SWEDEN - Nordic Battle Group 15 - Carl Bildt Blog

CARL BILDT BLOG [GOOGLE TRANSLATION - Original Swedish] What happens to NBG15? Is our preparedness enough? [Referring to Nordic Battle Group 15] ROM: Since the beginning again stand a Nordic Battlegroup under Swedish leadership ready for the efforts that the EU could decide as part of its common foreign and security policy. [Take this says:  a Nordic Battle Group is on standby, under Swedish leadership or command, waiting for the EU say-so, to take part in 'foreign & security policy.'] It was in 1999, after the Kosovo war experiences, as the EU summit in Helsinki decided to extend its also military facilities, and in June 2004 there were more officially precisely these battle groups of battalion size that should be in constant readiness.  [By 2004, battalion sized battle groups were on constant readiness, I gather.] As the EU had already in June 2003 in the so-called Operation Artemis conducted a successful military operation in the Congo to assist the UN in conjunction with the world organization with its little slower way of working would strengthen its peace efforts in the country. And Operation Artemis was also something of a baptism of fire for the Swedish Special Forces who participated in it, and whose efforts came to be valued significantly high. The idea has since been to the ever shall be two battle groups ready for action at short notice. And we had a Nordic battle deployable later than 2011. However, it is so stridssgrupperna as such never been deployed, and therefore has doubts about the concept has gradually increased. Not inconsiderable resources are used to equip, train and keep them in readiness in the various countries. Opportunities to use them has not been lacking. In the last year, suddenly became current with an EU military operation in the Central African Republic to prevent what very well could have led to an outright genocide, I belonged to those who argued that the EU's battle group would be deployed. That did not work. The reasons were a bit mixed. The main responsibility for the battle which then stood in readiness low of Greece, and Athens was the interest to say the least weak. But equally important was that the man in Paris clearly preferred to put together something that was indeed the EU, but that clearly was under French command.  [  (1) Greece not on-board; (2) general lack of enthusiasm (3) Frenchies wanted to be commanders of forces.] And the reason for that was that the course was about to reinforce and complement the French national strength which of course made the first rapid intervention in the country. [Maybe this says, French wanted to take the lead b/c the French  previously led a rapid response intervention in the African country in question.] For me - then foreign minister, and fairly active in the discussion on the issue of ministerial circuit - this was unfortunately a sign that the battle groups of days maybe numbered.  [No idea.  Rotation based leadership of these groups was discussed?] The situation in the Central African Republic was so close to the situations battle groups had been set up for that one could imagine:-threatening genocide, appeal from the UN, the need for rapid and limited effort. But that did not happen. After considerable difficulties did you design the much more limited strength EUFOR RCA which now has a mandate that extends until March of this year.  [EUFOR RCA -- ie European Union Force Republic of Central Africa -- the weaker force was deployed.  Fully operational @ 700 troops in mid 2014.  Bet CB was spewing it wasn't something more grand, with him at the helm?] Now, as our well trained and well equipped Nordic Battle Group in readiness for the next six months - 2,400 people from seven different countries.  [Now they've got the NBG @ 2,400 on standby & CB is just hanging for them to be deployed somewhere.] If it will be deployed, I think the concept of EU battlegroups survive. If it does not, I think it will fade away.  [Ooh, if there isn't a deployment, EU battle groups are kaput.] The speculation in the Irish press - Ireland is also part of the workforce - is spoken about possible interventions in Southern Sudan and Mali. I have not always easy to see, although nothing can be ruled out. The situation in Southern Sudan is catastrophic, and the characters right now tends to indicate that it will be worse, but a large UN force is already in place. [Must have resources.] And if the UN force in Mali suffer from challenges it fails, I think rather in other efforts to deal with the situation. Personally, I would probably rather see an option for operation in Libya. The situation there deteriorates continuously, and although the United Nations through its special envoy Bernardino Leon makes meritorious efforts to reach a political solution success has so far been limited.  Would begin to achieve success, it is well not entirely inconceivable that there could be a need for a force that can quickly secure some key installations or functions. Such a task would battle to have the potential to solve. Obviously there are also other situations that could arise - including a new collapse in the Central African Republic. To secure parts of the "line of contact" between the separatist Russian groups in eastern Ukraine and the rest of the Ukraine would be such, but the likelihood that the EU could collect himself to such a decision, I believe can best be described as non-existent.  [If sh*t hits the fan in Ukraine, CB doesn't think the EU will have its sh*t together so as to reach an immediate/quick enough decision to deploy the rapid response play-group.  Or so it would appear.  But it could be a trick.  Maybe they're ready to pounce.  ] In an effort is necessary decision by EU foreign ministers, and it requires no object. Thereafter, rapid decisions of the respective countries, and in Sweden, it is then that the government proposes the parliament a decision by a rapid procedure which it developed a model. How the Swedish government would react in a situation where the EU wanted a stake of battle, no one knows today, but first, we know that the Greens are almost always been opposed to thoughts like these, and secondly, we know that the money that was previously reserved for a possible effort is disappearing in other directions. In some places there are those who say that the investment in battle taking resources and energy from the work of national defense, and that it is now high time to saddle up on. I do not agree with. Let us not forget that the defense resolutions 2000 and 2004 were written off almost entirely on national defense task. The work of the battle groups was then an important way to ensure quality development in the Defence Forces in association with international collaboration. Without this work, we had been in a significantly worse position today. [Purpose of battle groups ('quality developement' & 'collaboration' ... sold as a domestic defence force investment (how clever); how financial sleight of hand, of sorts, does the trick -- ie a question of allocation, I guess.] And although the national defense tasks now - and rightly so! - Come into sharper focus, Sweden should not abdicate when it comes to international peace and stabilitertsinsatser.  [Hahaha ... it's not about peace & stability; it's about neo-con agenda on a global scale.] We are left with a small part in NATO's training mission in Afghanistan, are included in the EU's training efforts in Somalia and Mali, is now entering the demanding UN mission in Mali and will now once again be featured in the EU naval mission in the Indian Ocean. And the world around Europe's borders have hardly been peaceful and stable in recent years. That the EU would dispose of the instrument battle groups IS would hardly responsibly. But the coming months may become decisive. Source:  https://carlbildt.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/vad-hander-med-nbg15-ar-var-beredskap-nog/ -------------------------------------------------- COMMENT Pressed for time.  No sleep.  Massive on-line binge. Might come back to this.  Been good reading and seeing CB's views, although a pain having to make out the wonky Google translation. Some good information there about Swedish domestic scenario and the EU nations relations, I guess. Will come back to this.  Excuse any typos.  Rushed.

