“To ignore the white flag of surrender, the white flag of truce, I think is a major, major war crime and one that NATO will try to cover up with all of its resources because every one recognizes that that is way beyond the pale when it comes to a war crime; failing to recognize the white flag of truce.” – Wayne Madsen (Investigative Journalist) According to Madsen’s sources, Gadhafi was another victim in an assassination plot, telling Aaron Dykes, of Infowars.com, that “I do believe that the CIA, now, was involved in allowing Gadhafi to be executed.” (Infowars: 10/24/11 @ 37:35)
Kurt Nimmo writes that “The use of white flags to signal surrender is an ancient tradition going back to the Eastern Han dynasty in China and the Roman Empire. Violating the widely accept convention is considered an act of extreme treachery.”
Officials deny that Gadhafi was trying to surrender. According to Nimmo’s report, Madsen’s sources claim that “Gaddafi was told to surrender to the al-Qaeda rebels besieging Sirte before morning prayers at 5 am, but that it was decided to surrender after the sun was well up in the sky so the white flags would be clearly visible.”
Alex Jones and Wayne Madsen have both brought up the point that if Gadhafi was trying to escape, as the officials state, the ousted leader of Libya would have done so at night; not during the day, where Predator drones could spot Gadhafi and take him out. Though a drone did wound Gadhafi, it’s reported that the leader was taken alive by rebel forces on the ground. Like the Osama “death” story, the official story about the death of Gadhafi has changed many times.
Unlike the OBL farce in Pakistan, there are many pictures and video of a deceased Gadhafi available to the public, and deemed to be non-offensive. The circumstances may be different, but still I wonder why it is ok to show photos and video of a deceased Gadhafi (which more than likely proves he’s dead), yet for someone who allegedly killed 3,000 people, and is the leader of Al-Qaeda , who’s killed many of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s too offensive to show Bin Laden’s death pictures.
This makes no sense to me. It’s not offensive to show Gadhafi dead, but it is for the alleged 9/11 mastermind? First we’re told Gadhafi was found in a sewer, then we’re told he was killed in some sort of cross-fire. then the drone story got added, then it came out that Gadhafi was taken alive and then shot.
For the satanic elements out there, there is more news that Madsen relays to Aaron Dykes on October 24th, 2011. This, if true, is disgusting. Madsen states that “There’s a video circulating, showing that Gadhafi was being sodomized by a rifle barrel before he was killed. Now this brings up all that remember Abu Ghraib; the sodomizing of the detainees there, the executions of detainees at Abu Ghraib and all the other heinous war crimes committed by the United States and its allies. And here we have what seems to be a continuation of this policy.”
Our country is lost. But what is lost can always be found. It’s up to us…
ARE WE WORKING WITH
AL-QAEDA
IN LIBYA?
On May 25th 2011, former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney reminded Alex Jones, “We’ve seen it over, and over, and over again. Individuals of wealth and resource, who are able to pull the levers on U.S. military and diplomatic policy, are able to arm a small group of people, give them the financial where-with-all to wreak havoc and terror on a population; and then all of a sudden – presto, abracadabra – you’ve got what is called in the media, a civil war. Well it’s not a civil war. It’s a group of people who’ve decided that they want something that that particular area has. For example, in Sierra Leone, it was diamonds; and when the British Sandline mercenaries went into the home of Fute Sanko, what did they find there? A letter from Maurice Tempelsman proposing to do business. So, this is the kind of thing that motivates U.N. Policy, and I am certain that at the end of an investigation, were we to have one, we would find that there are certain individuals involved in this; and they’re able to dictate to the president [Barack Obama], to [British Prime Minister David] Cameron, to [President of the French Republic Nicolas]Sarkozy, to all of the NATO allies, they’re able to dictate them going to war.”
Al-Qaeda Is Working For US
Alex then wonders “How can the neo-con media call you [Cynthia McKinney] a traitor for being over there reporting the truth when it’s admitted that what Gadhafi said three months ago is true. That the main force – this is now in The Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times – that is running all this is al-Qaeda. In fact the Al-Qaeda commander, under CIA payroll, admits that he killed U.S. soldiers, or commanded groups in Iraq. So, you’re against people that killed US soldiers, and so you’re bad.”
