US, NATO & DESTRUCTION OF LIBYA

US, NATO And The Destruction Of Libya: The Western Front Of A Widening War – OpEd August 16, 2014 By Pambazuka News By Horace G. Campbell NATO claimed that its intervention in Libya was a historic success. But three years later, Libya is in complete chaos. Some 1700 militias have a combined total of 250,000 men under arms. Another external intervention seems necessary to stabilize the country. But the US and NATO must never be involved INTRODUCTION Most western embassies evacuated their personnel from Tripoli over the past few weeks as the fighting between rival armed militias creates a nightmare of violence, insecurity and death for millions of Libyans. The United States used its military presence in the Mediterranean to escort its embassy personnel and Marine guards to travel by road over the last weekend to Tunisia. The evacuation of western diplomats leaving the millions of Libyans to an uncertain fate has brought to the fore the Libyan dimensions of a wider theater of warfare from Tripoli through Benghazi to Cairo, Alexandria and Gaza and from Aleppo in Syria to Mosul in Iraq. The former allies of NATO such as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are now connected to differing factions of the Libyan civil war. In Libya, the war and bloodletting between the US supported General Khalifah Hifter (sometimes spelt Haftar) and the militias supported by Qatar is one indication of former allies falling out. Citizens of the West have little understanding of the depth of the sufferings unleashed on the peoples of North Africa, Palestine, Syria and Iraq since the United States and NATO launched wars against the peoples of this region. The battles in Libya are merging with the criminal war against the people of Palestine, especially the peoples of Gaza. [...] EXTRACT - FULL ARTICLE @ SOURCE http://www.eurasiareview.com/16082014-us-nato-destruction-libya-western-front-widening-war-oped/

Good article for anyone interested in Libya.

I'm a bit slow so I've been reading and re-reading, trying to get the hang of what's happening.

I'm heading back the article for another read about US military and CIA involvement ... a sneaky NATO intervention ... incessant bombing  ... US investment firms ... oil money and more.  Oh, and the US involvement with Jihadists.

............................................................

PS

No matter how much I re-read, there's only so much info I can take in.  This is about all I can absorb:

Since 2011 NATO destruction Libya = 50,000 dead.

General Khalifah Hifter (aka Haftar) was a Gadaffi general who defected and at one stage lived in Washington.

Hifter went back to Libyawhen the NATO bombings began in 2011.

Hifter heads 1,700 militias (yep, that many), which is about 250,000 armed men.

(I think) the article indicates the problem in Libya is that the anti-Gadaffi fighters are now not prepared to subordinate themselves to Hifter.  

Hifter's the US-backed man ... he's the Libyan 'wonder'.  But that's not necessarily a positive.

CIA under Petraeus recruited Islamists from Eastern Libya to fight in Syria (see Broadwell biography).

War against Syria:  Qatar, Saudi Arabia & Turkey backed (money & weapons) ISIS.

Now Saudi Arabia & Qatar fallen out over military takeover of Egypt by Grl SISI (and something to do with the Brotherhood).

Article says US Africa Command and CIA recruited previously designated terrorists.

There was a Hifter and Jihadist alliance.

Sounds like Hifter wants to be the main man.  

His main rival was bumped off (General Abdul Fattah Younis).

Wikipedia on Younis - here - says he was #2 in Gadaffi govt before he resigned and joined the rebels.

Shot & body burnt (along with x1 other).  Said to have been killed by rebels on suspicion he was double agent (for Gadaffi).

The Libyan stuff is supposed to affect North Africa, Gaza, Syria and maybe some other areas, but I don't understand how and this is pretty much all I can kind of get a handle on at the moment.  LOL.

Great article for anyone who knows more about the region than I do.  Worth a read.

