Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway

Are events unfolding in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt more about petro-terrorism or about freedom and democracy? How much oil is there in North Africa? Who is in control of that oil? What is the relationship between the West and Muammar Gaddafi? Is he really the terrorist we’ve all been led to believe he is? Who is the Libyan “opposition” and who are the “rebels” we read about?

Presented with this story are petroleum industry concessions maps   for North Africa that people might want to ponder in between the Western propaganda on Libya. Amidst the full-court press of propaganda presented by the western media and State Department disinformation apparatus we find that Muammar Gaddafi is even accused of committing genocide against his own people. Are there double standards at work?

Gaddafi & Amin in Gulu 1973 bordered.jpg

An original photograph; backside text reads: Al Haji Amin (centre) is introducing military senior officers to his brother Col. Gaddafi, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command of Arab republic of Libya, shortly on arrival at Gulu Airfield [northern Uganda] to perform the official handing over of aircrafts to Uganda Airforce, March 3, 1974.

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli

On September 1, 1969 the pro-western regime that had ruled in Libya was overthrown by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his officers. At the time, Libya was home to the largest US Air Base (Wheelus Air Base) in North Africa. Agreements between the USA and Libya signed in 1951 and 1954 granted the USAF the use of Wheelus Air Base and its El Watia gunnery range for gunnery and bombing training and for transport and bombing stopovers until 1971. During the Cold War the base was pivotal to expanding US military power under  the Strategic Air Command, and an essential base for fighter and reconnaissance missions. The Pentagon also used the base — and the remote Libyan desert — for missile launch testing: the launch area was located 15 miles east of Tripoli. Considered a ‘little America on the shores of the Mediteranean’, the base housed some 4600 US military personnel until its evacuation in 1970.

With the discovery of oil in Libya in 1959, a very poor desert country became a very rich little western protectorate. US and European companies had huge stakes in the extremely lucrative petroleum and banking sectors, but these were soon nationalized by Gaddafi. Thus Libya overnight joined the list of US ‘enemy’ or ‘rogue’ states that sought autonomy and self-determination outside the expanding sphere of western Empire. Further cementing western hatred of the new regime, Libya played a leading role of the 1973 oil embargo against the US and maintained cooperative relations with the Soviet Union. Gaddafi also reportedly channeled early oil wealth into national free health care and education.

At one time Gaddafi played around with Idi Amin, but his ties to other despots — such as Tony Blair and George H. W. Bush — are far more notable, though far less advertised. Of course, just as Gaddafi is heavily slammed and maligned — in disproportion to his actual actions — we find that Idi Amin is not the premier African terrorist he is always billed to be: Amin’s crimes pale in comparison to the current despot in power in Uganda, President-for-Life Yoweri Museveni. Remember that Gaddafi has served the prerogatives of imperialism for years, even while being presented as the world’s premier terrorist.

Like previous revolutionary figures of the 20th century such as Mao and his Little Red Book, Gaddafi followed the example of other revolutionary figures like Mao Zedong in authoring his own unique and highly idealistic political philosophy. Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world.

Over the past four decades the US and its closest allies, including Israel and Japan, have maintained a mostly hostile relationship with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya. This relationship has included economic sanctions, covert attacks, open warfare and other actions of aggression committed by the United States. The ‘international community’ repeatedly enforced or renewed sanctions against Libya in the 1980s and 1990s.

After September 11, 2001, the US issued extensive threats and warnings against Libya to pressure it to accept US demands and collaborate in the US “War on Terror.” Since Libya was considered one of the premier ‘rogue states’ involved in ‘terrorism’ and Gaddafi was forced to concede some of his country’s independence and autonomy. After diplomatic wrangling, sanctions against Libya were dropped in 2004 in exchange for Gaddafi’s (limited) collaboration.

In 2004, during heightened western media propaganda about Libyan terrorism and Gaddafi’s supporting Al Qaeda — all kinds of disingenuous reports and outright lies — the G.W. Bush administration dropped sanctions against the regime — and paved the way for a new era in US-Libyan bilateral trade.

US officials were reportedly under pressure from multinational corporations, including big petrol companies BP, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Marathon Oil, and defense giants like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, and other corporations like Dow Chemical and Fluor. These corporations and lobbyists then formed a “trade” association, US-Libya Business Association (USLBA) in 2005 with $US 20,000 membership dues.

USLBA members lobbied the US government to protect and advance their interests in Libya, through the US government, and business executives flocked to Libya and negotiated for million or billion dollar deals. Bilateral trade with Libya totaled $2.7 billion in 2010, up from virtually nothing when sanctions were in place prior to 2004. The USLBA also lobbied on behalf of the former outlaw state of Libya and has sponsored policy conferences, briefing sessions and events featuring senior U.S. and Libyan officials.

Officials traveled to Libya for meetings with Libyan government officials, private business leaders, and representatives of American companies working in the country — leading to some of the unbridled development that was evident in Tripoli (2009).

Through the secretive Libyan Investment Authority, billions of Libya’s petrodollars were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into other private equity like the Carlyle Group — connected with Frank Carlucci, who is noted herein to be affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy (described below).

ALGERIA & TUNISIA OIL SECTOR MAPS  

(Note the HUNT OIL Concession in the lower right, in NIGER: HUNT OIL is out of Texas.)
View full size pop-up image

_Algeria-Tunisia-Oil-Map001.gif

The CIA has long wanted to eliminate and replace Muammar Gaddafi. President Reagan bombed Tripoli, killing Gaddafi’s infant daughter: the United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) comprised the joint USAF, Navy, and Marines air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.

Many of the top-level security documents from the Reagan Administration pertaining to Libya remain classified. These include National Security Decision Directives 16 (Economic and Security Decisions for Libya), NSDD 205a (Annex: Acting Against Libyan Support of International Terrorism), NSDD 224 (Counter-Terrorist Operations Against Libya), and NSDD 234 (Libya Policy), while even those that have been declassified are partially redacted. The George H.W. Bush NSDD 19 (US Policy Toward Libya) also remains classified.

In recent years Gaddafi has played along with the western fiction of Al-Qaeda, though it seems likely that some of the true mercenaries in Libya today are ‘Al-Qaeda’ terrorists trained by the United States to serve US interests in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and now Libya. However, the CIA has always had their sights on Gaddafi.

Note the double standard in how the western press presents the accusations of Gaddafi using mercenaries, as if it is something unique to Gaddafi and Libya, and not something we ever do.

