BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST

BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST HIGHLIGHT FROM JOHN PILGER ARTICLE  ... British foreign policy ... alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. —John Pilger Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jihad on Britain, FBI Leak, David Cameron, Theresa May, David Blair, UK-Saudi Arms Deal, Bank of Scotland Cluster Bombs, Yemen, South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Libya, Uganda, Mali, MI5, Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW? 31 May 2017 The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy. Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida". The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria. Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May? These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology. The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities. Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights. The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show". In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence". Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten". More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe. Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys". To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships". The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel". Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had helped create. On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent was under way, largely unreported. In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies." Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef. The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us. This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it." At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly. Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq... The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly". Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush's blood-soaked "shit show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May. The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not. Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know Very interesting article by investigative journalist, John Pilger, written in aftermath of Manchester Arena attack and ahead of the current London Bridge attack: 3RD JIHAD ATTACK - LONDON WESTMINSTER BRIDGE SLAUGHTER MANCHESTER ARENA SLAUGHTER LONDON BRIDGE SLAUGHTER At least seven people died and 48 people were injured in a two-pronged attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, with police shooting the three suspected assailants dead. The attack started when a van rammed into pedestrians on London Bridge and ended with multiple stabbings at restaurants nearby. Police say the suspects were shot dead within eight minutes of the first call. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/04/europe/london-terror-attack-witness-borough/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter It appears that the Western, including British, political establishment is in fact responsible for the attacks on Britons and all Europeans, by Jihadists - as the Jihad was manifested by British and NATO-allied oil Arab (terrorist funding) alliance machinations,  coupled with imperialist Western capitalist foreign policy, as well as capitalist-serving domestic ideology & accompanying domestic policy of decades standing, the consequences of which, the hostage domestic public subsequently reaps.

Hillary Clinton's Extraordinary Humanitaran Achievements As Secretary of State, Feminist & Humanitarian

ministry of tokyo GARY LEUPP http://novorossia.today/i-urged-him-to-bomb-the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/ NOTE:  I have edited the two spellings of 'Gaddafi' that were in this article (ie. 'Gadhafi' and 'Gadhafy' to read the single Western spelling 'Gaddafi') - otherwise this reproduction is the same as that at novorossiya.today) “I urged him to bomb…” The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton on: April 14, 2015 If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects. Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gaddafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gaddafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya. [comment:  it was a very generous distribution of income - here] But she wanted to topple Gaddafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.) No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gaddafi had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels. The Pentagon doubted that Gaddafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gaddafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was. No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gaddafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them? Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had “lost legitimacy,” commanded him to step down, and began funding the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the “Loyalists’ Army” backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.) Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gaddafi was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn’t the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow? Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn’t just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from “peace-keeping” actions such as the imposition of a “no-fly” zone to overt acts of war against the Gaddafi regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda. The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U.S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gaddafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime. But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to validate a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gaddafi regime)”? In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gaddafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded. No, she’s held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who’d been complicit in the ruin of Libya. This version of events is easy to challenge. It’s easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more “mainstream” press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls “Hillary’s war” was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn’t Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted “toughness” be exposed as callous indifference to human life? * * * While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that “it takes a village” to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.     *She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world’s savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.     The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the “Dayton Accord” on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe’s heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.’s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright’s outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow’s acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia’s traditional ally Russia. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.     *Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton’s predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the “containment” doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a “tragic mistake” with “no reason whatsoever.” But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed “color revolutions” have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.     (To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered “defensive” military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)     *As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, “We think it was worth it.” Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq’s military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.     *She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein’s “chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” She declared, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” She suggested that her decision to support war was “influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama’s (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney’s bland suggestion that the problem was “intelligence failures.” “If we knew know then what we know now,” she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted” for the war.     *She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO’s relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people’s “European aspirations.” What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland’s handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.     Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.     *She wanted to provide military assistance to the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the “moderate rebels” has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of “moderate” rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.     *She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as “Israel’s new lawyer” given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain “security” throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel’s unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes “our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work”—as though she’s apologizing for it.     In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.     *Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.     *She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department’s traditional stance that “we take no position” on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled “In Praise of Hillary Clinton” praised her for “driving the Chinese slightly up a wall.”     *She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said “no.” Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn’t enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.     *She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a “more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term,” she signaled that India’s nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China. What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton’s record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%. This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs? GARY LEUPP http://novorossia.today/i-urged-him-to-bomb-the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/ Gaddafi's 2011 Prophesy: "Europe Will Turn Black" (Video) Transcript of this Russian documentary video (towards end of the post) indicates that Gaddafi was extremely generous COMMENT It took me forever go get through this article. I don't know how much I'll remember. That's an 'impressive' record. Japan is occupied. I thought it was disgusting how nobody cares about the targets of capitalist aggression abroad and that it is just a focus on how the capitalist sponsored politicians haven't protected the State Department (foreign office) and CIA figures deployed abroad to bring about regime change.   I guess that's what happens when you have public deluged by 24/7 propaganda from media that is in the control of only six large corporations; and, therefore, a public that's dumbed down by capitalist propaganda, capitalist indoctrination and capitalist-owned media self-serving censorship. The distances also don't help. It's very hard to relate to things that are so far away and so alien. I'm not sure that I relate to this stuff in any enduring emotional way.  