is being considered) since 2008 (three years); on Guinea since 2009 (two years), on Colombia since 2006 (five years) why then was all the evidence on Libya read, digested and treated legally within just three days when the investigation was opened? (Where is the case against Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi? Where are the cases against the Islamist terrorists who massacred Black Libyans and children? Where is the case against NATO, against Obama, against Cameron, against Sarkozy, against Berlusconi?)

Fifthly the ICC did not even notice that the referral by the UNSC violated the Court’s Statute; sixthly, if NATO respects the Court and its deliberation, (why is it continuing to perpetrate 100 terrorist attacks a day protecting terrorists?) then the defendants should have the right to defence themselves. Seventh, NATO is accountable for murder, destruction of property and injury to civilians (acts of terrorism) and eighth, the entire campaign has been based on manipulation through the media (rendering the legal tenets void under any normal court of law. But then again, the ICC is no court of law, is it?)

Next, on the impartiality of this “Court”, the lawyers mentioned above claim in their statement:

“One of the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I, Mr. Cuno Tarfusser, recently made statements to the Italian media on the situation in Libya which indicated that the ICC is not impartial”.

One last question, why do the USA, UK and France prohibit the delivery of baby food to Libyan children? Isn’t it enough for Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy to murder them by bombing? If them enjoy murdering children, why don’t they start at home? When they look at their children, do they hear the screams of Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren as they fried in their own blood?

So, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, what, as a judge and a lawyer, do you have to say to THAT? Nothing, of course, because we know who and what you are.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey – Pravda.Ru

Tripoli bombardé ne faiblit pas

Tripoli bombardé ne faiblit pas

par Thierry Meyssan – Réseau Voltaire – Tripoli (Libye) – 27 juin 2011

Un groupe international d’enquêteurs du Réseau Voltaire est actuellement en Libye. Il a pu se rendre sur des lieux de bombardements. Disposant de la confiance des autorités libyennes, il a pu rencontrer quelques uns des dirigeants politiques et sécuritaires malgré les conditions de guerre. Leur constat est diamétralement opposé aux images véhiculées par la presse occidentale. Thierry Meyssan livre leurs premières observations.


 La chambre à coucher de Mouammar Kadhafi, bombardée par l’OTAN. L’Alliance a détruit deux autres chambres du bâtiment, celle de son fils et de ses petits enfants, qui sont morts. Le Guide était absent – © Réseau Voltaire

Au centième jour de bombardement de la Libye, l’OTAN annonce l’imminence de son succès. Cependant, les buts de guerre n’étant pas clairement précisés, on ignore en quoi consistera ce succès. Simultanément, la Cour pénale internationale annonce la mise en accusation du Guide Mouammar Kadhafi, de son fils Saif al-Islam et du chef des services de renseignement intérieur, Abdallah al-Senoussi pour « crimes contre l’humanité ».

Si l’on se rapporte à la résolution 1973 du Conseil de sécurité, la Coalition des États volontaires vise à établir une zone d’exclusion aérienne afin d’empêcher les troupes du tyran de tuer son propre peuple. Cependant, les informations initiales selon lesquelles l’armée de l’air libyenne a bombardé des villes qui s’étaient soulevées contre le pouvoir de Tripoli ne sont toujours pas corroborées, bien qu’elles soient considérées comme fiables par la Cour pénale internationale. Quoi qu’il en soit, les actions de l’OTAN ont très largement dépassé l’instauration d’une zone d’exclusion aérienne pour se transformer en une destruction systématique des fores armées nationales, air, terre et mer.

Les objectifs de l’OTAN sont probablement autres. Les leaders de l’Alliance ont ainsi évoqué de nombreuses fois le renversement du « régime » de Mouammar Kadhafi, voire l’élimination physique du « frère Guide ». Les médias occidentaux évoquent des « défections massives » des cadres de Tripoli et leur ralliement à la cause des insurgés de Benghazi, mais ils ne parviennent pas à citer de noms, sinon ceux d’hommes politiques connus de longue date pour être favorables au rapprochement avec Washington, tel l’ex-ministre des Affaires étrangères Moussa Koussa.