Cynthia McKinney will always “remember what Robin Cook, the now-deceased foreign minister of the United Kingdom had to say about al-Qaeda. He just said [al-Qaeda] was the CIA’s Rolodex…the situation that the United States is allied with al-Qaeda is not unusual. What is unusual is that they actually admit it.”
“For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up. This makes no sense at all. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress. It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.” – Ron Paul
On June 13th 2011, the United States House of Representatives voted 248 to 163 to invoke the War Powers Resolution, prohibiting funding of any U.S. military operations in Libya. By U.S. law Congress must authorize the president to send U.S. troops into combat. (62) Obama tried to bypass congress’s authority with airstrikes over Libya. At the very least, what Obama should have done, if he had a good reason for putting any type of military soldiers into combat in Libya, was obtain a declaration of war from congress. Congressman Dan Burton has expressed his outrage that Obama has “received no authorization whatsoever from the Congress of the United States and it’s in violation of the War Powers Act and the Constitution.” (63) The congressman added that “the president is not a king and he shouldn’t act like a king.”
The War Powers Act does give Obama authority to send troops into combat without congressional approval, which seems ludicrous to me. Even so, within two days from sending troops into combat, the president must inform both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so they can vote within sixty days on whether or not the troops should remain in combat. Sixty days later, congress has not given Obama the approval, therefore, there’s good reason to believe that what Obama is doing in Libya is in violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act…it’s illegal. That never stopped presidents in the past, and this president is maintaining the continuation of illegal presidential activity.
No one may be surprised, but are we conditioned to accept this behavior as normal? If so, what does that say about the standards expected of America? Just don’t get caught.
If It Walks Like A Duck
Press TV reported that Obama has not swayed from his stance that Gadhafi must go. In my opinion, this is similar to Bush saying ‘Saddam must go.’ “Qaddafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a let-up in the pressure that we are applying.” Who’s we? NATO? The United Nations? Is all of this being done for the “credibility of the U.N.”? Does this president hope to bypass congress to set a precedent that could lead to the US overthrowing countries as the administration sees fit?
Let’s be clear, Press TV reported that in early June 2011 Obama did “send a letter to congressional leaders, asking for a resolution to back the military campaign.” At this point, those who received the message loud and clear have not taken Obama up on his request.
Examiner journalist Deborah Dupre writes that “US led forces continue the mission to kill Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi’s and his loyal supporters. NATO fighting is also continuing at the oil refinery in Misurata where the US Navy cluster bombed, injuring and killing hundreds of civilians. Libyans are defending Zlitan, one of three towns separating Misurata from the capital Tripoli, Berber mountains southwest of Tripoli, in nearby Yafran, and Dafnia near Misurata. According to Al-Jazeera, the town of Brega claims its important oil refinery “once operational, could supply the east of the country with much-needed fuel to produce electricity.”” (64)
Back in late March 2011 fighter bombers and cruise missiles struck Libyan air defenses, enforcing a no-fly-zone. It was around this time that reports surfaced about ground forces in Libya, including tanks and various armored vehicles. Micheal Chossudovsky called this “a war which has the objective of regime change.” Paul Watson writes that “while launching air strikes in support of so-called “protesters” who have commandeered fighter jets and tanks,” the protesters that the United States, France, Canada and the UK are supporting “are in fact Islamic fundamentalist al-Qaeda cells who want to impose sharia law in Libya.” (65) He sums up what every citizen of the United States should know, that “some of the very rebels now being funded and trained by western forces were part of the al-Qaeda cell that tried to kill Gaddafi on behalf of the United States and Britain 15 years ago.”
In March it seemed like the “protesters” we were helping were good people standing up against a tyrant in Gadhafi. In black and white terms one can see that point of view. Yet when you dig into the facts of the matter certain things do not make sense. Like why would we be helping al-Qaeda in Libya, yet fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq? – and all because of September 11th.
So what’s in Libya? Micheal Chossudovsky tells Russia Today it’s about oil, getting control of the oil in Libya “which constitutes 3.5% of total oil reserves.” The country has one of the largest national oil companies in the world, and the largest in Africa. Still, with new technologies and the oil dependency crisis at the forefront of public debate, I think it’s ultimately about something more than oil. Oil is a huge part of it, and there’s tons of evidence to support that fact. But I am again reminded of John Perkins book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where he talks about how countries are brought down by a shadow force that has control over the American government; enough control to topple a country and place a new leader as the head of a new regime. It’s a pattern.