US - SURVEILLANCE & CONSTRAINTS ON PRESS

Pursuit of journalist endangers freedom of the press By Amy Goodman / Syndicated Columnist PUBLISHED: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:02 am The Obama administration’s espionage case against alleged CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling is expected to come to trial soon, six years after he was indicted. In addition to Sterling, also on trial will be a central pillar of our democratic society: press freedom. Federal prosecutors allege that Sterling leaked classified information to New York Times reporter and author James Risen. Risen has written many exposes on national security issues. In one, published in his 2006 book “State of War,” he details a failed CIA operation to deliver faulty nuclear bomb blueprints to the government of Iran, to disrupt its alleged weapons program. Federal prosecutors think Sterling leaked the details to Risen. They want Risen to divulge his source in court, which he has so far refused to do, asserting the First Amendment’s protections of the free press. James Risen has vowed to go to jail rather than “give up everything I believe in.” The role that confidential sources play in investigative journalism was perhaps best popularly demonstrated by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They had a confidential source dubbed “Deep Throat,” who gave them leads, confirmed details and instructed them to “follow the money.” With the help of that source, they uncovered wrongdoing at the highest levels of government that ultimately led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation from office in 1974. At about the same time, revelations about FBI, CIA and NSA misconduct and outright criminality led to congressional investigations that prompted creation of new laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was supposed to rein in abuses, requiring a court-issued warrant for surveillance. Then, 9/11 happened, and, as common wisdom now holds, “everything changed.” The administration of George W. Bush initiated a wide spectrum of activities, including torture, kidnapping, warrantless wiretapping and, of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on falsified intelligence and a sprawling propaganda initiative, conducted with a largely compliant mass media. These abuses came to light thanks to the work of investigative journalists like James Risen and to whistleblowers who take great risks, personally and professionally, to bring abuses of power to public attention. Risen has taken his case to court, where a federal district judge threw out the subpoena against him. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the subpoena. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the Obama administration’s urging, declined to hear the case. Risen thus has exhausted his legal appeals and will either have to testify in Sterling’s trial or face contempt of court charges, which can include fines and jail time. “As long as I’m attorney general,” Eric Holder promised, “no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail.” If Sterling’s federal prosecutors compel Risen to testify, it’s not clear what Holder’s promise will be worth. One reason the district court judge threw out the subpoena against Risen is that the prosecutors already have a strong case against Sterling, and they don’t need Risen’s confirmation that Sterling was the source. The case against Sterling includes James Risen’s credit-card and bank statements, telephone records and other information allegedly linking the two. Therein lies another profound threat to journalism: the unprecedented level of surveillance of everyone, including journalists. Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union jointly released a report in July, “With Liberty to Monitor All: How Large-Scale U.S. Surveillance is Harming Journalism, Law and American Democracy.” In detailing the negative impacts on journalism by mass surveillance, they quote Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC News, who said: “I feel … like somebody in the Mafia. You’ve got to go around with a bag full of quarters and, if you can find a pay phone, use it, or, like drug dealers use, throwaway burner phones. These are all the steps that we have to take to get rid of an electronic trail. To have to take those kind of steps makes journalists feel like we’re criminals and like we’re doing something wrong.” No, investigative journalists are not doing something wrong. The online activist group Roots Action has a petition with over 125,000 signatures to halt legal action against James Risen. A crackdown on the press makes it harder to get information out, ultimately violating the public’s right to know. There is a reason why journalism is protected by the U.S. Constitution: A free press is an essential check and balance, necessary to hold those in power accountable. Journalism is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. http://www.abqjournal.com/446840/opinion/pursuit-of-journalist-endangers-freedom-of-the-press.html

Human Rights Watch - Report

With Liberty to Monitor All
How Large-Scale US Surveillance is Harming Journalism,
Law, and American Democracy 

 - here.


How's this? 

Journalists are unbelievably under the thumb in the US.

I've not read the report but will go back and do so at some stage.