L’opinion publique internationale est massivement désinformée. Washington a fait couper les retransmissions de la télévision libyenne sur le satellite ArabSat, dont la Jamahariya est pourtant actionnaire. Le département d’État ne devrait plus être long à faire de même avec NileSat.
En violation de ses engagements internationaux, Washington a refusé un visa au nouveau représentant libyen à l’ONU. Il ne peut venir à New York exposer son point de vue, tandis que son prédécesseur, rallié au CNT continue à occuper son siège.
La voix de Tripoli étant étouffée, il est possible de répandre n’importe quel mensonge sans crainte d’être contredit.

Rien d’étonnant donc à ce que vu de Tripoli, d’où cet article est écrit, les communiqués de l’OTAN et les injonctions de la Cour pénale internationale paraissent irréels. L’Ouest de la Libye est paisible. À des moments aléatoires, les sirènes annoncent l’arrivée des bombardiers ou des missiles. Suivi immédiatement des explosions qu’ils provoquent. Il est inutile de courir aux abris, d’une part parce que le temps est trop court et d’autre part, parce qu’il n’y a guère d’abris.

Les bombardements sont ciblés avec une extrême précision. Les munitions guidées touchent les bâtiments visés, et dans ces bâtiments, les pièces visées. Toutefois, l’OTAN perd le contrôle en vol d’environ un missile guidé sur dix. Celui-là tombe à l’aveuglette. N’importe où dans la ville, semant la mort au hasard.

Si une partie des cibles de l’OTAN sont « militaires » : casernes et bases ; la plupart sont « stratégiques », c’est-à-dire économiques. Par exemple, l’Alliance a bombardé l’imprimerie de la Monnaie libyenne, une administration civile chargée de fabriquer les dinars. Ou encore, ses commandos ont saboté des usines qui faisaient concurrence à celles de membres de la Coalition. D’autres cibles sont dites « psychologiques ». Il s’agit de toucher dans leur chair les dirigeants politiques et sécuritaires en massacrant leurs familles. Les missiles sont alors pointés sur les habitations privées, et plus précisément sur les chambres à coucher des enfants des dirigeants.

L’ambiance dans la capitale et sur la côte est lourde. Mais la population reste soudée. Les Libyens soulignent qu’aucun de leurs problèmes intérieurs ne justifie le recours à la guerre. Ils évoquent des revendications sociales et des questions régionales, comme il en existe dans les États européens, mais rien qui doive conduire à déchirer les familles comme on est en train de le faire en imposant une partition du pays.

Face à l’OTAN, des dizaines de milliers de bourgeois aisés ont plié bagage et sont allés se réfugier dans les pays limitrophes, notamment en Tunisie, laissant aux pauvres le soin de défendre la patrie qui les a enrichis. De nombreux commerces sont fermés sans que l’on sache s’ils doivent faire face à des difficultés d’approvisionnement ou si leurs propriétaires ont fuit.

Comme en Syrie, la plupart des opposants politiques font bloc derrière le gouvernement pour protéger l’intégrité du pays face à l’agression étrangère. Pourtant, certains Libyens, anonymes et invisibles, renseignent l’OTAN pour localiser ses cibles. Jadis leurs parents accueillaient les armées coloniales italiennes, aujourd’hui ils scandent avec leurs homologues de Benghazi : « 1, 2, 3, Sarkozy arrive ! ». Chaque peuple a ses traîtres et ses collabos.

Les exactions commises par les mercenaires du prince Bandar en Cyrénaique ont terminé de convaincre bien des hésitants. La télévision montre en boucle les œuvres des leaders d’Al Qaida en Libye, dont certains ont été libérés directement de Guantanamo pour combattre aux côtés des États-Unis. Des images insoutenables de lynchage et de mutilations dans des villes érigées en Émirats islamistes, à la mode afghane ou irakienne, par des individus deshumanisés par les tortures qu’ils ont subis et excités par des drogues puissantes. Il n’est pas nécessaire d’être un vieux partisan de la Révolution de Kadhafi pour la soutenir aujourd’hui face aux horreurs auxquels se livrent les jihadistes dans les « zones libérées » par l’Alliance [1].