Russia - Ukraine

RUSSIA Just read this: Historian Nikolay Starikov: Ukraine was Conceived as Anti-Russia, Just Like Pakistan was Anti-India Found the concept of imperialists pulling out and creating 'anti-states' (eg Pakistan and Taiwan) an interesting one.   Guess that another example would then maybe be Israel, as an anti-state in the Middle Eastern region, because when the British pulled out of Palestine, Israel was created.   That's just my take.  Starikov didn't mention Israel. Wonder if Hong Kong could be considered one of those anti-states? If I understand correctly, Putin gained presidency in 2011 and the West lost control of Russia  (which was on the verge of coup). The next part is difficult for me to understand, because anti-territory Ukraine seems, to me, like this was always on the cards rather than a response to the West pulling out of Russia in 2011. Ukraine has what the West wants:  regional strategic advantage.  Think I read somewhere that it is the equivalent of Afghanistan.  Can't remember in what way.  Think it may have been something along the lines of being a buffer territory.  Yes, I think that was it.   Raked over what I've been looking at recently and found out I'm mistaken.  Not Afghanistan and not 'buffer'.  It's Iraq and it's -- umm, I forgot again.  It's some kind of strategic territory.  Transit.  Yes, it is a transit territory.  Oil or gas, I guess.   Not going into that now or I'll be here forever reading about Iraq, when I should have been asleep ages ago. I'll just conclude that Ukraine is Europe's Iraq, as it is a transit for gas and it is also a buffer region, as in a buffer between NATO and Russia (or that was supposed to be the case, but may not be so if the West has its way). Anyway, I disagree with Starikov:  Ukraine was 'it' -- the target or prize -- not matter what.  It's not a pull-out job like Pakistan and Taiwan, in my opinion (but, bear in mind, my knowledge is limited).  Even so, that's what I believe and I'm sticking to it until I'm convinced otherwise.   Ukraine is the pipes -- the gas transit.  It's a way of blocking Russia out of European gas markets and causing all sorts of problems for Russia, via Ukraine (and backed up with US sanctions against Russia (as well as the Arab oil producers maintaining output (along with booming fracking oil in USA, keeping oil prices down by something like 50% at the moment and sending Russia (and Venezuela) broke), to turn the screws on Russia economically and, more to the point, weakening Russia (who may have to deal with conflict on two fronts?).   Now I've gone off track.   Once the US has its missiles pointed at Moscow from Ukraine, you'd think this would be the end of it and that some kind of stability would be achieved. But the writer is talking about a war between Ukraine and Russia in the making (with the West profiting). It sounded crazy at first, as I didn't look beyond the US wanting Ukraine & pointing some US missiles at Russia and Iran ... oh, and the European gas market (and whatever it is they want in terms of energy markets in the Middle East). Now I'm sort of coming around to the idea that, yeah, maybe they do want a war on Russia's western border, as well as it's its southern.  And why not?  The benefit for US bankers and corporations would be enormous; Russia would be the next Azerbaijan US oil company bonanza. That's something to think about, I suppose.  Or maybe it's completely off track.  Don't know yet. [Forever having to edit things with apostrophes, as I type them in as a reflex, without thinking.  Annoying.]

Online Privacy

Privacy Shielding against Mass Surveillance   http://cryptome.org/2015/01/privacy-shielding-from-spies.pdf .............................................................................. The above article describes various means of avoiding online surveillance, for anyone that's interested.   Looks uncomplicated & worth checking out.