National front for the Salvation of Libya

In almost all western media accounts, the so-called “opposition” in Libya includes the unspecified, unnamed, unidentified “rebels” of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent ‘pro-democracy’ protestors who began with a ‘peaceful sit-in’ as reported by the New York Times and uncritically repeated everywhere else.

Reportage of atrocities in Darfur, Sudan (2003-20011), and Rwanda (1990-1994) was always blamed on the governments (Omar Bashir in Khartoum and Juvenal Habyarimana in Kigali) with no context to the foreign backed insurgency and intervention occurring, which in both cases involved the US, UK and Israel. Similarly, in Libya today, there is no context or history to the FNSL ‘rebels’: they are categorically presented as the good guys, no matter that they seem to have appeared out of thin air. No one explains who these people are who are cited by the New York Times or CNN or Democracy Now as sources.

P1010042.jpg

 

Street scene in Tripoli, September 2009

The FNSL was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other ‘opposition’ in Libya. The FNSL was actually formed in October 1981 in Sudan under Colonel Jaafar Nimieri — the US puppet dictator who was openly known to be a Central Intelligence Agency operative, and who ruled Sudan ruthlessly from 1977 to 1985. The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of ‘atrocities’ and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya.

Italy and France are also said to be backing these opposition groups, as the Italian and French oil companies AGIP and ELF and others seek to chop off and eat their pieces of the predatory pie. The US, Britain and Israel seek to insure control of the petroleum sector in advance of competitor corporations from other European countries.

Many of the petroleum concessions in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt appear (the map is 15 years old) to be held by state-owned oil companies. The US/European/Israeli nexus seeks to dislodge state-ownership — to whatever extent it actually exists — and dislodge any Chinese workers or Chinese companies involved in the oil exploitation, and replace these with western companies and western agents.

National Endowment for (non) Democracy

In 1983, the Pentagon, USAID, US State Department, and the CIA were all involved in the creation and implementation of ‘Project Democracy’ –based on National Security Decision Directive 77 (NSDD 77) — and this led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy.

After that, some of the ‘softer’ tactics used in covert interventions were shifted away from the CIA and onto the NED, whose involvement with covert operations and foreign interventions are nonetheless well-established.

A ‘soft’ intervention CIA front, the National Endowment for Democracy has been deeply involved in Libya along with the CIA fronted Freedom House (under their Blue Umbrella program and others). These entities have backed ‘opposition’, supported propaganda campaigns and so-called ‘pro-democracy’ movements, and are known to be involved with backing armed insurgents and interventions.

Libyan Dinar Note001.jpg

 

Libyan currency 2009

 

NED works its overt intelligence sector magic through four organizations under its (own) umbrella: National democratic Institute; International Republican Institute, Center for Private Enterprise, and the AFL-CIO’s American Center for International Labor Solidarity.  NED is closely aligned with US foreign policy interests and achieves its mission through the revolving doors between US Government and the NED Board of Directors.

Some of these NED directors include: former US Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger (Nixon) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton), former US Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (Reagan), former National Security Council Chair Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter), former NATO Supreme Allied Command in Europe, General Wesley K. Clark (Clinton), and the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (George W. Bush).

Freedom House is supportive of NED programs but has been around since its creation by Elanor Roosevelt and they have been very active against Libya. Freedom House is funded by, amongst others, UNILEVER Corporation, USAID, and the US Information Agency (USIA). Freedom House, in alliance with USIA, has provided covert and overt “Radio Free” disinformation programs all over the world since at least 1952: e.g. Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia. The USIA is directly involved with US Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group in planning and coordinating major military operations (e.g. the Gulf War and the UNITAF intervention in Somalia).

Past and present Freedom House trustees include: former CIA director R. James Woosley; former national security adviser (at the time of the 1996 US invasion of Congo-Zaire) Anthony Lake; Harvard professor Samuel Huntington; UNILEVER executive Ned Bandler; CIA insider Andrew Young; former Joseph Mobutu confidant and national security insider Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick; former NED director and International Crisis Group trustee Zbigniew Brzezinski; USAID intelligence operative J. Brian Atwood (USAID administrator who oversaw the US-backed genocide against millions of Hutu refugees in Congo-Zaire, 1996-1998) and many more.

Freedom House is also very likely affiliated with the phantom US Office of Strategic Information (OSI), formed after September 11, 2001. OSI is said to have been reorganized, with all its original functions reassigned to the Office of Global Communications, Information Awareness Office (IAO), and the newly reactivated Counter-Disinformation/Misinformation Team (Counter-Information Team). However, then-Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld issued statements affirming that the OSI’s operations would continue.

P1010056.jpg

 

Banner mural on a building in downtown Tripoli, September 2009

Rogue State Painted with Blatant Propaganda

In the ABC LITELINE report “FNSL Leader Speaks from Washington,” we find the Washington monument in the background for an interview with an Arab agent being used by the western propaganda system as a credible source — but with zero explanations of who he is or why his claims might be false.

FNSL operative Irahim Sahad speaks freely, making any claim he likes, and nothing he says is challenged or counter-balanced. Sahad suggests that the UN Security Council MUST be convened to stop the ‘war crimes and ‘mass murder’ and ‘genocide’ being committed by Gaddafi against his own people. Ibrahim Sahad’s bias is unveiled by such statements as “The UN Security Council was convened when just one man was killed in Lebabon — so it should be convened to address the most brutal use of live ammunition, heavy arms and mercenaries.” The claim employs a double-standard, saying in short that Lebanese lives are worth more than Libyan, which is not at all the case, and that the United Nations takes serious one man’s life in Lebanon, so they should take far more serious the monumental loss of life [claimed] in Libya.

Here are some of the media’s rallying cries making headlines everywhere the English language is used:

  • Gaddafi killing his own people!
  • West worried that Gaddafi may use Nerve Gas!
  • Heavy Weaponry Used Against Civilians!
  • Heavy Arms Used in Libyan Crackdown!
  • Gaddafi Committing Crimes Against Humanity!

The death tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo-Zaire — by US/NATO/ Israeli forces — far surpass anything that might have occurred in Libya. Meanwhile, most ‘news’ on Libya is based on false accusations and false assertions — such as the THREAT of nerve gas being used.

However, just prior to the dropping of sanctions in 2004 it was established that Washington and London were grossly exaggerating claims of Gaddafi’s development of nuclear and chemical weapons. The western propaganda about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Libya had the same empty ring as the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify the war against Iraq.