Rien, nulle part, à l’Ouest n’évoque une révolte ou une guerre civile. Pas de barricades, ni de blindés dans les rues. Sur toutes les routes, les autorités ont installé des checks points tous les deux kilomètres. Les automobilistes patientent sagement, eux-mêmes attentifs à découvrir les éléments infiltrés par l’OTAN.

Le colonel Kadhafi arme la population. Près de deux millions de fusils mitrailleurs ont déjà été remis aux civils. L’objectif est que chaque adulte, homme ou femme, puisse défendre sa maison. Les Libyens ont retenu la leçon irakienne. Saddam Hussein avait assis son autorité sur le Baas et l’armée, excluant son peuple de la vie politique. Lorsque le parti fut décapité et que quelques généraux firent défection, l’État s’effondra soudainement laissant le pays sans résistance et plongé dans le chaos. La Libye, elle, est organisée selon un système original de démocratie participative, comparable aux assemblées du Vermont. Les gens sont habitués à être consultés et responsabilisés. Ils sont donc mobilisables en masse.

De manière inattendue, les femmes sont plus déterminées que les hommes à porter les armes. Cela traduit l’accroissement ces dernières années de la participation féminine aux assemblées populaires. Cela reflète peut-être aussi la nonchalance qui s’était emparée des cadres de cet État socialiste à haut niveau de vie.

Chacun a conscience que tout se jouera lorsque les troupes terrestres de l’OTAN débarqueront, si elles osent le faire. La stratégie de défense est donc entièrement conçue pour dissuader un tel débarquement en mobilisant la population. Ici les soldats français, britanniques et US ne seront pas accueillies en libérateurs, mais en envahisseurs coloniaux. Ils devront affronter d’interminables combats urbains.

Les Libyens s’interrogent sur les mobiles exacts de l’OTAN. Je suis surpris de constater que c’est souvent en lisant les articles du Réseau Voltaire, traduits et repris par de nombreux sites Internet et certains journaux imprimés, qu’ils ont été informés des vrais enjeux. Il y a ici, comme partout d’ailleurs, un déficit d’information sur les relations internationales. Les gens connaissent et s’enorgueillissent des initiatives et des réalisations du gouvernement pour l’Unité africaine ou pour le Développement du Tiers-monde, mais ils ignorent bien des aspects de la politique internationale et sous-estiment la capacité de destruction de l’Empire. La guerre semble toujours lointaine jusqu’à ce que le prédateur ne vous choisissent comme proie.

Quel est donc ce succès que l’OTAN annonce imminent ? Pour le moment, le pays est coupé en deux. La Cyrénaique a été proclamée République indépendante, bien qu’on s’y prépare à restaurer la monarchie, et a été reconnue par plusieurs États, à commencer par la France. Cette nouvelle entité est gouvernée de facto par l’OTAN, mais officiellement par un mystérieux Conseil national de transition, jamais élu, et dont les membres —s’ils existent— sont secrets pour ne pas avoir à répondre de leurs actes. Une partie des avoirs libyens a été gelée et est aujourd’hui gérée pour leur plus grand profit par les gouvernements occidentaux. Une partie de la production pétrolière est commercialisée à des conditions défiant toute concurrence aux compagnies occidentales qui se goinfrent. C’est peut-être cela le succès : le pillage colonial.

En lançant des mandats d’arrêts internationaux contre Mouammar Kadhafi, son fils et le chef des services de renseignement intérieur, la Cour pénale internationale cherche à exercer une pression sur les diplomates libyens pour les contraindre à démissionner. Chacun est menacé, en cas de chute de la Jamahiriya, d’être poursuivi pour « complicité de crime contre l’humanité ». Ceux qui démissionnent laisseront une place vacante derrière eux, sans possibilité d’être remplacés. Les mandats d’arrêts ressortent donc d’une politique d’isolement du pays.