Chechnya, Caspian Energy & the Great Game

CHECHNYA NSFW Corp (Pando) Washington’s highly-politicized position on Chechen separatists dangerously misguided policy in which Chechen radicals have been protected and nurtured neocon-fronted US geopolitical strategy in Chechnya rank cynicism of US policy in Chechnya Why would so many sleazy neocons — Islam-bashers, terror-mongers and Cold War Reaganites — support armed Chechen separatists? Bill Kristol, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and over 100 others put together the K Street lobby powerhouse ... "American Committee for Peace in Chechnya" (ACPC) Among the "distinguished" names were notorious Islamophobes Frank Gaffney and Michael Ledeen; Jon Podhoretz’s parents, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, along Jon’s brother-in-law Eliot Abrams, a convicted felon over his role in Iran-Contra; and Abrams’ fellow Iran-Contra convicts Caspar Weinberger and Robert McFarlane. Many of the same figures lobbying for Chechen separatism fronted for Bush’s invasion of Iraq. ... notorious neocon outfit, Freedom House Freedom House was linked to a string of pro-US "color revolutions" in eastern Europe and elsewhere —the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, the failed "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan, and the failed 2002 coup in Venezuela to overthrow Hugo Chavez. Jamestown Foundation, a right-wing Cold War propaganda outfit founded by Reagan’s CIA director William Casey in the early 1980s. Russophobia; its politics are right-wing, pro-military, and pro-Big Oil.   Jamestown board members have included Dick Cheney, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Woolsey, and another ex-CIA director, Michael Hayden. The president of the Jamestown Foundation, Glen Howard, served as the executive director of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya.  Before joining Jamestown, Howard had worked as an analyst at SAIC, one of the largest private contractors serving the CIA and Pentagon. Howard also bills himself as a consultant to oil majors operating in the Caspian Sea region. ... support for the Chechen separatist leaders was strong in both Saudi Arabia and the US and Britain. Al Qaeda links Empire and oil are the two constants in the "human rights" campaign for Chechnya. Big Oil is what made the neocons’ hearts bleed. money interests can turn Islamophobes into bleeding-heart apologists for Chechen terrorism breakup of the Soviet Union = excitement in the oil and gas industry over the vast unexploited oil and gas reserves in weak, newly-independent Muslim states, all bordering the Caspian Sea: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent, Turkmenistan. Century prior = Royal Dutch Shell was one of the Caspian oil fields’ biggest profiteers Bolsheviks nationalized the oil fields after they took power in 1917, closing off the Caspian energy resources from Western control [FALL SOVIET UNION] Western oil reps were crawling around the ruins of Gorbachev’s empire, slavering over the Caspian region EXTRACTS ONLY - Full Article by Mark Ames:   https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/prisoners-of-the-caspian-part-one/ Really like this guy's article.  Heaps of interesting information. The above is only some of the information that caught my attention. Days later, I need to familiarise myself again, so I might have to go back and have another look.  Takes me ages to remember things. Article goes on to say that oil interests took precedence over US national security interests in the Caspian region, to the point of US protecting terrorists and that a CIA official (Robert Baer) resigned as a result. How bad must it be if even the CIA are disgusted? Baer's Time mag's intelligence columnist and has written for a bunch of other publications, including Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. The rest of the stuff on his Wikipedia page doesn't even register.  Sounds like a movie.  None of it feels real to me. The 'free press' is nonsense.  The press is corporate owned and it wouldn't surprise me if a good percentage of reporters were spies or ex-spies, while those that aren't are readily bribed (see CIA bribery revelation of Udo AlfKotte, German journalist >> German press is a PR appendage of NATO.). Ames' article points out that there's an OVERLAP between big oil, foreign policy and lobbyists (pro Chechnya lobbyists, in this case). Regional control boils down to control of resources and pipelines. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline gets a mention.  