In Afghanistan the US is using weapons of mass destruction and has been since the invasion of 2001: these include phosgene and uranium weapons. A deeper issue might be the loss of certain nuclear weapons, by the west, as claimed by sources in London, which reportedly went missing from US/NATO stocks. Claims are that these weapons made their way into the hands of British arms dealer John Bredenkamp, a long time crony of the Robert Mugabe gang in Zimbabwe and war lord involved in Congo-Zaire, and that they may have been sold to Libya, Yemen or North Korea.

LIBYA
View full size pop-up image
Libya-Oil-Map001.gif
[2a]
LIBYA
Inset Map of SIRTE BASIN 

Libya-(Sirte-Basin)-Oil-Map.gif

Muammar Gaddafi Sides with the Empire?

“[T]he fundamental problem and issue before the people in the region is that the US rulers seek imperial control and imposition of semi-colonial country-selling regimes,” reports Ralph Schoenman, in ‘US Imperialism Against Democratic ME.’ “The more autocratic and brutal, the better from the point of the US imperialism that is unrelenting history. Every time the population is given the opportunity to shape its own destiny, to seek its national independence, to seek its own control over its own resources, to seeks its own sovereignty and determination of its own future, that is incompatible with the US imperialism.”

When Barack Obama was accepted by the US people as the new president, Gaddafi praised Obama and described Obama’s White House house-sitting gig as “a victory against racism,” and he urged the first Black U.S. president “to lead his country boldly and with integrity.”

“The Black people’s struggle has made tremendous advances against racism in America,” Gaddafi said. “It was God who created color. Today President Obama, son of a Kenyan father, a true son of Africa, has made it in the United States of America.”

At a speech he gave in his private tent in Tripoli in September 2008, Gaddafi rambled and muddled and zipped his all-over-the-place speech up as quick as he began it. Is he a desert mystic? Did he write the infamous Green Book or was it ghost-written? Are his sometimes rambling speeches emblematic of his propensity to try to please, to do what he likes, to be careful not to say the wrong thing, while being unable to remain silent when the hypocrisies of the west are (or were) thrown up in his face?

The Green Book says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These are fighting words to predatory international capitalism.

When Gaddafi bowed to Western demands in 2004, it was most likely in part due to the incredible alignment of forces against Libya. Gaddafi and the Libyan government, and governments of other countries, will agree to a lot of imperialist dictates to avoid having a war launched against their country and to allow the people to still enjoy some decent standard of living and peaceful lives. Gaddafi played along with the West’s moral righteousness for “the war on terror,” knowing that he didn’t have much choice. His opening to western interests made no difference in the end, as too many forces have desired his destruction for far too long. Now that time has come: this is no ‘popular revolution’ sweeping Libya.

Pentagon Invasion Already Underway

The US will use any propaganda necessary to whip up American fervor over Gaddafi and justify Pentagon or MI6 or NATO operations. US and British warships sit off the coast of Libya — and they don’t sit there idly. The imposition of a ‘no-fly’ zone means that US/NATO plannes can do as they like, with the understanding that what we are really talking about are possible bombing and fighter sorties against Libya.

US troops have already moved ashore in Libya, joining the ‘opposition’ and ‘rebel’ forces in ‘rebel’ controlled territories. The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya.

The recent report noted that British and US special forces entered Libyan port cities of Benghazi and Toburk on February 23 and 24.

US covert operatives have been on the ground for weeks, and probably much longer than that, whether they have entered by sea (SEALS) or by way of Niger, where the US has openly published information about its covert operations. (See, for example, the travelology reports by former U.S. Special Forces now ‘journalist’ Robert Kaplan in America’s African Rifles a Pentagon massaged and approved propaganda feature in the pro-war Atlantic Monthly). Any opportunity to attack, destabilize, invade will be exploited by the Pentagon.

Of course, as this is written the US media is preparing the ground for the English-news consuming masses to see the Pentagon invasion as a “humanitarian” mission in Libya. There is nothing humanitarian about the Pentagon, and there has never been.

It’s Not Only the Oil, Stupid

Using state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing, the western powers have certainly mapped the mineral deposits that lie beneath the sands of the Libyan desert. For example, Canada’s Barrick Gold has for years had concessions in Niger and Mali — this is the corporation affiliated with former US President George Herbert Walker Bush, former US Senator Howard Baker and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney — and Libya has a huge landmass with massive untapped mineral potential that goes way beyond the known petroleum deposits.

Another strategic geopolitical concern of the western powers is the protection and control of the massive nuclear (uranium) resources both inside Libya and nearby. France and Canada had already signed memorandums (circa 2007-2008) with Libya to explore and exploit uranium in Libya.

France’s entire nuclear weapons complex (and massive nuclear power industry) revolves around uranium extracted from Agadez and Arlit in northern Niger and it was built, over the past 50 years, out of the blood, seat and tears of the Nigerienne people. Japanese companies have been extracting uranium out of Niger through the Overseas Uranium Resources Development Corporation (OURD), in cooperation with U.S., Israeli, German and French corporations. In 2008, France and former colony Algeria signed defense and civil nuclear power accords, including cooperation in research, training, technology transfer and the exploration and production of uranium, all of interest to French nuclear giant Areva. Canadian and Australian corporations are also mining in Libya’s other southern neighbor, Burkina Faso. And yet, unlike Libya, where the people have seen some benefits from the extraction of wealth from their land, Niger remains the second poorest country in the world and Burkina Faso is close behind.

Russia and Ukraine had also signed memorandums with Libya regarding uranium exploration and development. However, China intends to quadruple its uranium consumption and China’s largest nuclear power corporation China National Nuclear Corp, has signed an agreement with China-Africa Development Fund to jointly develop uranium resources in Africa. Western nuclear corporations aim to monopolize Libya’s uranium sector and exclude China and Russia from the exploration and development — so they can build the nuke plants themselves and sell uranium to their Asian competitors.

Egypt
View full size pop-up image 

Egypt-Oil-Map001.gif

 

The Desert Mystic

 

Libya is a country of approximately 6 million people, having a huge geographical area but low population density. Claims that Gaddafi has uplifted his people over the course of his 40 year dictatorship are questionable. Supporters claim that poverty is low and enemies that poverty is high throughout the country. However, in Tripoli in September 2009 there were the obvious signs of capitalism: overcrowding, traffic, poverty, pollution and destruction of nature. There was also an element of fear visible in people’s faces.