La Cour fait aussi de la communication de guerre. Elle qualifie Saif al-Islam de « Premier ministre de facto », ce qu’il n’est surement pas, mais qui donne l’impression d’un régime familial. On retrouve là le principe d’inversion des valeurs typique de la propagande US. Alors que les insurgés de Benghazi brandissent le drapeau de la monarchie Senussi et que le prétendant au trône s’impatiente à Londres, c’est la démocratie participative qui est présentée en régime dynastique.

À l’issue de ces cent premiers jours de conflit, les communiqués de l’OTAN masquent mal la déception. Les Libyens ne se sont pas soulevés contre le « régime », hormis en Cyrénaïque. Aucune solution militaire n’est en vue. Le seul moyen pour l’Alliance atlantique de sortir la tête haute à moindre frais est de se contenter de la partition du pays. Benghazi deviendrait alors l’équivalent de Camp Bondsteel, la méga-base militaire US en Europe, ayant accédé au statut d’État indépendant sous le nom de Kosovo. La Cyrénaïque serait la base qui manquait à l’Africom pour contrôler le continent noir.

Thierry Meyssan

Source :« Tripoli bombardé ne faiblit pas », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 27 juin 2011,
 Thierry Meyssan
Intellectuel français, président-fondateur du Réseau Voltaire et de la conférence Axis for Peace. Il publie des analyses de politique étrangère dans la presse arabe, latino-américaine et russe. Dernier ouvrage en français : L’Effroyable imposture : Tome 2, Manipulations et désinformations (éd. JP Bertand, 2007).

Attacking Libya and International Law

Attacking Libya and international law

By the standard of international law, military action on Libya by the United States and allies is illegal, writes Curtis DoebblerAl-Ahram Weekly

On 19 March 2011, Western nations started the third international armed conflict against a Muslim country in the last decade. They went to great pains to claim that the use of force against Libya was legal, but an application of international law to the facts indicates that in fact the use of force is illegal.
This brief commentary evaluates the use of force against Libya, starting with UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that allegedly authorises it and the eventual attack on the people of Libya.

THE FACTS: Unlike the non-violent demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, the demonstrations that began in Libya on 17 February had deteriorated into a civil war within days. Both sides had tanks, fighter jets, anti- aircraft weapons, and heavy artillery. The government’s forces consisted of mainly trained military, while the armed opposition consisted of both defecting soldiers and numerous civilians who had taken up arms.

Indications of the level of force each side has at its disposal were shown by claims on Saturday, 19 March, that both a Libyan government fighter and a fighter jet flown by the opposition had been shot down near Benghazi. As the civil war increased in intensity, the international community contemplated action in support of the armed opposition. On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. And within 42 hours an attack on the troops of the Libyan government, aimed, according to the British Defence Minster William Hague, at killing the Libyan leader, had begun.
At around 12:00 noon local time in Washington, DC, on Saturday, 19 March, French fighters launched attacks against targets described as tanks and air defence systems. A few hours later, US battleships began firing cruise missiles at Libyan targets.

Although Arab and Muslim countries had joined the coalition against their Arab and Muslim neighbour, none of them actually participated in the airstrikes by sending aircraft. Already just after airstrikes began, Russia, China and the secretary-general of the Arab League, Egyptian Amr Moussa, condemned the loss of civilians lives that were caused by the bombing sorties.
Despite denials of the intention to target the Libyan leader, sites such as the living quarters and compounds used by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were attacked. After the first day of bombings, more than four-dozen civilians, including women and children, were reportedly killed.

The attacks came after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. In response to this resolution the Libyan government had officially called a ceasefire in the civil war that it was waging against armed rebels whose base is Benghazi. Libya also announced that its airspace was closed. Western leaders responded to these actions by the Libyan government by claiming that they could not be believed and arguing that the fighting was continuing. Indeed, Libyan sources confirmed that the civil war was ongoing and that both sides continued to attack each other.