Looked that up the other day, probably as a result of reading this. Bill Clinton was at the centre of this Caspian struggle. In 1999, while Russia was embroiled in a Chechnya war (a look-up job for me), Clinton made a surprise 'Ta-da, we're building a pipeline in Azerbaijan' announcement, which seemed to have seriously pissed off Yeltsin, who went as far as reminding the US that the Russians have nuclear weapons.  What?  Here's the cool bit:  this is where Vladimir Putin comes into the picture, as new Prime Minister (making it 15 years of leadership for Putin). Hey, this calls for Putin video insert (I actually like this and think it's cute.  Ummm, is that warped?): The writer's quite funny.  Said Yeltsin nearly launched the world's first and only nuclear suicide bombing over the US usurping the goodies in Azerbaijan. Article goes into Russia backing various parties in the region and causing destabilisation of newly independent states, but that's probably US propaganda.  Even if it's not, this is Russia's backyard and they have more right to seek influence in the region than the West. Another funny:  the West 'goes Alex Jones' on Russia, presumably over their earlier backing of players in the region.  That Jones guy sure is strange.  Wonder what his trip is?  As for the US, what hypocrites. And that's pretty much it in part one, as far as my interest are concerned.  Might have to follow up on the other parts somewhere down the track.  I'm having enough trouble absorbing what's going on so far. Below is info regarding the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline: Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline /crude oil Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan crude oil pipeline Operator BP Connects Baku (Caspian), #Azerbaijan to #Georgia & #Turkey Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline /crude oil Operator:  BP PARTNERS > BP > SOCAR > Chevron > Statoil TPAO > Eni Total SA > Itochu Inpex > ConocoPhillips > Hess Corporation 70% funding = 3rd party World Bnk (International Finance Corp) Euro Bank for Reconstr & Devel 7 nation export agencies 15 banks ----------------------------------- Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline / Crude oil  >> Azerbaijan (Caspian) to Georgia Turkey [INSERT PIE CHART] >> BP (#UK)   30.1% >> SOCAR (Azerbaijan) 25% ... largest stakes >Chevron (USA) 8.90% >ConocoPhillips (USA) 2.50% >Hess Corporation (USA) 2.36%      Total:  13.76% Statoil (Norway) 8.71%  TPAO (Turkey) 6.53% Eni (Italy) 5.00% Total (France) 5.0% >Itochu (Japan) 3.4% >Inpex (Japan)  2.50%    Total:  5.9% [Wikipedia] Don't know why they didn't just call it the Baku pipeline to make it easier to remember. The biggest stakeholder is British BP, followed by combined US interests (not counting Azerbaijan).  Then comes Norway, Turkey. Japan, and Italy and France at 5% each. That Norway is in there is interesting.  Being Statoil, it is probably a state government company.  Yeah, the Norwegian government owns 67%.   It's massive: "Statoil operates oil and gas fields in Australia, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, China, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, United States, and Venezuela." and it's looking for more business in Mexico, Qatar & UAE. It's probably also worthwhile noting it has: "processing plants in Belgium, Denmark, France, and Germany." Looking at information on some of these large companies is a dwarfing experience. The companies seem so huge and kind of intimidating when sizing them up, in contrast to government.  But government only seems 'small' in comparison to the large corporations because we're lulled into believing we're somehow stakeholders in government, and that it's a benign, appointed caretaker ticking along in the background doing all the right things on our behalves. So government's huge and corporations combined are probably even mightier than government. I'm finding it hard to get a feel for just how big the machinery of the state-corporate partnership is.  Compared to the tiny and disposable individual, it's colossal. If you look at the tussle over energy, profits, regional control, strategic advantage here in this article, it probably sums up 'the meaning of life' in politics.  This is it.  This is all there's ever been.  There's nothing more.  And people are killed and continue to lose their lives over these kinds of struggles.  Over and over again. P.S.  This gives the game away in the Middle East, then Human Rights = empire & oil (agenda) Certainty = backing dangerous terrorists to do one's regional bidding