I think it's just an intellectual recognition of what I consider to be wrong: aggression and exploitation by capitalists committed against weaker nations, costing the exploited Western domestic masses, under the rule of capitalist oligarchy, generations of paying off tax debt and interest to bankers -- bankers, who are are among the benefiting capitalist profiteers who sucking up the profits of warmongering, while the costs of the aggression of Western private enterprise are 'socialised' by being assigned to the American (and allied) public. Even so, I did find myself getting angry reading this. Particularly at the deceit and the degree of capitalist exploitation and control. For example, attacking Gaddafi even though he was closely cooperating with the capitalists. It isn't just the Middle East that the US and allied capitalists are destroying ... with the eager help of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power: they have destroyed Yugoslavia; Serbia; Ukraine and have set their sights on destroying Russia, which is why they have tried to rob Russia of a port Russia has held since 1783 (Sevastopol, Crimea) and why the capitalists are circling Russia, despite their deceitful assurances under Bush senior. Ukraine itself did not exist until the end of the Bolshevik revolution:  this is Russian Empire territory (and remains Russian and Slavic, in my firmly pro-Slavic opinion ... LOL) and Russian is a language spoken in the region for many centuries. I wish I had a better memory. It's very hard for me to keep everything in mind. The author, Gary Leupp, may be the American academic.  Although the article did not specify, I assume it is Gary P. Leupp, as it is an uncommon name: Gary P. Leupp Associate Professor of History at Tufts University holds secondary appointment in Dept. of Religion author: 'Servants, Shophands, and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan' (1992) Listening AUDIO | #1.0 Like this mix ... nice.

Gaddafi's 2011 Prophesy: "Europe Will Turn Black" (Video)

ministry of tokyo "Europe Will Turn Black" 2011 Gaddafi Prophesy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw  US Ambassador Thumbs-Up Gaddafi Corpse GADDAFI & FRIENDS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxzDme7tq20 US Ambassador Thumbs-Up Gaddafi Corpse US Consulate, Benghazi 2012   US Media 'Justice' Spin 2012 Bitch of Benghazi HILLARY CLINTON JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS WAR BY MEDIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw DOCUMENTARY TRANSCRIPT [For Quotes, Confirm Audio] SOURCE MATERIAL Russian Documentary Video Clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw Muammar Gaddafi: Now you people in NATO, listen to me. You are bombing the wall that stopped African migration into Europe. This wall stopped the terrorists from al-Qaeda. This wall was Libya. You are destroying it, you fools. For the many thousands of migrants from Africa, for your support of al-Qaeda, you will burn in hell. This is how it will be. Narrator: Until 1968, Libya was a monarchy. Seventy percent (70%) of the population lived below the poverty line. Many were illiterate and lived in simple nomadic tents. It was a typically underdeveloped African country. Gaddafi provided the Libyans with the kind of life that made the rest of the dark continent envious. Out of the desert arose the 'Eight Wonder of the World' - the Great Man-Made River (the world's largest irrigation project). Interview Subject (Male) c. 0:50: He was able to create a system of irrigation throughout the desert, through an underground pipe network. Interview Subject (Female) c. 0:57: Factories and enterprises began operating throughout Libya, none of which were there before. Narrator: Not having paid a single Dinar, Libyans moved from tents into apartment blocks. 'Rent' did not exist. Everything, including utilities and power, was covered by the government. Interview Subject (Male, elderly) c. 1:17: If we were to compare the way cities, such as Tripoli, looked before he came to power and after, you would see that it went from an ugly village to a city with high-rises, 30 years later. So you want to get married? The government would give newly-wed couples USD$64,000 towards buying a home and USD$7,000 towards each child born. You want a car? The government will cover 50% of the cost. Petrol in Libya used to be cheaper than water: 3 cents per litre. Interview Subject (Male) c. 17:03: Minimum wages were in the thousands of dollars, education abroad was paid for by the state, and cases where medical surgeries needed to be carried out outside of Libya, the state covered that, too. Narrator: "But to bring lasting peace of Libya would be impossible: this land will forever be torn apart by the leaders of these various tribes." "They can't and don't want to be ruled by a single person." That's what the leaders of the superpowers said in the 1970s Colonel Gaddafi surprised everyone. He unified 140 tribes into one country. Each one of these tribes had their own leader (Sheik). The option for Gadddafi was to either "scare them to death" or to buy them. Gaddafi preferred the latter. He promised them a heavenly existence, and he delivered on his words. Cuts to Gaddafi: We have oil: this is what will unite us. Narrator: Oil is the reason that Libya stayed as one country. Gaddafi nationalised the oil producing industry. He promised that the huge profits would be fairly distributed across the entire country. All Libyans began to receive their share of Libyan oil trade. Interview Subject (Male) c. 3:07: When the people can see that a certain leader is raising the standard of living, of course he will have a lot of support. Narrator: Gaddafi kicked out the foreigners. He closed the US and British military bases. He confiscated property from local Italians, the offspring of the colonisers. Then he moved onto the culture. He changed the calender, including the names of the months, and counting the years now from the birth of the Prophet Mohammed. He reviewed all the laws in Libya, to be in accordance with Sharia Law. Alcohol and gambling became illegal. Gaddafi considered himself to principal fighter for the interests of his people. Placing hand-picked personnel amidst high ranking roles, and being in full control of the country, Gaddafi refused any kind of title for himself. Having consolidated immense power, he only ever referred to himself as the 'servant of the people'. Interview Subject (Male) c. 4:08: "I'm just your 'brother of a leader', or a "brother of a ruler" - or sometimes he would title himself anything at all. Narrator: He considered Islam to be the highest form of moral authority; he did not drink any alcohol, which is forbidden by the Koran. He didn't even drink tea or coffee and kept his food very simple. But Libya was only getting richer. The huge oil revenues allowed Gaddafi to have Napoleonic plans.  