UNSC RESOLUTION 1973: Resolution 1973 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with 10 votes for, none against and five abstentions. Voting for it were the UN Security Council’s permanent members, United States, Britain, France, and non-permanent members Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, and South Africa. Abstaining were permanent members Russia, China and non-permanent members Germany, Brazil, and India.

The resolution was adopted on Thursday, 17 March, just after 18:30 local time in New York. US Ambassador Susan Rice described it as strengthening the sanctions and travel bans imposed earlier in UNSC Resolution 1970. It was promoted by the French and United Kingdom governments, but with a strong presence of the United States in the background pulling the strings.
At the UNSC meeting was the new French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé.

Although as former Prime Minister he was not new to the UN, he arrived just weeks after his predecessor had been replaced for having accepted favours from a Libyan businessmen and just days after his government became the first Western government to recognise the forces fighting against the government in Libya’s raging civil war as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.
The Libyan government did not have a representative present at the meeting after its nominated ambassador, former President of the General Assembly Ali Abdel-Salam Treki was denied admission to the United States. Nevertheless, although officially relieved of his duties more than a week ago for defecting to the opposition, former deputy permanent representative Ibrahim Dabbashi was on hand at the Security Council media stakeout Wednesday to make a statement and take questions.

Resolution 1973 contains 29 operative paragraphs divided into eight sections. The first section calls for an “immediate cease-fire” in its first paragraph and for respect for international law including “the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.”
A curious second operational paragraph “stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis” and goes on to qualify this as responding “to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people” and leading to “the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.” Such vague language leaves open both the question of which Libyan legitimate demands must be met and what political reforms are necessary. Legally these requirements also appear to be a direct interference in Libya’s internal affairs in violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which all UN Security Council resolutions are bound to respect according to Article 25 of the Charter. This apparently irreconcilable discrepancy will fuel speculation that the resolution is another example of politics refusing to respect international law.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 concern the protection of civilians with the latter paragraph focusing on the regional responsibility of the Arab League.
The longest operative part of the resolution is then devoted to the creation of a no-fly zone in paragraphs 6 through 12. Article 6 creates the no-fly zone “on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.” Paragraph 7 then enumerates several humanitarian exceptions.
It is perhaps paragraph 8 that will focus the mind of most international lawyers where it is written that states may “take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights.” The use of the term “all necessary measures” opens the door to the use of force. At the same time, the use of force is limited to enforcing the no-fly zone and does not extend to attempts to kill the Libyan leader or to supporting one side in the armed conflict, although preventing the Libyan government from using its air force, of course, favours the armed opposition.

Paragraph 8 is unusual in that is appears to authorise the use of force under Chapter VII without applying any of the safeguards for the use force that are stated in Article 41. There is no determination made that measures not involving the use of force had failed. In fact, Resolution 1973 was adopted after the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and the African Union had decided to send missions to contribute to a peaceful solution, but before any of these missions could visit Libya. Moreover, Resolution 1973 was adopted after an offer by the Libyan leader to step down and leave the country with his family had been rejected by the armed opposition without room for negotiation.
Paragraphs 13 through 16 call for an arms embargo and ” [d]eplores the continuing flows of mercenaries” into the Libya. In doing so, paragraph 13 decides that paragraph 11 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced with a new paragraph that “authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections.” Again this language indicates that force may be used against seafaring vessels suspected of carrying arms to Libya in violation of the embargo.

In paragraphs 17 and 18, states are required to deny take off, landing or overfly rights to “any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies.” Although it is clearly stated that these provisions shall not affect humanitarian flights, it will undoubtedly complicate such flights.
Paragraphs 19 to 21 extend the asset freeze imposed by paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) to “all funds, other financial assets and economic resources” that are “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities… or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them.” The related paragraphs 22 and 23 extend the travel restrictions and the asset freeze in resolution 1970 (2011) to all the individuals in two annexes. In doing, these paragraphs essentially prevent members of the Muammar Gaddafi family from leaving Libya and effectively force them to fight the armed opposition.