Controlling the oil is not enough. There are those who control those who control the flow of oil in the modern world. They are the ones who send economic hit men into sovereign countries and oppress the people, starve them out with debt, until the United States steps in as a hero for the country, and gains full control of a once sovereign nation, tribe, or peoples. It happens over and over and over again, as history shows. However, history has never shown when this stopped happening. Is it then safe to assume it’s still happening? Is what is happening in Libya enough proof?
We have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting al-Qaeda.
Now we are told that we may have soldiers in Libya fighting alongside suspected al-Qaeda members. Something stinks here…
Gadhafi
The March 20th report by Paul Watson, writing for Infowars.com, explains how “In 2002 French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gaddafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan. Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, and allowed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.” (66)
Why would the United States block a warrant for someone they claimed was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Perhaps they wanted to be the ones to capture bin Laden first?
On March 29th Reuters reported that NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, reported flickers of potential al-Qaeda or Hezbollah affiliates found as part of the rebels that oppose Gadhafi. Admrial James Stavridis testified before the U.S. Senate, stating “We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces…we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, we’ve seen different things.” (67)
Flickers? Infiltration at best, controlled opposition as worst. Either way, this is appearing to be one more worthless war where citizens will be sacrificed in the name of nothing. Nothing more than death will come from this. The death of the people of Libya will ignite a fire, spread resentment, and diminish peace throughout the world. No one will be safer. Just as with the Patriot Act, TSA regulations, the wars, the result is that the Constitution is further diminished, and the will of the people continues to bend…but not break.
Steve Watson writes that the commander of the anti-Gadhafi rebel forces, “Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi…admitted that he had previously recruited fundamentalists to fight in Iraq, and said that the fighters are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya.” (68)
By March 26th Chris Adams, writing for McClatchy, reported on the new leader of the rebel opposition to Gadhafi, Khalifa Hifler. “Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.” (69)
Kurt Nimmo adds that “Mr. Hifter is a CIA operative, which likely explains his lengthy stay in Virginia. In 1996, the Washington Post reported that a Col. Haftar (a variation on Hifter) had arrived in the United States and he was “reported to be the leader of a contra-style group based in the U.S. called the Libyan National Army,” the Wisdom Fund noted at the time. “This group is supported by the U.S., and has been given training facilities in the U.S. It’s a good presumption that Col. Haftar’s group operates in Libya with the blessings of our government.”(70)An April 4th article by Webster Griffin Tarpley, for Infowars.com, explains “Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has rightly warned against the NATO policy of arming the Libyan rebels, since this would be “conducive to terrorism.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has also condemned any NATO arming of the rebels. Pope Benedict XVI’s call for a cease-fire goes in the same direction. Russia, Turkey, China, and other governments must now formally demand explanations from the State Department as to why the US is providing the most dangerous international terrorists with modern weapons and training, while proposing to award them large chunks of the $32 billion of frozen Libyan government assets, plus a share in coming oil revenues. This is enough to make the Mediterranean, the Arab world, and southern Europe boil over with refugees, piracy, mayhem, and war.”
Tarpley describes four components that create this secret army that is commanding the rebel forces. “The first is provided by the British, and consists of the monarchist and racist Harabi and Obeidat tribes of the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor, whose traditional culture is that of the obscurantist Senussi Order…Two ingredients come from the CIA.” That would be al-Qaeda, “founded as the CIA’s own Arab Legion against the USSR by then CIA deputy director Robert Gates…in Afghanistan in 1981-82.” Another product of the CIA would be “Libyan National Salvation Front, based first in Sudan and then in Northern Virginia, which is supposedly sending the CIA asset Khalifa Hifter to lead the rebel military.” The French are the fourth component of what Tarpley calls the “Four Plagues of Libya.” The French “arranged the defection of top Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari last fall, as reported by Maghreb Confidential. A clique of generals around Mesmari helped foment the military mutinies against Qaddafi in northeast Libya.” (71)
A May 14th 2011 article by Global Research begins with a letter from Muammar Gadhafi sent to Barack Obama, “We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaeda in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It’s an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali…If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?” (72)
The article states that “less than 2% of the entire Libyan population” supports the “so-called ‘Libyan pro-democracy movement.’” As these rebels are armed and trained by the governments of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, they are assisted by the Arab League in bombing targets in Tripoli, while the collateral damage is all a part of bombing Gadhafi out of his compound, to put a new government in place. Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, this government will not be representative of the people of the country, but of the shadow forces that control the heads of countries across the world. It’s all part of the plan.