source He stated that the Gulf of Sidra, in the Mediterranean Sea, is Libya's territorial waters, and vowed to take out any ship or aircraft that trespass "the line of death". Ronald Reagan called him the "wild dog of the Middle East" and he ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, March 30, 2011 30 March 2011 http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-planned-nuclear-attack-on-libya/24049?print=1 "... planned attack on Libya using nuclear weapons, had been contemplated by the Clinton Administration in 1996, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal" The US military operation El Dorado Canyon (1986) lasted 11 minutes. Around 100 aircraft dropped 150 tonnes of bombs over Libya. It's target was Gaddafi's residence and military bases, but many innocent Libyans perished. The little country, where people were sleepy [from too much eating (Russian reference, likely to docile Libyans due to prosperity)] was shocked. Gaddafi survived. Killing him would prove more challenging. Russian news announcement [potentially] / male voice (c. 5:31): "Americans failed in their mission" said Mikhail Gorbachev, in a message to Muammar Gaddafi. Narrator: The Colonel quickly understood that Western media will never write about the positive aspects of his country: the building of infrastructure and roads, the growing birth rate, and free medical care. Journalists like a show and he continually tried to grab their attention for interesting publications. Interview Subject (Male) c. 5:56: He became more and more creative. He did strange things, and worse some interesting clothing, accompanied by battalions of security. Narrator: His whole life, he wrote philosophy, in what he termed his 'green book'. Essential, he wrote a bible for the Libyan people in which he said that neither Communism nor Capitalism was suited to Libya. "Communism is a rejection of God, and Capitalism is a rejection of the human." There must be a third option. Interview Subject (Male, elderly) c. 6:30: "Democracy is a sham. Representation is a sham. Political parties are a sham. Parliament is a sham. He considered that democracy is only an illusion of "the rule by the people." Simply an illusion. So he introduced the model of the Soviet Union - the 'soviet' [council] is where the power is." Narrator: In 1992, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Libya. Libya's ability to sell oil ceased, and assets were frozen. How to win back the business of the international community? Gaddafi would consider it for 10 years. He decided to buy it. Interview Subject (Male) c. 7:10: I met with him in 2007 or 2008, during the world financial crisis, and I remember the last thing he said to me. He said "I only made one mistake, and that was trusting the Americans and the Westerners." Narrator: Condoleezza Rice, Tony Blair, and Nicolas Sarkozy convinced Gaddafi to wrap up all his military programs in return for their loyalty [to buying oil]. They said: give up your [military] programs, and you will become a full member of the 'international community'. Having been ostracised for so long, Gaddafi agreed. In 2013, Sadam Hussien was tried [by kangaroo court and executed], demonstrating to Gaddafi, once again, that it is best not to be on bad terms with the West. Interview Subject (Male) c. 7:58: In 2010, he was hugging Obama and calling him his closest ally and friend; he loaned Sarkozy money. Narrator: Sarkozy approached the Libyan government when he was a Minsister of Internal Affairs. He needed money for his election campaign. It was Libya's money that helped Sarkozy become President. ` Interview Subject (Male) c. 8:18: Gaddafi gave Sarkozy a lot of money, both to the cause and in his own pocket. And not just to Sarkozy, but other EU leaders such as Berlusconi. He paid Germany and Britain, too. Narrator: Gaddafi devoted himself to the intrigues on the international arena, but within his own country he feared no one. He knew that his people loved him, and it was true - they continued to show love for him, but it only added to his supposition of being irreplaceable. Cuts to vieled elderly female: "I am ready to put down my life for Muammar Gaddafi: he is a symbol of emancipation from the colonisers for every Libyan!" Interview Subject (Male) c. 8:56: Meanwhile, the tribes began to segregate, living their own ways and traditions. Even though Gaddafi continued to feed them, clothe them and arm them, and they appeared to be loyal to him, that loyalty wore thin. Narrator: In December 2010, the entire region became engulfed by protests and demonstrators. People became tired of poverty, the rife corruption that was taking place amongst officials, as well as lawlessness and hopelessness of their countries. The 'Arab Spring' had arrived, complete with chaos, and flowing rivers of blood. Opposition rebels got control of Eastern Libya in a number of days. Gaddafi was in Western Libya at the time. He was assured that he could dispel the uprising. Gaddafi audio: "Prepare to defend Libya! They wanted a war; they will have a war!" Narrator: We are close to victory, but to speed it along, I'm ready to open up the military arsenals and private all of Libya's true patriots with weapons!" At first, Gaddafi said they are just groups of drug addicts who are attacking police officers and stealing their weapons. But he quickly realised, this smells like a government coup. And