It is completely hypocritical of citizens of the United States to speak of the outrage of ‘poverty’ abroad when that poverty is so often the result of US militarization, unjust trade, and plundering entities like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Further, some of the worst poverty in the world can be found in US cities like Gary, Indiana and on Native American reservations like Pine Ridge. Hillary Clinton complaints about Muammar Gaddafi are really just a projection of her shadow — a long, dark shadow steeped in bloodshed and deception — and another example of the hypocrisy on Libya.

Gaddafi’s Green Book and the ‘Third Universal Theory’ it propounds are worth reading. Had it been written by most anyone else who is opposed to the expansion of western empire with all its horrors, it would be more widely appreciated. The book addresses the falsification of democracy and the proliferation of organized criminal gangs — like the Republicans and Democrats that call themselves parties of and for the US people.

Gaddafi has funded Pan-African organizations and individuals, some of whom have very noble missions and serve to challenge the downtrodden, while he has also funded some armed factions involved in unjust wars or destabilizations. Gaddafi also supports one state in Palestine with equal rights for everyone, and he has spoken forcefully about the unjust war against the Palestinians by Israel. Gaddafi has funded Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (this is a value neutral comment by this white author).

Gaddafi also funded Jean Pieerre Bemba and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), the ‘rebellion’ [sic] that was also backed by Yoweri Museveni and allied with Rwandan ‘rebel’ forces (Congolese Rally for Democracy) backed by Paul Kagame, and these forces were responsible for a very definite genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo-Zaire). Bemba is on trial at the ICC for war crimes committed in the Central African Republic.

Human Rights Watch has reported that international arms dealer Victor Bout illegally shipped weapons into Congo-Zaire, picking them up in Libya and delivering them to Rwandan Hutu forces. However, Human Rights Watch is deeply compromised when it comes to reporting and not reporting the facts — or selectively reporting them — on Central Africa. If Gaddafi did supply or facilitate the provision of arms to Rwandan Hutu insurgents in Congo-Zaire, it may be one of the more reasonable actions he took: e.g. the Forces for the Democratic Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are forever misaligned by the Pentagon and its propaganda minions precisely because they fought against the illegal invasion of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni. Meanwhile, it is Rwanda, Uganda and their foreign multinational corporate allies that are responsible for the preponderance of killing in Central Africa, not the FDLR.

According to Amnesty International, another selective human rights organ serving western interests, Gaddafi also reportedly armed Sudanese in Darfur — long before the current conflict began in 2003 — to fight against western backed interventions in Chad and Sudan.

Gaddafi reportedly owns land in Zimbabwe and may flee there or to other countries where repressive control is maintained in service to western interests.

Muammar Gaddafi is/was the most recent chairman of the African Union, another elite organization designed to serve western exploitation — or run by a cabal of thieves, at the very least, who all have the goods on each other, and so none will ever challenge the way things are — while the people, the masses of Africa, everywhere suffer.

The African Union (AU) signed on with Washington for the devastating neo-liberal trade and tariffs agreement known euphemistically as the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The AU special report on genocide in Rwanda was a complete whitewash serving US/UK interests and protecting dictators Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni. The AU has also been slammed by African leaders for inaction and silence in various developments on the continent.

Former AU chairman have included some of Africa’s most criminal dictators, such as Dennis Sassou Nguesso, who has reigned with absolute military brutality in the Republic of Congo for some 20 years (with a gap from 1992-1997). Gabon’s present ruler Albert-Bernard Bongo is the son-in-law of Dennis Sassou-Nguesso, and both have been
sustained with millions of Elf petrol dollars (see, e.g., keith harmon snow: “The Crimes of Bongo“). Sassou-Nguesso’s elite Cobra militia were also trained by French advisers and, like Colonel Joseph Mobutu, Sassou-Nguesso relied on Israeli security and intelligence for protection.

The AU’s alliance with NATO began long ago, and it saw expanded joint military operations in Sudan, where the AU served as NATO’s “African face” for US/UK and Israeli military interventions in the war for Darfur. For example, forces fighting for the NATO interests, commanded and commandeered under an AU banner, came from Paul Kagame’s Rwanda Defense Forces (formerly called Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army) responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Uganda, Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, and then Darfur. Rather than condemning western military expansion and different forms of AFRICOM or CIA-backed terrorism, for example, the AU backs the western war of annihilation in Somalia, involving Ugandan troops trained by US Special forces, and the Pentagon’s expansion in Ethiopia, and support for dictator Meles Zenawi there. Ethiopia is the site of an ongoing genocide against the Annuak, Omo and Orono people — and no one has reported the atrocities in the blood-drenched oil-rich Ogaden basin there. What say the AU?

In “AFRICA: Global NATO Seeks to Recruit 50 New Military Partners,” journalist Rick Rozoff reports: “A recent article in Kenya’s Africa Review cited
sources in the African Union (AU) disclosing that the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] is preparing to sign a military partnership treaty with the 53-nation AU.” Rozoff explains that this is a likely maneuver against the spread of Chinese interests in the continent.

According to Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford, who also traveled to Tripoli in 2008, Gaddafi is on the outs: the man who ruled this not-so-little North African dictatorship is about finished. Whatever the truth about Muammar Gaddafi, at least one thing is certain: he was not the big bad bogeyman now under attack by the West.

SUDAN
(Darfur is the giant block 12 concession on the left side.)
View full size pop-up image 

_Sudan-Oil-Map-001.gif

And Now, the Gaddafi Genocide

On February 22, 2011, the Libyan deputy ambassador to the United Nations called on Muammar Gaddafi to step down and face trial over “war crimes and genocide.”

The charge has now been widely repeated in other news venues. “European diplomats are meeting around the clock to minimise risks for their nationals after a speech by Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi yesterday (22 February) was interpreted as “code to start genocide.”

Gaddafi’s Genocide!” declared one CNN news pundit. A Stop Gaddafi Genocide! page was created on Facebook.

Such claims made by Libyan ‘opposition’ and reported in the western press that Gaddafi is committing genocide or about to commence genocide against his own people represent the height of western arrogance and hypocrisy.

The disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds. A web site dedicated to English language reporting on human rights in Cuba had this headline: “Human Rights in Cuba: Is Casto Supporting Gaddafi’s Genocide?” “Are Cuban pilots flying Gaddafi’s military jets, which are being deployed to attack peaceful Libyan protesters?” the article begins. Interestingly, Fidel Castro was the first international leader to publicly assert that Washington was about to invade Libya: Castro was right.