Paragraph 24 creates a new body, a “panel of experts”, to assist the committee created in UNSC Resolution 1970, to ” [g]ather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures” in UNSC Resolution 1970, to “[m]ake recommendations … to improve implementation of the relevant measures,” and to ” [p]rovide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations.”

Paragraph 27 says all states “shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie… in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in Resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions.”
Finally, in penultimate paragraph 29, the Council “[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: By the time the resolution was in the public domain, British tabloids and broadsheets were already rallying the world to war. The French were convening a meeting being described as the planning meeting to use force. And while the US president was remaining cautiously ambiguous, other US officials were openly calling for military intervention in what had by now become a civil war in Libya.

In the emotional fury, international law seems to have been forgotten. One BBC commentator went so far as to suggest that political support for a no-fly zone by the Arab League was a legal justification for the use of force. Similar uses of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are widely considered as violating international law, seem not to have had much of an impression on British journalists.

Journalists elsewhere have also seemed oblivious to international law in their consideration of Libya, often calling for the invasion of this sovereign country by force, despite the fact that not only Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits such a use of force, but so too does the language of UNSC Resolution 1973 itself.
Even opponents of the use of force seem unaware of the applicable international law. British MP Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons, for example, asked if we use force against Libya to protect one side in a civil war, why don’t we use it in Bahrain were dozens of unarmed protesters have been killed by national and foreign forces, or in Yemen where about 50 peaceful protesters were slaughtered by army sharpshooters. This query at least appears to understand the fact that international law, to have real value in international relations, needs to be applied in similar situations in a similar manner. Failure to apply the law consistently seriously undermines the law and its restraints on international action.

INTERNATIONAL LAW: While decisions regarding the use of force against Libya seem to have been based more on emotions than on an understanding of the relevant law, this law is not irrelevant. International law will continue to reflect the general rules that states use in their relations with each other long after the end of the armed conflict in Libya. It is also, one might suggest, crucial to peace and security in a world made up of people of diverse values and interests.

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of international law is that no state shall use force against another state. This principle is expressly stated in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter. No state can violate this principle of international law.

While the UN Security Council can order the use of force in exceptional circumstances, according to Article 24(2) of the UN Charter, the Council “shall act in accordance with the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations.” This means, at least, that when peaceful means of dispute resolution are still possible the options for authorising the use of force are extremely limited. In the present case, the Security Council appears to have rushed to use force.
Narrow exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force are found in Article 51 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The latter provisions, especially Article 42, allow the Security Council to take action that “may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Both resolutions 1970 and 1973 state that they are being adopted under Chapter VII. Neither, however, meets the requirements of Article 42 that a determination has been made that “measures not involving the use of force” have failed.

In a civil war it is hard to see how such a determination can be made. It would appear that at the very least it would have to be based on on- the-ground fact-finding. Fact-finding missions by the UN Human Rights Council and the Security Council have not yet gone to Libya. While there is little doubt Western governments, such as the United States, have significant abilities to determine what is happening in Libya with distant surveillance methods, this does not provide sufficient evidence of whether the government of Libya is complying with the Security Council’s resolutions. Only on-the-ground observers can determine this, as we have seen from the misinformation spread about Iraq’s actions based on third party and distant surveillance sources.
Moreover, the evidence of Libya’s compliance is mixed. Libya almost immediately announced it would respect the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 after it was adopted. Nevertheless, in an unprecedented show of diplomatic intolerance, and without confirmation of the facts on the ground, Western leaders called the Libyan leader a liar.

Libya has also offered to accept international monitors, even extending invitations to them to visit the country. And in an extraordinary concession, the Libyan leader sent a message to the armed opposition when they had the upper hand and were approaching Tripoli, offering to step down and leave the country. It was only after this offer was rejected and opposition leaders said it was non-negotiable that the Libyan leader be captured and killed that the government’s troops launched their offensive.