there is nobody to defend him: he himself had vastly reduced his armed forces. Interview Subject (Male elderly) c. 10:14: The first one to act was Sarkozy: he unleashed the French airforce. Narrator: After the fall of Tripoli, Gaddafi remained in control of only 2 cities, around which brutal battles waged. There were more and more casualties. Interview Subject (Female) c. 10:30: The West, of course, tricked Gaddafi. He never expected this. It was a real knife in the back situation. It isn't even clear why they did this - why was this war necessary? Muammar Gaddafi was himself doing everything that they asked for. They killed him in a very humiliating way; as a personality, as a man, as a soldier, as a ruler, as a leader. Interview Subject (Female, floral dress) c. 10:59: This version of events will never be relayed in Western media, because it is obviously embarrassing to the dignity of their own countries. They maintain that Libyans did this to Gaddafi because they are savage, unenlightened beings. Narrator: Never has the death of a human being caused such over-abundance of Joy. Thousands of people rejoiced, who once loved Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton said "Woooow" when she heard the news. The US Ambassador to Libya took a picture next to the dictator's body, with his thumbs up. Interview Subject (Male) c. 11:41: Libya got rid of Gaddafi and Gaddafi's family. The got rid of 'the green book' and the green flag. They gained the absence of a unitary state, no governance structures, a permanent civil war and basically everything that the average 'revolutionary' never imagined. 12:13 - Very disturbing footage of bloodied Gaddafi surrounded by rabble, gunfire, screaming, poor audio, photographs being taken of bloodied and confused Gaddafi on what appears to be back of truck; disturbing high pitched noise like ongoing screaming and gunshots fired, possibly from automatic weapons. Vladimir Putin [13:05]: And my final comment, Mr McCain, as is known, is a Vietnam veteran. I would assume his hands are elbow deep in civilian blood. It appears he just cannot get by without repeated scenese that are atrocious to us, of the murder of Gaddafi. On TV screens around the world, we were shown his murder, where he was drenched in blood. Is this what you call democracy? How did they do it? Using drones, they delivered a blow to his battalion, and then over the radio to special forces - which shouldn't have been on the territory - they brought in a camera crew, as well as opposition rebels. And they murdered him without a trace or trial. If he was captured, it should have been left up to the people to decide his fate via democratic methods. Yes, it's difficult and it takes time, but nothing else is acceptable. RT News Interview (Male) c. 13:59 Bill Dod: "Colonel Gaddafi told Tony Blair that Jihadists would control the Mediterranean and attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse. The warning was revealed in released transcripts of telephone conversations between the two leaders from February 2011" Transcript: There are ARMED GANGS who have weapons. Not decided to face them with force, asking their families to convince them to lay down arms. You can't reason with them. They keep saying things like Mohammed is the prophet. Similar to bin Laden. They are paving the way for him in North Africa. They want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe. Need to explain to the 'international community'. Gaddafi's prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Blair as the civil war was engulfing Libya. Three weeks later, a NATO-led coalition that included Britain, began bombing raids that led to the overthrow and eventual killing of Gaddafi. ISIL now controls large parts of Libya. Vladimir Putin [15:01]: Putin on Libya Valdai Discussion Club 2014 Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered. Was it us that did this? You even had a Security Council decision for this; to establish a no-fly zone. What for? it was so that Gaddafi's airforce couldn't fly over and bomb the rebels. This wasn't the smartest decision. But, OK ... What did you proceed to do yourselves? You started bombing the territory. This is in clear contravention of the Security Council resolution. It is even outright aggression over a state. Was it us that did this? You did this with your bare hands. And it ended with the murder of your Ambassador. Whose fault is it? It's your fault. Is it a good result that your Ambassador was murdered? It is actually a terrible catastrophe. But do not look around for somebody to blame, when it is you making these mistakes. You must do the opposite; rise above the endless desire to dominate. You must stop acting out of imperialist ambitions. Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people; that there can be no other way but imperialistic politics. --- COMMENT --- Зачем? Zachem? 'what for?' (sounds like 'Ch'om) / possibly the contracted version? COMMENT That was a very good documentary. I didn't know that the US Ambassador that was eventually killed in Benghazi had been photographed with a thumbs-up over Gaddafi's mutilated corpse. What the capitalists have done to Libya is shocking. Lessons here: 1.  Do not trust capitalists. 2.  Do not disarm or wind down military. 3.  Rule by fear and brutal force may work better than generosity. What kind of fools receive everything they need for nothing and then take down the government that provides them with freebies that are unheard of anywhere else, to destroy their country and install rule by foreign capitalism that will mercilessly exploit Libya and the Libyan people? I can't believe it. Next time a Jihadi ploughs into a French crowd, I'll be thinking it is the French capitalists that are driving the bus. What the capitalists of Europe, Britain and the US are doing abroad is disgusting. What is even more shocking and astounding to me is that they simultaneously destroy all European societies and nobody objects.