At this very moment the wars being prosecuted by the USA and its allies, including Japan, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, far dwarf the ‘atrocities’ committed in Libya. While we have no credible reporting about who is killing, who is opposition, how many dead, etc., out of Libya, we have credible report after credible report establishing that the US and its allies have perpetrated massacres, tortures, and other atrocities, including genocide, in the millions of people, in Congo-Zaire, Rwanda, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan — for a short list.

The claim of genocide here, akin to the one-sided charges against former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, or against Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, are one more clear example of the Politics of Genocide delineated in great detail by this writer and others. Reports in western media — provided, again, by the FNSL and other western intelligence, covert operations or psychological operations flak organizations — are filled with harsh language and characterizations not seen in reporting on or by western military campaigns. For example, in many western reports we can find, such as Gruesome Footage Proves Libya Using Heavy Arms makes claims that “newspapers obtained shocking footage of corpses with bodies blasted off and several torsos in Libyan hospitals.”

So there are several torsos. That is not quite genocide. Where are the images? If such images of death and destruction do appear it will be in sharp contrast to the complete whiteout on dead bodies in the Pentagon’s other theaters of war, in the eastern Congo-Zaire or Somalia, or in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, some videos purporting to be ‘violence in Libya’ have disappeared from the web.

Images of dead bodies can be produced and published but these are easily stripped of context. How do western audiences and propaganda consumers know that these are authentic and not recycled images of protests from Yemen or Bahrain dumped into the western press (with their willing acknowledgment) by Britain’s MI-6, as has been alleged? Al-Jezeera shows its true western colors by not reporting much of anything, and that certainly not critical of western manipulation or involvement.

Buckingham Museveni002.jpg

Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni greets the entourage of foreign mercenaries Tony Buckinham and others as part of the Heritage Oil & Gas / Sandline International meetings to secure oil concessions in the bloody Semliki basin bordering eastern Congo-Zaire & northern Uganda: both sites of actual genocides.

We saw the tactic of collecting dead bodies and skeletons used in Rwanda by the Pentagon’s agents of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, and in Darfur and South Sudan, where journalist Nicholas Kristof produced some dead shriveled bodies from some desert somewhere and claimed these were from the New York TimesSecret Genocide Archives. The atrocities were committed, we are told, by President Omar al-Bashir and the government of Sudan.

However, there is never any mention of US military involvement, mercenaries (Pacific Architects and Engineers, Dyncorp, others) on the ground in Sudan. Dead men tell no tales, or dead women: these dead bodies are as likely dead from US or Israeli backed ‘rebels’ — the Justice and Equality Movement or Sudan Liberation Army backed by the US, NATO, Israel and our puppet dictator in Uganda.

The double-standards and outright lies can be seen quickly, if one knows there are deeper truths, by examining propaganda produced by the International Crisis Group, or such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is not one reference to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation — and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) in Darfur, in all of the 386 pages.

Western mercenaries that have been deeply involved, and remain so, in some of the world’s bloodiest conflicts, in coup d’etats, in massacres and other atrocities, include British mercenary Tony Buckingham — whose mercenary past is legendary — founder of Heritage Oil & Gas, a petroleum company linked by Buckingham to mercenary firms Branch Energy and Sandline International. Buckingham was also a partner in the infamous Executive Outcomes, with former British Special Air Services (SAS) soldier-of-misfortune Tim Spicer — the recipient of massive Pentagon contracts in Iraq. Heritage director General Sir Michael Wilkes retired from the British Army in 1995 and is a former Middle East adviser to the British government and a member of the Army Board. Wilkes commanded Britain’s SAS regiment and was director of Special Forces. Heritage Oil has exploited opportunities in Mali, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Oman and Iraq.

Heritage Iraq003 bordered.jpg

 

Heritage Oil & Gas map of operations in Iraq

Similarly, there was no public outcry about the use of mercenaries to shore up a dictator when Central African Republic dictator Ange Felix Patasse called in Libyan troops and commanders to protect his private diamond republic. When Ethiopian troops joined the Pentagon’s efforts to overthrow Col. Joseph Mobutu and reorganize capitalist interests in Congo-Zaire (1996) — no one said a word. What are UN troops from Pakistan, Guatemala, India or Bangledesh — paid to carry a gun and use it if necessary in support of protecting capitalist interests? Mercenaries.

If there are acts of genocide being committed in Libya, they are not being committed by Gaddafi or those fighting for Gaddafi. Reports are emerging that indicate that black Africans are being targeted by ANTI-government forces — these would be the western media’s precious ‘rebels’ — for their perceived support of Gaddafi. These include black Africans from Sudan, Chad, or Egypt, many of which are apparently laborers who have been working the service and lower menial jobs in Libya.

In short, almost everything in the western press on the crises in Libya is slanted by some faction, or interest, or it is tainted by western arrogance, or by anti-imperialist ideology (of ‘solidarity’), even in the case of what is perceived to be the ‘alternative’ media. There is very little accurate reporting of any kind (but some good work linked or cited herein).

Muammar Gaddafi has been a champion for people of color — providing funding, hope and solidarity where none existed, and this correspondent is aware that this correspondent’s writing herein is deficient in presenting all the positive aspects of his collaboration with people of color.

“The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation,” writes Antonio Cesar Oliviera, in “Who Is Muammar Gaddafi?

“In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary [western] media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.”

Gaddafi’s alliance with Islam and his support for truly revolutionary movements must be understood for what the capitalist system sees them as: slaps in the face of power and threats to that power. This is one of the biggest reasons that Gaddafi, throughout his tenure as leader of the Libyan Revolution, has been considered the devil incarnate by Washington and London etc.

This report [herein] is just another incomplete picture of an incomplete puzzle — but it seeks to penetrate through and expose the ongoing western media campaign for what it is: a psychological operation against the masses of earth’s people who have not and do not benefit from the nasty policies and actions implemented to serve a very small and elite group of people.

Muammar Gaddafi is not my enemy, and I am not his, and so my criticisms are reserved for those involved in the unjust and illegitimate invasions and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, Somalia and now Libya. Gaddafi has opposed the unjust International Criminal Court, and so do I.

People wishing to support the legitimate grievances and actions for freedom and truth in Libya should challenge the western terrorist apparatus out of Washington, DC, Tel Aviv, Brussels, London and Toronto.

Prayers for the true innocent civilians in Libya, and across the region.