POROSHENKO - US PUPPET - US AGENT

Our Ukraine Insider: The New President Once Agent for the US State Department Michael Collins / The 4th Media News | Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 17:43 Beijing Is he still working for his former masters in Washington, DC? Two diplomatic messages from the WikiLeaks Public Library on U.S. Diplomacy indicate that newly elected President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko was an agent for United States State Department. A confidential message from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev on April 29, 2006 mentions the newly elected Ukraine president twice. ... [...] The inauguration speech in Kiev included the new president’s desire to sign the European Union (EU) association agreement and seek full integration into the EU, which implies NATO membership. “Dear friends, my pen is already in my hands. I am ready now. As soon as the EU takes a relevant decision, the signature of the Ukrainian president will immediately appear under this document. We see the association agreement as only the first step towards Ukraine’s fully-fledged membership in the European Union ” Petro Poroshenko, June 7 As Poroshenko spoke, “Residents [of Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine] said the sounds of shelling reverberated around the city on Friday.” ABC, June 7 Which Poroshenko can we believe? The president who worked for the U.S. as “our Ukraine insider” or the elected head of a sovereign state engaged in honest diplomacy? Right now, it’s safe to stick with the bellicose rhetoric of the inaugural speech. In a heavily documented report, RT showed the handiwork of President Poroshenko’s troops in Slavyansk – eight dead yesterday from aerial bombardment of the separatist occupied city administrative building. “Death and destruction is reported in eastern Ukraine as Kiev’s artillery has resumed shelling the rebellious city of Slavyansk. Locals tell RT they have been without running water and power for days, and that hope is fading.” RT, June 8 The $5 billion spent to get a U.S. friendly government in the Ukraine worked. “Our Ukraine insider,” Petro Poroshenko, is president. He was informed five years ago that the U.S. wanted Ukraine in NATO, and he no doubt heard Vice President Joseph Biden’s speech in Kiev. Without a vote by Congress or a valid treaty, Biden assured the then coup-run government that our government would be there to help. U.S. will stand by Ukraine in face of Russian aggression, Biden says “I came here to Kiev to let you know, Mr. Prime Minister, and every Ukrainian know that the United States stands with you and is working to support all Ukrainians seeking a better future. You should know that you will not walk this road alone. We will walk it with you.” Vice President Joseph Biden, April 22 The players and plans have been in place for years and it’s all paid off. The White House and their masters finally have their insider in place in charge of Ukraine. It’s worth listening to the assessment of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst and his Deputy around the time they handled Poroshenko. The ambassador saw him as a “disgraced oligarch” and his deputy pointed out that “Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations.” Spreading brand democracy around the world is a tough job. Somebody’s got to do it. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.4thmedia.org/2014/06/ukraine-president-once-agent-for-us-state-department/

This is a link to a 2006 WikiLeaks cable - here.


 John E Herbst, then US ambassador to Ukraine - wikipedia info - here.

Herbst is now 'Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center' director Atlantic Council - here.

'Dinu Patriciu' is a billionaire Romanian businessman that's involved in the Council, so the centre is named after him, one would guess.  Wikipedia on Patriciu - here.

US Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications - Out-tweeted by Jihadists