Drama Triangle

Head's sore but I can't unwind, so I thought I'd mess around here. Been putting together a massively long, rambling post about Panama ... but I can't concentrate to edit at the moment. Not sure it's even worth posting. Another one of those posts about nothing, really. Sure, there's information. But it's just a bit of random information I found interesting. Been thinking there may be a giant 'victimhood industry' that's evolved out there, comprised of and perpetuated by several interacting sectors within any given community: eg. government/legislators, legal industry stakeholders, interest groups, activists, political parties, academia, and media, as well as the more directly involved coalface workforce and above. Shrilly pathologising  (or piously preaching about) all trivia under the sun has somehow become the 'norm' in society, because everything is filtered through a skewed lens of hyper-vigilance for 'offence',  oppression, suffering, injustice, 'privilege' and so forth, that 'must' be challenged, corrected, redressed, outlawed, legislated against, attacked, blamed, shamed, silenced -- especially silenced -- until the world is one homogeneous, perfectly healed, beautifully evolved, loving, hand-holding, whole; a Great Mother, upon which no alternate reality shall intrude. What is desired, on a social scale, is an impossible return to the safety of the womb or a symbiotic mother-child state of bliss. Meanwhile, martyr-victims have become hosts to their hero-saviours and, perversely, also have become the victims of any number of hidden agendas, both personal and political. Where is the rational principle among all of this pathologising of life?  Where is the resistance to loss of individuality, enforced conformity, loss of freedom and the removal of responsibility for oneself? What I see is ugly.  People who claim moral superiority are also people who think nothing of vilifying and destroying others, like a bunch of bible-bashing hick town rednecks with a hard-on for an execution. It's how I think and feel at this very moment in time, sketched out in rough.  ------------------------------------ Aaaaaand, moving on: This is such a well constructed song:  A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall Can't find the version I'm looking for. Blogger search in YouTube option is lame.