  • keith harmon snow traveled to Tripoli, Libya in 2009 and stayed about 3 days while attending the “2009 International Conference of the Green Book Supporters” as a member of the US Delegation invited by former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney (D-GA).
  • Maps are from a petroleum industry map of all Africa produced in 1996: much has changed since then, only for the worse, in terms of oil and gas expansions.
  • Photography Credits: keith harmon snow

Keith Harmon Snow is a war correspondent, photographer and independent investigator, and a four time (2003, 2006, 2007, 2010) Project Censored award winner. He is also the 2009 Regent's Lecturer in Law & Society at the University of California Santa Barbara, recognized for over a decade of work, outside of academia, contesting official narratives on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide while also working as a genocide investigator for the United Nations and other bodies. The first UCSB Regent's Lecturer, in 1960, was Aldous Huxley; other recipients include Margaret Mead, Peter Matthiessen and Meredith Monk. Read other articles by Keith, or visit Keith's website.

24 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. 3bancan said on March 4th, 2011 at 9:28am #

    This article by Rozoff is also useful with this topic:

    [http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m75525&hd=&size=1&l=e]

  2. MichaelKenny said on March 4th, 2011 at 10:25am #

    Panic, panic, all is panic! Israel always has to in. That’s the iron rule of the American internet. For Israel to win, the omnipotent, invincible and eternal American Empire must continue to rule the world, making and unmaking governments at will. And, of course Europe/EU/NATO has to be in the Empire’s (i.e. Israel’s ) pocket. Hence the nonsense about British and French “bases” in Libya. Thus, if Gaddafi Duck is overthrown, it has to be an “American job”. So old Muammar has to painted as what is known in the simplistic American cloudcuckooland as “anti-American”. Thus, when he is overthrown, and it’s hard to see how he can hang on, we will be told that the new leader of Libya will be “What’s-his-name, the American stooge” (no relation, as far as I know, to the person with the similar-sounding name who is to be the next president of Egypt). And Rozoff’s article, which makes no mention of Libya, is indeed useful inasmuch as he is a false flag propagandist for Israel and 3bancan is a well-established member of the “Israel always wins” crowd. That would suggest that the whole “save Gadaffi” movement is indeed being engineered from Israel.

  3. Samhain3783 said on March 4th, 2011 at 1:39pm #

    The title of this should have been “Unverifiable Assertions.” While the maps are interesting and the entire theory would make for a good geo-political thriller, the author uses so much pretzel logic and completely unsupported assertions that this comes off like a Glenn Beck segment. It seems like in the past few weeks Dissident Voice has become more concerned with conspiracy theory than actual analysis.

  4. keith harmon snow said on March 4th, 2011 at 1:52pm #

    @Michael Kenny — I can’t tell if you agree or disagree with the article (in general).
    @Samhain3783 — please provide me with a few examples of what you consider “unsupported assertions”. Or are you merely complaining that I don’t use footnotes? Thank you.

  5. Don Hawkins said on March 4th, 2011 at 3:23pm #

    LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) – An oil facility at Zueitina, south of the Libyan rebel-held city of Benghazi, has been damaged and was on fire, Al Jazeera news channel said on Friday, showing a video of black smoke rising from an oil plant.

  6. DBstoned said on March 4th, 2011 at 5:41pm #

    KHS: “The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.” [not a single supporting reference for what many would consider preposterous conspiracy theory]

    Samhain3783: “The title of this should have been “Unverifiable Assertions.” The maps are interesting and the entire theory would make for a good geo-political thriller, the author uses so much pretzel logic and completely unsupported assertions that this comes off like a Glenn Beck segment.”

    KHS: “Samhain3783 — please provide me with a few examples of what you consider ‘unsupported assertions.’ Or are you merely complaining that I don’t use footnotes?”

    KHS: “…such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is *not one reference* to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation ….”

    Hard to know just what KHS thinks about the value of “references.” And after all, Emerson did declare that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” What we have in KHS is a mind so vast as to take in all manner of nonsense and regurgitate it in what Samhain3783 rightly calls “pretzel logic”—altogether a suitably mixed metaphor.

    PS: style note to KHS…learn the correct use of “sic” (hint” it’s Latin, and it has a very specific purpose for quoted words, NOT one’s own)

  7. 3bancan said on March 4th, 2011 at 8:18pm #

    DBstoned said on March 4th, 2011 at 5:41pm #

    Imho KHS’s use of “sic” is ok. It’s DBstoned who doesn’t seem to be familiar with its uses and whose nitpicking is correctly covered by “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
    It’s curious that both Samhain3783 and DBstoned accuse KHS of pretzel logic, nonsense and preposterous conspiracy theories but offer not a single “supported” (sic!) and “verifiable” (sic!!) assertion/reference – except if one counts “not a single supporting reference for what many would consider preposterous conspiracy theory” as one…

  8. DBstoned said on March 4th, 2011 at 8:38pm #

    “sic” is added just after a quote or a reprinted text; it indicates that the passage is just as it appears from its original source. The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription – i.e. that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer.

    KHS wrote the following sentence, quoting nothing:

    “Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world.”

    His use of “[sic]” is in error, a very common error to be sure, of the sort that I surmise Imho is constantly making, given that he makes the error in commenting on a error being pointed out.

    The task of providing references is KHS’s, not his critics’. Imho seems to inhabit a world in which the size of mind is irrelevant—small, large, or jumbo—because a lack of clarity and knowledge blights all.

  9. 3bancan said on March 4th, 2011 at 10:23pm #

    DBstoned said on March 4th, 2011 at 8:38pm #

    “Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world” is ok, as its meaning is “Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western self-professed/socalled “enlightened” world / by the western world which hubristically prides itself to be enlightened.”

    As I said earlier, DBstoned’s idiotic nitpicking is correctly covered by “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”…

  10. DBstoned said on March 5th, 2011 at 5:52am #

    3bancan simply doesn’t understand the conventions by which “[sic]” is used, as is revealed in his absurd example/gloss here; it is an error interesting only because he/she persists in it. But one might argue that the error is a reflection of, a symptom of a stubbornness that refuses to accept fact or understand mistaken thinking. Its implications are thus sociological, finally a subject for political anthropology…a specimen in miniature.

    But I’ve lost interest myself, and wish 3bancan good luck in finding his way out of at least his present error….he’ll have to do so on her/his own.

  11. 3bancan said on March 5th, 2011 at 7:21am #

    DBstoned said on March 5th, 2011 at 5:52am #

    DBstoned seems to find it difficult to understand plain English sentences…

  12. Don Hawkins said on March 5th, 2011 at 7:29am #

    Fierce battles are raging in Libya, where forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi are trying to retake key towns held by rebels.
    VOA News March 05, 2011

    Who has the money the gun’s the tank’s could it be the momentary master of a fraction of a dot with oil and gas such a lucky human.