If international law allows states to use force in very limited circumstances, there are even fewer circumstances in which non-state actors are allowed to use force. One of those circumstances is when the right to self-determination is being exercised against a foreign and oppressive occupying power. This might entitle Iraqis or Afghanis to use force against occupying armies, but it would not entitle the Libyan people to use force against their own government.
Even the extrajudicial right of revolution, that many international lawyers admit exists when the limits of the law have been reached, has not been explicitly relied on by the Libyan rebels. While participation in the governance of Libya might have been a widespread problem, the country had the highest per capita income in Africa and among the best Millennium Development Goals indicators. Moreover, Libya has shown itself to respect international law in the past, implementing judgments of the International Court of Justice in the conflict with Chad and even turning over suspects for which there was questionable evidence for trial abroad in the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, the question of self-defence is relevant to the use of force against Libya. Rather than justifying the Western attack against Libya, however, it would appear to justify action taken by Libya against Western interests. In other words, as Libya has been the object of an armed attack that is likely illegal under international law, it has the right to defend itself. This right includes carrying out attacks against military facilities or personnel from any country involved in the attack. In other words, the attack against Libya by France and the United States makes the military facilities and personnel of these countries legitimate targets for attacks carried out by Libya in self-defence.

Regardless of the legality of the use of force by any party to the armed conflict international humanitarian law or the laws of war will continue to apply. According to this law, all states involved in an armed conflict must take care not to attack civilians. The Libyan authorities alleged they were respecting this restriction in the civil war, although the rebels refuted this claim. International humanitarian law requires that no military force may be directed against civilians or civilian facilities in Libya.

Similarly international human rights law continues to apply, making attacks on civilians subject to the restrictions on the use of force emanating from existing international human rights obligations. If the use of force against Libya is illegal as suggested above, then the standard for determining whether disproportionate force is being used is that applicable during peacetime. This is the case because no state involved in the use of force in Libya has announced its derogation from its international human rights obligations and because to allow states to derogate merely by starting an armed conflict in violation of international law would be contrary to the object and purpose of any of the existing human rights treaties.
The use of force in a manner that is contrary to existing international law is perhaps the greatest harm to humanity in the long-term. In the Pact of Paris in 1928 and again in the UN Charter in 1945, states agreed not to use force against each other to accomplish their foreign policy ends. The Western world has appeared to repeatedly challenge this agreement in the last 10 years, especially by its willingness to take military action against predominately Muslim states. In doing so they have sent an undeniable signal to the international community through their actions, and despite some of their words, that international law does not matter to them. If this message is not answered by the proponents of international law, then the advances we have made to ensure that the international community respects the rule of law may be undone for future generations.

* The writer is a prominent US international human rights lawyer.

Eco di guerra

Eco di guerra

giugno 23, 2011 di byebyeunclesam

Parigi, 22 giugno – Sette scrittori di tutto il mondo hanno lanciato oggi da Parigi un appello al Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU affinchè venga adottato un progetto di risoluzione contro la repressione in Siria che ”metta fine ai massacri”.
I sette firmatari sono Umberto Eco, David Grossman, Bernard-Henri Levy, Amos Oz, Orhan Pamuk, Salman Rushdie e Wole Soyinka. La lettera firmata dai sette intellettuali è stata pubblicata sul sito di ”La regle du jeu”, la rivista online del filosofo francese Levy, e si rivolge ai 15 Paesi membri del Consiglio di sicurezza.