Let’s not forget what Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel told the Hindustan Times, “There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.” (73)
President Barack Obama told “Early Show” co-anchor Erica Hill on March 29th that the intervention against Libya has saved “thousands of lives.” The president said the no-fly zone would assure that Gadhafi is “not using his air-power against his own people.” In order to succeed in this global mission of ousting Gadhafi from power in Libya, President Obama said he’s trying to “mobilize the world community to put the squeeze on him so that at some point he makes a decision to leave.” Straight out of an episode of the Sopranos; Tony puts the squeeze on his competition until there’s nothing left to squeeze.
Obama reiterates that at this point there has been no formal attempt to talk to Gadhafi or his loyals. Then he says something similar to what Bush said about Saddam; all Gadhafi has to do to implement a cease-fire is “stop going on the offensive in certain areas.” After a brief pause Obama continues, “He knows steps he could take that would stop the constant bombardment that he’s under.” (74)
So here we have the president admitting there is a constant bombardment of air-strikes over Libya. Of course what is not mentioned is how many innocent lives have been lost because of the bombings. He also doesn’t expand on what Gadhafi has to do for a cease-fire, just saying that “Gadhafi knows” what he has to do. When one isn’t being entirely forthcoming, it’s hard to be articulate. He says the rebels on the ground that “we’ve met with” are vetted. If they’ve been vetted, how does Obama account for the “flickers” of al-Qaeda or Hezzbollah that Admiral Stavridis told congress about? How they vetted these people in such a short time is also highly questionable, leading to more speculation of plans previously put in motion, in my opinion.
After being asked about the “flicker” of intelligence that al-Qaeda or Hezbollah may be part of this “spontaneous rebel alliance” against Gadhafi, Obama admits that “among all the people who opposed Qaddafi,” it’s possible there might be “elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests.” Obama cautioned against jumping into the internal Libyan war with both feet, but had no problem being on the same side as al-Qaeda in order to knock Gadhafi out of power. Obama has already committed so much towards ousting the leader, including trying to bypass congressional approval of airstrikes – which include U.S. troops being sent into combat, regardless of the label “kinetic action.”
It was March 21st when President Obama informed the congress that “at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.” The Office of Legal Council, in an April 1st memo, gave the country a poor excuse for the no-fly zones, and why Obama went to the United Nations to receive authority to conduct military operations in Libya. We now know for sure this means troops on the ground, even though this was hidden for a long time from the public. Of course, most people had no idea that Obama would ever send troops into Libya. He had to go to the United Nations because, as we have seen, congress would not vote to authorize the continuation of U.S. soldiers in Libya.
Who knows how long the CIA has been on the ground, both covertly and overtly. As Louis Fisher, writing for LAW.com explains, “An April 1 memo by the Office of Legal Counsel states that Security Council Resolution 1973 “imposed a no-fly zone and authorized the use of military force to protect civilians.” Because Libya did not comply with the resolution, the OLC concluded that President Obama was justified in using military force against Libya to maintain “the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and the effectiveness of its actions to promote international peace and security.”” (75)
What about the credibility of the United States? Does this make us safer or does it increase the hatred towards the American government? As Obama told Erica Hill, the opposition forces to Gadhafi are “saying the right things.” It’s just too bad our President isn’t doing the right thing. For the last time, send our troops home.
As Ron Paul told John King of CNN, Obama “can’t go to war without permission from the congress.” (76) Paul calls it an insult to the American people and congress to suggest that the President doesn’t need to tell anyone he’s going to put military soldiers in Libya. In order to go to war in Libya, President Obama has suggested that all he needs to do so “is get a U.N. (United Nations Resolution) and then use the force through NATO. NATO was set up to fight and stand up against the Communists. So they’re searching for a mission. Instead of now defending Europe, they’re starting wars.”