    If advanced spacefaring aliens exploit resources like humans we’d better hope they don’t find us anytime soon. …

    “There have been a number of times in the past when our survival has been touch-and-go,” explains Hawking at Big Think, mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis, and “the frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future…. Our population and our use of the finite resources of the planet earth are growing exponentially along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill,” while “our genetic code still caries our selfish and aggressive instincts” Hawking

    That’s weird as we never hear Palin or Huckabbee maybe Newt ever say anything like that the real thinkers of our time and in the past. Mere fiction…………………………

  13. Keith Harmon Snow said on March 5th, 2011 at 9:02am #

    Hello

    @DBStoned — it is correctly pointed out that you do not seem to understand the contemporary and many usages of ‘sic’. I’m not going to argue with you. Read David Foster Wallace for a real mind-expander on that.

    Also, you seem to take some kind of issue with my point about Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying” —

    >>>>>KHS: “…such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is *not one reference* to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation ….” <<<<<

    However, what your point is is unclear. If you would care to elaborate it I will gladly clarify.

    I see nothing else worth replying to, or clear enough that it is either asking for or expecting my comment.

    blessings
    keith

  14. DBstoned said on March 5th, 2011 at 12:30pm #

    What’s interesting about the persistence KHS and 3bancan in defending an error in the use of “[sic]” is that it reflects a larger inability to accept realities that don’t comport with their views of the world. This seems to be one explanation how KHS ends up so easily in the bizarre and wide-ranging and wholly implausible conspiracies that are woven into this “article.” By putting the word “article” in italics I of course mean to suggest a distinct irony in such a characterization—my guess is that this is what KHS was attempting with his use of “[sic],” but who can be sure? He’s not quoting anything, though he is using a word that is often found in quotes (a wholly different matter).

    But the distinguished fiction writer and essayist David Wallace Foster aside (invoked broadly, without any specific reference—evidently a KHS specialty), the matter has been very broadly established in prose for a wide range of journalistic and professional writing; a sampling of simple redactions of the conventions is appended below.

    The point again, however, is not a matter of stylistic usage (and perhaps in this on-line venue anything goes, in which case the whole point of using “[sic]” is lost). The point is that error—even when pushed right into the faces of some—is not recognized as such. This is dangerous…

    I could adduce dozens of such usage guides:

    [1] The Latin word “sic”–meaning “thus” or “so”–is used in documents to draw the reader’s attention to an error in something that has been quoted. This could be a factual error, a mistake in printing, incorrect grammar or a misspelled word. It’s usually surrounded by brackets. Using [sic] allows writers to remain faithful to their sources without sacrificing accuracy. It conveys the message: “This is exactly how these words appeared originally, including the mistake noted.” Using [sic] to note mistakes is a comparatively modern practice. Merriam-Webster dates the first use for this purpose as approximately 1859.

    [2] You should at least know what ”sic” means. It is a Latin word that roughly translates to “in such a manner” or “as such.” That’s not really how we use it today, however. Instead, you’ll find that when writers are quoting the work or words of other people, they’ll insert [sic] to indicate that the quote has been reproduced verbatim. Typically, the quote will contain an incorrect or strange spelling of some kind and the writer wants to preserve that without it appearing to be a typo on their part. In terms of usage, [sic] is generally used to preserve an incorrect spelling, but it can also be used to preserve an inaccuracy in a quote as well. Here are a couple of examples from President George W. Bush:

    “We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation [sic] that suffers from incredible disease.”

    “I hear there’s rumors on the Internets [sic] that we’re going to have a draft.”

    [3] When quoting or paraphrasing someone else’s words or work in your writing, you need to give credit to the original author or publication. Occasionally, you may come across a quote that will enhance your article or paper, but uses outdated language or includes a misspelled word. You can still use the source as long as you follow the quote with “sic.”

    Identification
    The word “sic” is Latin in origin and means “thus” or “so,” according to the Modern Language Association (MLA) Handbook.

    Function
    Inserting sic following a quote indicates “the quotation is accurate even though the spelling or logic might make [the reader] think otherwise,” according to the Modern Language Association Handbook.

    Effects
    The use of sic tells the reader that you recognize the error or outdated spelling within the quotation, but quoted it verbatim.

    Placement
    When sic follows a quotation, place it in parenthesis outside the quote marks and before the final punctuation, as in: “I misplaced my checbook” (sic). To insert sic within the quotation immediately after an error or misspelled word, place it in square brackets, as in: “I misplaced my checbook [sic].”

    Considerations
    While the Modern Language Association format does not call for sic to be italicized, some writing formats and style guides, including the APA Stylebook, do. In formal writing, refer to the appropriate format or style guide for clarification.

  15. Deadbeat said on March 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm #

    Kudos to KMS for taking the time to share this enlightening article.

    It helps to see how so-called “Marxists” are joining in on the demonetization of Qaddafi which puts them on the same side of Western Zionist Imperialism. Qaddafi has for years supported many nationalist movements against Western Imperialism and has long supported pan-Africanism.

    What appears to be happening in Libya is a counter-revolution against Qaddafi and the Libyan people in order to rob them of their resources and improved living standards under Qaddafi that will only advance Zionism and Western Capitalist goals.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Qaddafi or believes about Libya, confronting Zionism and Western Imperialism must be the position of those who identify as Leftists. Any other stance IMO is betrayal.

  16. Jonas Rand said on March 6th, 2011 at 1:33am #

    What is happening in Libya is that Gaddafi has stayed in power too long, and that, while he has assisted the country to rise from a poor, corrupt kingdom to the most developed country in Africa, his arrogance, tyrannical control over the country, and overly long stay in power has overwhelmed the Libyan people. This has caused them to rise up. It is easy to claim that, because Gaddafi does not bow to any foreign power, and that he is not a puppet like almost all other Arab leaders, Libya’s resistance are being manipulated by the US. While this may prove true in the future, and while both share a distaste for Gaddafi and his policies, that has not been shown yet. It is too soon to say whether a new Libya will result in a neo-colony or a puppet state which will be subservient to the USA, because they have not fully wrested power from Gaddafi. I agree, however, that the calls for an invasion of Libya under the slogan of “humanitarian intervention” is appalling in its hypocrisy. When thugs working for Hosni Mubarak was murdering people in Tahrir Square, all the United States had to offer were empty words about a “smooth transition to democracy” in Egypt.