USA-NATO stanno pianificando una Guerra di terra in Libia, Intervento Militare in Siria

USA-NATO stanno pianificando una Guerra di terra in Libia, Intervento Militare in Siria

Il Gruppo Bilderberg intenzionato a lanciare una nuova guerra in Medio Oriente, con la Siria come primo obiettivo

di Bob Chapman – Global Research

Mentre l’amministrazione Obama si prepara a lanciare una guerra totale sul terreno della Libia con l’allargamento degli attacchi dei droni all’interno dello Yemen e del Pakistan, navi da guerra degli Stati Uniti sono state spostate verso la costa mediterranea della Siria, proprio in linea con le previsioni che il Gruppo Bilderberg intenzionato a lanciare una massiccia nuova guerra in Medio Oriente, con la Siria come obiettivo primario.

In aggiunta alle informazioni ricevute da Infowars da fonti militari di Fort. Hood che ci dicono che le truppe saranno rese disponibili per una vera e propria invasione sul terreno della Libia guidata dagli Usa, entro ottobre, l’amministrazione Obama al tempo stesso sta considerando di aprire un altro fronte, spostando la nave d’attacco portaerei anfibia USS Bataan, insieme con 2.000 marines, 6 aerei da guerra, e 15 elicotteri d’attacco, in una posizione proprio al largo della costa siriana.

“Questa enorme concentrazione di unità navali di intercettazione missilistica sembra allestita da Washington nel caso che Iran, Siria e Hezbollah scatenassero missili di superficie contro obiettivi USA e israeliani, in caso di intervento militare degli Stati Uniti per fermare la strage contro l’opposizione in corso in Siria “, riferisce DebkaFile.

Un’altra indicazione che gli USA stanno progettando un intervento in Siria è il fatto che Hezbollah ha spostato i suoi razzi dal nord del Libano verso aree nel centro del paese, in base a un avviso dell’intelligence iraniana di spostare le armi “fuori dal campo di una possibile operazione americana in Siria “.

L’avvertimento del veterano giornalista Jim Tucker, fornitogli dalle sue fonti interne di solito accurate, che il potente gruppo Bilderberg stava pianificando una nuova guerra gigantesca in Medio Oriente superiore a tutto quello che si sta svolgendo in Libia, si sta ora realizzando.

Lunedì, il giornalista Adrian Salbuchi ha anche detto a Russia Today che l'”agenda nascosta” Bilderberg nei confronti della Siria si sarebbe palesata dopo la conclusione della conversazione dell’elite a St. Moritz, in Svizzera, una previsione già divenuta realtà.

Le organizzazioni siriane per i diritti dicono che circa 1.300 civili sono stati uccisi dall’inizio della rivolta di marzo contro il presidente Bashar Assad. Circa 300 soldati e poliziotti sono stati uccisi. Migliaia di siriani sono fuggiti dal paese di Maarat al-Numaan ieri, mentre le truppe governative e i carri armati si trasferivano al nord.

Il complesso militare-industriale degli Stati Uniti è stato molto esigente nello scegliere quelli che prende di mira per il cambio di regime sotto la copertura dell'”intervento umanitario”. Nonostante il fatto che i manifestanti in Bahrain e Arabia Saudita siano stati vittime di brutali repressioni del governo allo stesso modo, gli Stati Uniti hanno chiuso un occhio.

Come l’amministrazione Obama possa ritenere che gli Stati Uniti possono permettersi di perseguire l’ennesima guerra mentre sono ancora impegnati in due grandi occupazioni e in una serie di altri conflitti regionali, e mentre le principali agenzie di rating avvertono che il paese è in procinto di perdere la sua stabilità creditizia da tripla A, a causa di insormontabili problemi di debito, è un mistero.

Fonte: Global Research 18 Giugno 2011
Traduzione: Dakota Jones

Libia: tomba della NATO

L’aggressione della NATO alla Libia potrebbe diventare la tomba della NATO stessa.

21 giugno 2011 –

I governi interventisti della NATO continuano (ormai da tre mesi) i massicci bombardamenti su gran parte del territorio libico che colpiscono duramente la popolazione e sostengono che “Gheddafi deve andarsene”, ma se la NATO dovesse arrivare a un intervento diretto sul terreno dovrebbe affrontare un’accanita resistenza nazionale.…..leggi tutto l’articolo