LIBYA - DUELLING EMBASSIES IN MALTA

Monday, December 29, 2014, 11:39 Libyans hold protest outside Castille A small group of Libyan men this morning held a brief protest outside the Auberge de Castille in Valletta. [MALTA] The group, which supports the government installed in Tripoli, protested over the Maltese government's failure to recognise the Charge' d'Affairs operating from the embassy in Attard. [TRIPOLI GOVT = LIBYA DAWN = MISRATA = ATTARD, MALTA.] The Charge' d'Affairs supports the Tripoli government, which is based around Libya Dawn, a militant group from Misrata. Another charge' d'affairs, nominated by the recognised Libyan government - now based in Tobruk - is reportedly using consular offices in Ta' Xbiex. During the protest those who took part handed in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. They said they were surprised and hurt that the Maltese government had accepted an envoy of the 'illegal' Libyan Parliament as charge' d'Affairs of Libya. They insisted that this parliament had not achieved the 18% vote participation in the elections and lacked legal status in terms of the law, as confirmed by the Libyan Constitutional Court. [Tobruk] Those taking part in the protest carried placards reading: 'Respecting Libyan constitutional court sentence is respecting democratic rules and law.' Link:  http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20141229/local/libyans-hold-protest-outside-castille.549981 OMG! Trying to get to grips with what's going on in these articles about Libya's embassies (I've read more than one) is doing my head in -- big time.  Intended to give up on trying to figure it out, but I can't not figure it out or I won't know what's going for next time. Made a mistake earlier.  Saw Castille and took it to be in Spain.  Couldn't quite figure why a letter was handed over to to the Maltese head of state (via the embassy), but I imagined it was to pass on and didn't question further.   Turns out Castille Valletta is in Malta.  Oops.  Might have to do some editing tomorrow.  So the article is saying that the 'internationally' recognised government hiding out in Tobruk is the government that didn't achieve sufficient votes (according to a Libyan Supreme Court decision), yet this government is accepted as a Libyan envoy by the Maltese government. Meanwhile, the Tripoli government (aka Libya Dawn, Mistata govt), composed of militants that were the anti-Gaddafi rebels (if I recall correctly), has appointed it's own charge' d'Affairs of Libya, operating from an embassy in Attard, Malta, which the Maltese government isn't recognising. ---------------------------------------- Further from another source: New head of the Libyan Embassy in Malta (and Charge d'Affairs of the Libyan internationally-recognised government (Tobruk), Al-Habib Al-Amin): Al-Habib Al-Amin, said: "I have also been asked to let you know that the man currently occupying the Embassy, Mr Misurati is doing so illegally as it is Mr Al-Habib Al-Amin [who is] the legal representative of the legitimate  government." At Libyan embassy in Attard [Malta] = Hussain Musrati (or Misurati) Libya's acting Charge d'Affaire. The acting Chargé d'Affaires at the Libya Embassy in Malta accused the Maltese government of interfering in Libyan affairs by accepting the appointment by the Thinni government of former culture minister Habib Al-Amin as Libya's ambassador to Malta. The Thinni government was illegal because of the 6 November decision by the Supreme Court which nullified the House of Representatives and therefore all its decisions were illegal, Hussin Musrati said. He has been acting Chargé for since 20 November. He claimed that Malta is supporting Mr Al-Amin who was appointed by the Libyan Parliament which has now been dissolved. In doing so, Mr Misrati said, Malta is not respecting the verdict of the Libyan Constitutional Court and this has created a serious precedent. Speaking at a press conference this morning, Mr Musrati said that the Supreme Court's ruling had to be accepted. Although Habib Al-Amin had not taken up the post - he has been in Tunisia where a close member of his family was reported to have been having an operation - Mr Musrati said that he had managed to take over the embassy's bank accounts and vehicles. This was theft, he said, and a complaint had been lodged with the Maltese police.  [Habib Al-Amin has Libya embassy bank accounts & vehicles *illegally* given Supreme Court ruling.] Mr Misrati further attacked Bank of Valletta which, he claimed, has allowed unauthorised persons to take control over the embassy's bank accounts. A court action will be lodged against the bank. Mr Musrati said that Omar Al-Hassi's "National Salvation Government" was in contact with several European and African states and would be recognised by them shortly as Libya's legitimate government.  The Salvation Government was currently in control of the area from Sidra Port on the east to the border of Tunisia and from the coastline in Tripoli all the way to the south. It was also in control of airport and military bases, he said. The Central Bank of Libya was also working with Hassi's government, he said. Saddek Elkaber, sacked as the Central Bank's governor by the HoR but still recognised by the Hassi administration, is now largely based in Malta.  http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-12-20/local-news/Libyan-claims-to-be-the-real-representative-of-the-real-Libyan-government-6736127653 What's the problem here?   Omar Al-Hassi / Tripoli (Mistrata, Libya Dawn) government has the territory and has the Central Bank, as well as recognition of European states and African states - as well as a Libya Supreme Court ruling that the Tobruk 'government' cannot make up a government, so where exactly the issue?   The Tripoli / Mistrata government sounds legit, so what right has Malta -- or anyone else -- to choose a government for Libya? ....................................................... On second thoughts, I'm wondering if I've got it straight after all.  Need to double-check the Central Bank detail.  Might have to return to this because I need to confirm who the National Salvation Government is and check on that al-Hassi guy's details.  Picked him up on a translated French Wiki, but there wasn't anything much there.   Don't have time for this right now.  Another crap, incomplete post.  LOL