  17. Keith Harmon Snow said on March 6th, 2011 at 9:26am #

    @Jonas — I think it is clear that these “rebels” are not homegrown. I also think the western propaganda (being so blatant) makes it very clear, in comparison to reportage on Afghanistan or Iraq or Uganda, for example, if you study and understand how it works, thats this is not a popular uprising. In any case, I basically agreed with you.

    @Deadbeat, yeah, right on brother.

    @Dbstoned — you winned [sic].

  18. hayate said on March 6th, 2011 at 3:53pm #

    Some decent material on Libya here. Both this article and Lendman’s piece are very helpful. Thanks.

  19. shabnam said on March 7th, 2011 at 6:39am #

    Mr. Snow:

    Thank you, Mr. Snow, for your excellent article that exposes the real motifs behind this vicious propaganda against Gaddafi.

    The Propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi has reached to a new level. This time many so called “progressive” sites jumped on the bandwagon and thus they exposed themselves what they really are, a US government front. Some were printing Al Jazeera’s propaganda against Libya. The ignorant Americans were feed with many unconfirmed inflammatory reports from Al Jazeera, a media outlet in the service of the Imperialist’s geopolitical agenda in the Middle East and North Africa, through ‘progressives’ such as “INFORMED COMMENT”. Now, we know whom they are really serving.

    The Zionists/imperialists used the same propaganda campaign against Al Bashir and were able to fulfill one of their goals in Southern Sudan, to partition the country through destabilization of Sudan. The war criminals in Washing brought unfounded charges against Al Bashir, “genocide” HOAX, similar to baseless accusation made against Gaddafi, “genocide in Libya” by war criminals including Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice who has been frequently address as a LIAR.

    We appreciate this article and we hope to read more of your articles based on good and fair research here and elsewhere about the latest development in Sudan. The evil empire intend to partition Darfur by propaganda campaign therefore, we should expect to see more constructed violence in Darfur and Southern Sudan soon.

  20. Keith Harmon Snow said on March 7th, 2011 at 8:12am #

    @ Dbstoned —

    So today I have had had a few moments to go back and review your complaints. Your original (first) post above, and further references (of yours) to my story that follow it, begin by questioning the logic of my thinking or veracity of my assertions. In fact, you insert that comment by Emerson about a hobgoblin of small minds, and your usage is not friendly or respectful, but sets the tone for your general inclination to ridicule and disparage me.

    At first, your attention to my use or abuse of sic was merely a small PS. However, once someone else (3bancan) set out to “correct” you on the usage of sic, according to their own mindset, and having returned your somewhat snotty comment with an equally sharp barb, then you set off to wage a small war on the subject of the usage and abusage of sic.

    3bancan commented that neither you nor the person before you who declared my work herein to be, in so many words, a conspiratorial conglomeration of unverified assertions, had responded to my request to provide some examples.

    At last I came along and asserted that I agreed with 3 bancan on the use of sic. By this time you are fully engaged in proving the correct use of sic — according to your worldview.

    On the usage or abusage of sic:

    I agree with you. I’ve reviewed my two uses of sic in my story. One is conventional and “correct” according to style manuals and whatnot. The other — preceding “enlightened” is my own usage, and while its usage was clear to 3bancan, and to me, it seems your argument is that its abusage is somehow dangerous. I don’t understand your logic. What I do understand is that my usage may cause confusion to some who do not understand it. I don’t see that as problematic, although I generally aspire to correct usage according to various established dictates. In sharp contradistinction, I used sic very intentionally, following upon “enlightened”, because the arrogance and white superiority that accompanies the usual western epistemology makes me sic. I get tired of writing “so-called” in advance of “human rights” or “democracy” or “freedom” when in fact what we are talking about is a selective or hypocritical application of human rights, or a faux democracy, or enslavement (in absence of freedom, in, for example, such places as the United States, or in such personal choices as owning an automobile). So, the fact that my usage is formally an abusage doesn’t really bother me at all, especially when I am certain that such a bright [sic] mind as your own is capable of adducing my meaning, and where I am, in the end, hopeful that the slaughtering of innocent people or the lies of the propaganda system will be of greater concern than my grammatical errors or mispelling or my personalized use of sic. I will perhaps be more careful, in future, as to how I chose to use sic. On the other hand, because I am inherently challenging white supremacy it rather suits my purpose, and my whim, to use sic in a more liberal way, as I don’t have a lot of respect for a system of thought and way of being that declares that I cannot use sic in a way that I like, but meanwhile abdicates all personal responsibility for participation in and support of that system’s destruction of people and nature and everything that I care about, and everything that our lives depend upon. All said and done, the dictates of Eric Partridge and/or Strunk and White are something else that I should like to challenge for their hypocrisy.

    So, at last, we get back to the subject of real import: the content of my article, for which you have offered some rather offensive criticisms and sarcastic comments and at least one snotty comment. (Note that my use of the adjective “snotty” to describe your comment feels appropriate and is not in any way suggestive of my own participation in your name-calling).

    If you (or the original commenter) would kindly provide a few examples of what you consider to be “unverifiable assertions” or “conspiracy theories” etc. etc. etc. I would be happy to address these points.

    blessings
    keith

  21. hayate said on March 7th, 2011 at 12:24pm #

    :D

    The hasbara manual doesn’t teach the things how to address actual content, only how to misdirect, obfuscate or otherwise flame a discussion into something “safe”.

  22. DBstoned said on March 7th, 2011 at 9:34pm #

    “I am certain that such a bright [sic] mind as your own is capable of adducing my meaning”…how important is it that you’ve misused the verb “to adduce” here? does it matter that it makes hash of your sentence? that while I may indeed ***infer*** your meaning, I can’t meaningfully be said or presumed to ***adduce*** your meaning?

    There is a larger question here, one that isn’t simply a matter of style and etiquette: what value do you place on clear use of language? Since your self-described tasks in “taking on the system” are so great, wouldn’t it be better if you communicated in ways that don’t involve conspicuous misuse of important verbs?

  23. Keith Harmon Snow said on March 8th, 2011 at 7:06am #

    @Dbstoned — yes, i screwed up that verb usage. A perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate your greater command of English usage. As in: “I am certain that such a bright [sic] mind as your own is capable of adducing [sic, recte deduce] my meaning”.

    You continue to evade the issue, however, and if you look closely enough you can find other inconsequential errors. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

  24. Keith Harmon Snow said on March 8th, 2011 at 8:02am #

    Seems people dont have any problem understanding what I have written. It appears to be you who has issues with it, though you evade the central questions (regarding your complaints).