Can the U.S. out-tweet the terrorists? Published: 15 August 2014 02:45 PM Updated: 15 August 2014 02:58 PM [...] The American effort appeared to amuse some of the Islamist tweeps who were engaged in the battle. “Your boss is going to fire you soon if these tweets don’t improve,” joked someone named Abu Ottoman. This exchange wasn’t accidental or uncommon. It’s part of a State Department program to change how the United States deals with extremist communications online. For years, the government vacillated over how to respond to al-Qaeda’s online broadcasts, from its martyrdom videos to Inspire, the terrorist group’s slick English-language digital magazine. Fighting back was considered beneath the office — we don’t negotiate with terrorists and all that. Under the George W. Bush administration, the government also believed it was fighting such a vast, communist-like ideological threat that there were simply too many jihadists to try to dissuade them one by one on social media. The better approach, the previous administration thought, was to campaign broadly for freedom. “For the longest time, there was total resistance in the State Department to badmouthing al-Qaeda — as a job that the State Department should be engaged in — and that the real solution should be to sell America, to tell America’s story,” says Will McCants, who helped set up the CSCC when he served as a senior adviser for countering violent extremism at the State Department. That has changed under Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, who took a much narrower view of terrorism, confining his focus to al-Qaeda and seeking to make it less a war than a law-enforcement and intelligence problem. Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the State Department began to a pursue a policy of what she called “21st-century statecraft,” a broad designation that included anything from using social media to speak directly to people in the developing world to helping foreign dissidents set up secure communications networks. Now, the government is trying to go on offense, challenging terrorist propaganda all across the new digital battleground and seeking to wean would-be terrorists from the cause, recruit by recruit, using the hashtag #ThinkAgainTurnAway. The CSCC wants to “contest the space” that, in the words of State Department senior official Alberto Fernandez, who oversees the program, “had previously been conceded to the enemy.” In practice, this means that the center, with its $5 million budget, verbally jousts with jihadists on social media all day long. Not a bad idea, according to experts like McCants. The problem is that it appears to be losing — at least when it comes to showing the quick thinking and verbal dexterity that so characterizes the big winners in the social-media universe. In an arena in which people are largely inured to the frequent intrusions of advertising, the center is conducting itself like it’s the only propaganda operation in town. The way the program works is fairly simple: The State Department’s analysts follow online chatter about the latest ISIL victory or news of a recent al-Shabaab massacre in Kenya, and then they try to insert themselves into the conversation. The idea is less to sway committed terrorists than to persuade fence-sitters not to join up or provide material support. But State’s messages usually arrive with all the grace of someone’s dad showing up at a college party. The posts tend to be blunt, adversarial and plagued by poor Photoshop work. Typically, “Think Again Turn Away,” as the CSCC’s English-language Twitter account calls itself, delivers hectoring messages written in the schoolmarmish tone of Reagan-era “Just Say No” commercials — only this time it is terrorism, not drugs, they’re trying to scare everyone away from. And because the government’s tweeting is so flat and self-serious, few people — even those most sympathetic to its messaging — are motivated to share the CSCC’s posts. As anyone bidding for attention on social media knows, that’s a serious problem. Islamic State supporters, by contrast, can be playful and droll, though sometimes the humor is exceedingly macabre and only appeals to a certain sensibility. Many of the photos being circulated — such as one of a dead Shiite man floating in a body of water, alongside a joke about him being taught to scuba dive — are horrific, but they also make for popular jihadist memes. (That particular picture was retweeted nine times and favorited 15.) The plain fact is that, for now, groups like the Islamic State are far more sophisticated than the State Department in their messaging. The rise of social media has transformed how jihadist propaganda is disseminated, news is spread and recruits are gathered. Extremist groups have proved themselves to be rather adept at utilizing new forms of digital communication. Knowing that Western intelligence agencies are likely watching, the Islamic State and its sympathizers have taken to hopscotching among various social networks, using each for different tasks: Twitter and YouTube for propagandizing and making initial contacts; Ask.fm for establishing a closer rapport; and private messaging apps like Kik and Surespot for disseminating instructions about how to find an Islamic State-associated imam, or where to cross the porous Turkey-Syria border. At the same time, open-source intelligence — the gathering of intelligence from public forums — has become an essential tool for analyzing the opinions of large populations, tracking terrorist activities and seeing how radicalization plays out online. Yet despite this glut of new information sources, there had been reluctance about using the State Department as a bully pulpit until fairly recently. In the past, the American government preferred to respond to jihadist activity online with covert means — monitoring chatrooms, shutting down password-protected forums or making them difficult to access. Sometimes intelligence analysts would let members of a jihadist forum know that they were watching. “It’s like inserting an informant into a prison to sow distrust,” says William Braniff, the executive director of START, a terrorism research center at the University of Maryland. “People no longer trust their cellmate.” But those efforts also had the effect of making forums “much less vibrant places,” Braniff says. Jihadists began to retreat from communicating in spaces where they once felt they could speak freely, and intelligence gathering suffered. [...]  ** EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE ** http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20140815-can-the-u.s.-out-tweet-the-terrorists.ece

Thought this was an interesting article.

CSCC is Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications

FREE ASSANGE | BILDT-RAT CENSORED

❌ G O O G L E SUCKS ❌ FREE  #ASSANGE FIRST POSTED:  August 15, 2014 CARL BILDT-RAT IMAGE BLOCKED Outrageous Censorship ❌ G O O G L E SUCKS ❌ From the code of the image, I would say this was a montage of CARL BILDT'S face and the body of a rat. Obviously, someone didn't find that as amusing as I did & has had the rat-faced Bildt montage blocked. How ridiculous is that? Bilt was the Foreign Minister of Sweden back in 2010, still seeks to influence politics, and is therefore fair game when it comes to political comment. Hello, Google? Where is the freedom of political expression and fair-use copyright exemption? ❌ EVIL EMPIRE STRIKES AGAIN [UPDATE:  MARCH 2015]    G O O G L E SUCKS ❌

ARGENTINA - TAKING U.S. TO THE HAGUE

Cry for Argentina: Fiscal Mismanagement or Pillage? Posted on Aug 15, 2014 By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt This piece first appeared at Web of Debt. Argentina has now taken the U.S. to The Hague for blocking the country’s 2005 settlement with the bulk of its creditors. The issue underscores the need for an international mechanism for nations to go bankrupt. Better yet would be a sustainable global monetary scheme that avoids the need for sovereign bankruptcy. Argentina was the richest country in Latin America before decades of neoliberal and IMF-imposed economic policies drowned it in debt. A severe crisis in 2001 plunged it into the largest sovereign debt default in history. In 2005, it renegotiated its debt with most of its creditors at a 70% “haircut.” But the opportunist “vulture funds,” which had bought Argentine debt at distressed prices, held out for 100 cents on the dollar. Paul Singer’s Elliott Management has spent over a decade aggressively trying to force Argentina to pay down nearly $1.3 billion in sovereign debt. Elliott would get about $300 million for bonds that Argentina claims it picked up for $48 million. Where most creditors have accepted payment at a 70% loss, Elliott Management would thus get a 600% return. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a New York court’s order blocking payment to the other creditors until the vulture funds had been paid. That action propelled Argentina into default for the second time in this century—and the eighth time since 1827. On August 7, 2014, Argentina asked the International Court of Justice in the Hague to take action against the United States over the dispute. [...] Blame has also been laid at the feet of the IMF and the international banking system for failing to come up with a fair resolution mechanism for countries that go bankrupt. And at a more fundamental level, blame lies with a global debt-based monetary scheme that forces bankruptcy on some nations as a mathematical necessity. As in a game of musical chairs, some players must default. Most money today comes into circulation in the form of bank credit or debt. Debt at interest always grows faster than the money supply, since more is always owed back than was created in the original loan. There is never enough money to go around without adding to the debt burden. As economist Michael Hudson points out, the debt overhang grows exponentially until it becomes impossible to repay. The country is then forced to default. [...] Fiscal Mismanagement or Odious Debt? Besides impossibility of performance, there is another defense Argentina could raise in international court – that of “odious debt.” Also known as illegitimate debt, this legal theory holds that national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation should not be enforceable. The defense has been used successfully by a number of countries, including Ecuador in December 2008, when President Rafael Correa declared that its debt had been contracted by corrupt and despotic prior regimes. The odious-debt defense allowed Ecuador to reduce the sum owed by 70%. [...]         EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/cry_for_argentina_fiscal_mismanagement_or_pillage_20140814

This is a really fantastic article. Only an extract. Recommend linking to full article.

Blown away by how greedy the vulture hedge fund is, holding out for a 600% return - over a decade of fighting.

It should be interesting to see how Argentina goes fighting this.

US, UK & NORWAY - FOREIGN AID PROPPING UP SOUTH SUDAN

End the aid: The U.S. must not subsidize war in South Sudan August 14th, 2014 at 6:05 am By the Editorial Board Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The announcement Tuesday of $180 million in food aid to South Sudan, accompanied by a strong statement of impatience from Secretary of State John Kerry, should be the final warning to warring elements there to make peace. South Sudan has already received $456 million in aid from the United States this year. Now an estimated 3.9 million of the country’s people are said to be facing famine unless more help is furnished immediately. It is in response to that appeal that the United States has responded on humanitarian grounds. The fundamental problem, however, is that South Sudan’s principal leaders, President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar, refuse to settle their differences and create a transitional national unity government. They have promised one to all negotiators, including the African Union and the United Nations. The peacemaking effort is being led by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, spearheaded by a troika including Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, all major aid donors to South Sudan. The quarrel between the leaders of two of the country’s major tribal groups, the Dinka and the Nuer, preceded the independence from Sudan that was brokered by the United States and other parties in 2011. Talks have been underway in Ethiopia for six months and the two leaders were given six months to move forward. Instead, the talks have gone nowhere, their militias have continued to fight and millions of South Sudanese have been displaced, disrupting food production and creating the famine threat. The bottom line is that the United States and other donors are feeding the South Sudanese people while their leaders spend the country’s revenues, some of it from oil, fighting each other. It is hard to turn away from suffering, but America has done enough. The IGAD troika should tell the South Sudanese to settle or all aid will be cut off. http://www.borglobe.com/25.html?m7:post=end-the-aid-the-u-s-must-not-subsidize-war-in-south-sudan

What's the bet there's oil or some energy source in South Sudan.

Republic of South Sudan became the world’s newest nation and Africa’s 55th country on July 9, 2011, following a peaceful Referendum ...

South Sudan is sparsely populated with more than 200 ethnic groups and little sense of shared nationhood.

As a new nation without a history of formal institutions, rules or administration accepted as legitimate by its society, South Sudan must build its institutions from scratch.

South Sudan has vast and largely untapped natural resources and opportunities abound ...

South Sudan is the most oil dependent country in the world, with oil exports accounting for almost the totality of exports, and for around 80% of gross domestic product ...

On current reserve estimates, production is expected to reduce steadily in future years and to become negligible by 2035. Prior to the oil shutdown in January, 98% of fiscal revenue came from oil.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southsudan/overview

US Exxon's pulled out from South Sudan exploration (here).

What's interesting is that Erik Prince, the Blackwater mercenaries dude, was going to build an oil refinery in the region - but he's put those plans on hold.