Walter Lippmann

WALTER LIPPMANN Walter Lippmann b.1889-d.1974 Journalist, a media critic, amateur philosopher WWI - Capitan US army Served intelligence division of American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), France Spin-doctor / adviser to President Woodrow Wilson In terms of censorship, Lippmann was not an absolute defender of the free speech doctrine; although he considered that there were dangers of suppression and cautioned against permitting censorship by a censor who was not aware of those dangers or tolerant of free speech. Coined phrase  "cold war" (1947 book of that title).  Every time we hear that expression (and we hear it quite a lot now that the neo-cons are stirring up aggression against Russia), we can think of dear old proto neo-con, Walter Lippmann. Coined term:  "stereotype". News and truth were not synonymous (analogous, corresponding) to Lippmann. Lippmann:  "function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them in relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act." Journalist's 'truth' is subjective.  It is also limited to how the journalist constructs his reality. So news is: "imperfectly recorded". Lippman did not consider news/journalism as:  "an organ of direct democracy” Gather he did not see it as playing a role in democracy, but it's hard to say without reading further. Lippmann believed that voters: = ignorant re issues & policies. = lacked competence to participate in public life. = cared little for participating in political process. Book 'Public Opinion' 1922, Lippmann wrote that: "a "governing class" must rise to face the new challenges." and he considered it "possible to sanitize polluted information". Lippmann contended that:  functioning on an unconscious 'seeing through stereotypes' basis resulted in our being subjected to partial truths. Therefore, according to Lippmann, the idea of the public being equipped (or competent) to direct public affairs is a "false ideal." Political savvy of an average man = "theatre-goer walking into a play in middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain." On mass culture, in his book Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann said: mass man functioned as a "bewildered herd" mass man must be governed by "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality" elite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge purpose of the elite class of 'experts':  to circumvent the main defect of democracy:  the "omni-competent citizen" ideal. Lippmann's attitude, by the standards of the 1920s, was considered liberal. Liberal because it was, according to Wikipedia, "endorsing the continuation of civil society rather than populist fascism."  Hmmmm, so compared to some whacky extreme where you have no rights, this is a 'liberal' stand ... if you don't mind not knowing that you have no say. 1946 -  Lippmann leading public advocate of: need to respect a Soviet sphere of influence in Europe versus containment strategy OMG!  Nothing's changed:  neo-cons are pushing for NATO 'containment' to this day. "Manufacture of Consent" was one of Lippmann's catch phrases (used by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, in their book of same name). Similar views to Gabriel Almond, American political scientist (and WWII war office analyst of propaganda). Almond-Lippmann consensus on these points: Public opinion is volatile, shifting erratically in response to the most recent developments ... Public opinion is incoherent, lacking an organized or a consistent structure ... Public opinion is irrelevant to the policy-making process. Political leaders ignore public opinion because most Americans can neither "understand nor influence the very events upon which their lives and happiness are known to depend." So that's Walter Lippmann.  Really detested him reading this. His only saving grace is that he wasn't on the 'containment' of Russia bandwagon. See Lippmann as the typical neo-con NGO, USG revolving door, spin doctor that tells us how to think today. ---------------------------------- Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann