Author: laoda1

Putin likens Libya resolution to crusade calls [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-3-22 18:27:33 |Display all floors


Ohbummer,Kamoron,Sourkozy and Hitlery ought to be flogged,disembowelled and boiled in the oil they
are stealing.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2011-3-22 20:02:51 |Display all floors

Putin is a real man and is not afraid to speak his mind.

Putin is a giant compared to the Kamoron, Sarko and oBOMBer.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2011-3-22 21:02:59 |Display all floors

America's Hidden Hand Behind The UN Resolution For A No-fly Zone Over Libya

Islamic asymmetric warfare against the United States, UK, France .....would begin soon, the sooner
the better.

Change your travel plans if you are going to these imperial countries or you may just end up as collateral damage.

Happy Travelling!


America's Hidden Hand Behind The UN Resolution For A No-fly Zone Over Libya

by Enver Masud
Global Research,
March 21, 2011

The UN Security Council, spurred on by the United States, passed resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing a no-fly zone -- a euphemism for war -- over Libya.

According to Associated Press:

The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians." It also
authorizes UN member states to take "all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of
attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India,
Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.

Ostensibly, the resolution for a no-fly zone was requested by the Libyan rebel's Transitional National Council and the Arab League (AL).

Veteran Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar writes:

The plain truth is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) commanded AL to speak since
they need a fig leaf to approach the United Nations Security Council. . . .

The Western powers had earlier mentioned the AL and African Union (AU) in the same breath as representing "regional opinion".
Now it seems the AU isn't so important -- it has become an embarrassment. African leaders are proving to be tough nuts to crack
compared to Arab playboy-rulers.

The Arab League resolution was rammed through by Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, who hopes to succeed
Hosni Mubarak as Egypt's next president. Arab leaders, who depend upon the U.S. for their continued existence, were not hard to persuade.

Syria and Algeria (Algeria shares a longer border with Libya than does Tunisia), having opposed the imposition of a no-fly zone, apparently consented.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, Nato's only Muslim member, said he opposed foreign intervention and called for an immediate ceasefire.

The Arab League vote gave the U.S. the cover it wanted. Bloomberg reported:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a "sea change" in
international opinion toward favoring the action. . . .

Russia and China, who have questioned a no-fly zone at the UN, are reconsidering after the Arab League statement on Saturday, Clinton said.

The United Kingdom and France, eager to get in on the plunder of yet another mainly Muslim state have been eager participants.

Award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist Eric Margolis had "reported for weeks that Britain's elite Special Air Service (SAS) has
been rallying anti-Gadaffi forces in and around Benghazi, seizing desert oil installations, and helping attack pro-Gadaffi forces."

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing a tough election, and accused by Muammar Gaddafi's son that Libya helped to finance his
election campaign in 2007, took advantage of the opportunity created by the Libyan rebellion to divert attention from his own problems.

The behind-the-scene American role has been kept largely hidden from the public.

On March 16, 2011, I received a letter from Radwan A. Masmoudi, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID),
asking me to sign a letter urging President Obama:

. . . that with the recent unanimous vote of the League of Arab States, numerous calls for such action from states within the region,
as well as wider calls from traditional American allies such as France and Britain for such action, legitimate sanction for the speedy
imposition of a no-fly zone now exists and we call upon you now to assume a leading role in halting the horrific violence being
by Colonel Gaddafi's forces

. . . to create a coalition that will impose as quickly as possible a no-fly zone for all Libyan military aircraft over the full extent of northern Libyan airspace.

The letter was signed by hundreds of "scholars" first among whom were Larry Diamond, Director, Center on Democracy, Development,
and the Rule of Law, Stanford University; John L. Esposito, Director, Al-Waleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown
University; Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University; Francis Fukuyama, Institute for International Studies,
Stanford University; Michele Dunne, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

I did not sign it, and informed Masmoudi that I oppose the no-fly zone.

With hundreds of signatures on the letter, why I was asked to sign is a mystery to me. The activities of CSID and its sponsors are less
mysterious, but less well known to the public.

CSID, established in 1999, has as its mission to "educate the public concerning benefits of democracy in Islamic regions through
conferences, publications and internet."

In its tax returns, CSID lists as its principle program accomplishments: democracy training workshops in Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan;
establishing the Network of Democrats, publishing a newsletter on the status of democracy in the Arab world; organizing conferences, etc.

CSID appears to be funded entirely by the U.S. government -- when asked, Masmoudi did not deny it. One of its officers or employees,
Radwan Ziadeh, lists his address at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington, DC.

Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United Nations -- who bears major responsibility for the disaster in
Afghanistan and Iraq, is on NED's Board of Directors.

NED has spent millions of dollars promoting 'color' revolutions. "NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do
overtly, what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein", according to Jonathan Mowat at
the Centre for Research on Globalisation.

So when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been
a "sea change" in international opinion, she was basking in the result of NED's efforts to promote "democracy" in states that have
resisted U.S. efforts to plunder them.

The creation of a new state encompassing the oil producing parts of Libya is a distinct possibility.

Libya, which has the highest standard of living in Africa, is about to encounter democracy American style -- the rich get richer,
the poor get poorer.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2011-3-22 22:25:31 |Display all floors

Putin-Medvedev tandem stronger than ever

Putin-Medvedev tandem stronger than ever


Mass media are reporting about the rift in the Putin-Medvedev tandem, disregarding the context of
Medvedev's statements. However, the most important thing in big politics is details.

Dmitry Medvedev released a special statement yesterday, March 21, in connection with the situation
in Libya. Medvedev expressed his views about the foreign political situation with Libya and clarified
the position of the Russian Federation during the voting at the UN Security Council.

"The Russian Federation originally wanted Libya's internal affairs be regulated peacefully. We
were following the situation meticulously and unanimously condemned the actions of the Libyan
administration and the leader of the Libyan revolution against its own people. With this in mind,
Russia supported Resolution 1970 of the UN Security Council and allowed Resolution 1973 - to
protect the population and prevent the escalation of the conflict. But of course, we proceed from
the fact that the approval of any resolutions by the UN Security Council must strengthen peace,
cease the civil feud and prevent escalation and casualties," Medvedev said.

Dmitry Medvedev also noted that the current development of the situation in Libya falls beyond
the scope of normal. "Unfortunately, a real combat action has begun. This can not be allowed,
of course," he said.

The Russian president was very cautious in expressing his attitude to the Western coalition:

"I hope that all countries, which are currently participating in the operation to create the no-fly zone
above Libya and which are using their military forces, realize that all of that is being done for the
people of Libya, not to let Libya disintegrate as a state." At the same time, Medvedev added that
civil objects were destroyed and innocent people were killed as a result of those actions.

Medvedev clearly defined Russia's stance about Muammar Gaddafi's regime:

"Everything that is happening in Libya is connected with absolutely disgusting actions conducted
by the Libyan administration and with those crimes that were committed against their own people," he said.

As for the recent remarks by the Libyan leader, who described the actions of the Western coalition
as another crusade, Medvedev said:

"It is inadmissible to use expressions such as 'crusade' and so on which in their essence lead to
the clash of civilizations. It's unacceptable. Otherwise, it may all finish much worse than it is happening today," he said.

It is important to understand how differently the notion of crusade can be taken in modern-day Europe
and in Islamic Asia. For us, it is nothing more than an idiom that appeals to ancient history. For the
Islamic world, it means a holy war. Orientalist Yevgeny Satanovsky spoke about it in a recent interview.
"The epoch that is now reigning in the Middle East corresponds to the times of Crusades from the
point of view of the history of religions," the scientist said.

The Russian Orthodox Church raised the same question several hours before Dmitry Medvedev's appearance on television.

"There is a dangerous trend to turn the clashes in North Africa and in the Middle East into the conflict
between Christians and Muslims. Libyan leader Gaddafi called the military operation of the West in
Libya "a new crusade, unprecedented in its treachery," a high-ranking church official stated.

Dmitry Medvedev stressed out in his speech that one should not turn the civil war in Libya into an
inter-religious conflict. This is the message that his statement was based on. The
phrase "it is inadmissible to use expressions ... which lead to the clash of civilizations," mirrors
the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and proves the above-mentioned point.

However, this is exactly the place where the world media found contradictions in the tandem of
Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. During his visit to a Russian missile factory Putin called
the UN Security Council's resolution on Libya "deficient and flawed." "It allows everything and
is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade," he particularly said. "It effectively allows
intervention in a sovereign state," he also added.

As a result, numerous publications all over the world reported that Putin and Medvedev were
in a rare public clash over Libya. Pro-Kremlin website, for instance, published a
news story titled "Medvedev condemns Putin for using word 'crusade' about Libya." Afterwards,
the publication strengthened the effect as it published an article with the following
subtitle: "Vladimir Putin fears the fate of Arab rulers."

There is a certain media pool in Russia, which has been working for the break up of the
tandem since 2008. The subject was picked up and distributed in the media very quickly.

The full transcript of the president's speech was posted on his official website less than an
hour after first news stories on the subject began to appear in Russia. However, it did not
help to change the situation.

Alexander Voloshin, the former head of the presidential administration tweeted: "Speaking
about crusades (sorry), the president criticized Gaddafi, who called those actions so. Putin
only quoted Gaddafi. The scandal was arranged from nothing by slow-witted journalists.
The media always need something sensationalist. I am not a conspiracy theorist. The
subject of the two leaders breaking apart is extremely attractive to reporters, so one
has to be very accurate about it," he said.

Anton Ponomarev

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2011-3-22 22:38:20 |Display all floors

UN needed to approve Western aggression against small states

The United Nations has been a global circus since its inception - controlled, abused and manipulated by
the United States and its own axis-of-tyranny for their neo-colonial ends.

It is long overdue for changes, starting with a revamped membership of the UNSC and the relocation
of the UN from new York to Switzerland or any other Neutral country.

And the UN Sec-Gen Ban has been the spokesman for the US State Department since he came into office and will
continue to be their puppet .....


UN needed to approve Western aggression against small states


The defense ministry of Libya promised to retaliate in case Western forces attack the country.
On March 18, the UN Security Council approved the use of military force against Muammar
Gaddafi. Russia and China could veto the decision, but they preferred to abstain from the
voting and let the aggressor off the leash.

The latest resolution from the United Nation means that this organization is just an institution
for approving the aggression of Western countries against small states. It is not incidental
that Western media outlets evaluated the UN's approval of the no-fly zone above Libya as a
permission for conducting air attacks against the Libyan governmental forces.

Gaddafi's troops occupied the city of Adjabiya and promised massacres in Benghazi, the
stronghold of the Libya opposition. The UN Security Council gathered for a special meeting
to rescue the Libyan civilians.

Imam Bugaighis, a spokeswoman for Libyan rebels, publicly stated that she was very
happy about the UN's decision.

Now that the UN has decided to take all necessary (i.e. military) measures to protect
Libyan civilians, one shall assume that the West will attack air defense systems in the
country first and foremost. Both NATO's combat aviation and naval forces are expected
to take part in the operation.

The news to use military force against Colonel Gaddafi was not a surprise. Several
Western countries, including France and Britain, publicly acknowledged that the so-called
rebels were the only legitimate force in Libya. The West took the rebels under its protection.
Gaddafi has become the official enemy of the international community. As long as Gaddafi
promised to establish law and order in Benghazi, the West decided to pass from words to
deeds. Otherwise, Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama would look like miserable political clowns.

For some reason, the West has forgotten that the king of Bahrain also suppresses mutinies
with the help of his associates from Saudi Arabia. Strangely enough, the West shows
absolutely no intention to help the civilians of Bahrain.

The Americans do not feel the anxiety to participate in the intervention in spite of the fact
that they sent a couple of aircraft carriers to Libya's shores. Why would America play the
role of aggressor if Sarkozy and Cameron are willing to do all the dirty work? The French
and the British do not want to act alone either. They need the company of Arab states.
First off, it goes about the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Most likely, the French will
find the support of the UAE: there is a French air base in the country. In addition, the
West has been working actively with the administrations of Egypt and Tunisia in a
hope to get them involved in the Libyan conflict.

Dr. James Lindsay, Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations, said
that it would be harder to stop Gaddafi now than a week ago. Tanks and artillery will
have to be destroyed. The task will have to be conducted by combat helicopters,
strike fighters and unmanned aircraft. Other military analysts believe that one would
need ground forces to destroy Colonel Gaddafi.

There is one thing clear: without the American support the attack against Libya will cost
a lot. Gaddafi has tens of anti-aircraft systems which can undermine the triumph of
Western forces. In 1986, Gaddafi ruined America's aggression against Libya with the
help of S-200 Vega systems. Nowadays, Gaddafi has as many as four divisions of
S-200 complexes. MiG-25 fighters can also cause trouble. It is worthy of note, though,
that NATO has been practicing a lot in Iran, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, whereas
Gaddafi's previous military experience took place 35 years ago.

Sergei Balmasov

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2011-3-22 22:44:01 |Display all floors

Putin cracks down on NATO, Gaddafi and UN

Putin cracks down on NATO, Gaddafi and UN


Vladimir Putin released an official statement about the situation in Libya, where NATO launched
Operation Odyssey Dawn approved by most recent resolution of the UN Security Council. The head
of the Russian government criticized the positions of all sides in the conflict - NATO, the UN Security
Council and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

To avoid possible questions beyond his competence, Putin said that he did have a personal
attitude to the events in Libya, even though the Russian government was not dealing with
political issues.

Russia does not participate in the military operation in Libya and abstained from voting at the
UN Security Council. Russian top politicians did not release any landmark statements during
the time when the world media were discussing the oncoming operation either.

Vladimir Putin stated on March 21 that the resolution of the UN Security Council on Libya was flawed.

"The Security Council resolution is deficient and flawed; it allows everything and is reminiscent
of a medieval call for a crusade," Putin told workers at a ballistic missile factory in the Urals
region. "It effectively allows intervention in a sovereign state," RIA Novosti quoted him as saying.

It is worthy of note that Gaddafi made a similar comparison when he was commenting the
approval of the resolution of the UN Security Council. In his audio appearance on March 20,
Gaddafi described the actions of the international coalition as a new crusade and a terrorist
act, the real goal of which was to take possession of the Libyan oil.

Putin did not defend Gaddafi, though. The current Libyan regime can not fall under the criterion
of a democratic country, Putin admitted. "It's obvious, but it doesn't mean that someone
can interfere in an internal political conflict from outside, defending one of the sides," Putin
added. Libya is a complex nation, which is based on the relations between the tribes, he also said.

Vladimir Putin harshly criticized the politics of the United States of America, but left Britain
and France out of his attention.

"This U.S. policy is becoming a stable trend," Putin said, recalling the U.S. air strikes
on Belgrade under Bill Clinton and Afghanistan and Iraq under the two Bush administrations.

"Now it's Libya's turn - under the pretext of protecting civilians," the premier
said. "Where is the logic and conscience? There is neither."

Putin described the military operation of coalition troops in Libya as an "external aggression."

"The ongoing events in Libya confirm that Russia is right to strengthen her defense
capabilities," he concluded.

As for casualties, Putin supports the position of the Libyan administration, which said
that as many as 64 civilians had been killed in the bombings.

Russia wants to live in peace with everyone, Putin said. However, Russia needs to
develop its defensive capacity despite its peace-loving policy, Putin said.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated earlier that the use of military force
against civilians in Libya was out of the question.

"It is absolutely unacceptable for a country to use military power against its own
population, as it happened in Libya," Lavrov said at a news conference after the
talks with the general secretary of the League of Arab States, Amr Musa.

Lavrov expressed regrets about the fact that Gaddafi's regime had not listened
to the requirement from the international community. As a result, the League of
Arab States addressed to the UN Security Council seeking measures to
defend the civil population.

"We support this position. We do not accept the use of military force against
civilians. That is why Russia joined the consensus of world superpowers with
a requirement to cease violence against the civil population. However, Gaddafi's
regime did not listen to the requirements of the international community,
and the UN Security Council approved the resolution.

Lavrov is certain that it is only the Libyan nation that can determine the future of Libya now.

"No one can predict the consequences of the current situation in Libya. We hope
that they will be minimal and that they will not undermine the territorial integrity of
Libya and the region," Russia's foreign minister said.

Amr Musa stated that in its assessment of the situation in Libya the League of
Arab States proceeded from the necessity to defend the civil population and
prevent casualties. The League demanded the UN should protect the civilians
against brutal and unprecedented actions of the government in the first place.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2011-3-22 22:51:36 |Display all floors

Murderers! War criminals Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy launch terrorist attack

Murderers! War criminals Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy launch terrorist attack

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

The ink was still fresh on UN Resolution 1973, and the western (bought) media were already
speaking about air strikes and how to help the rebels. Two mistakes here - firstly, that was
not the scope of the document and secondly, why are President Obama and Prime Minister
deliberately misquoting the words of Muammar Al-Qathafi?

NATO and terrorism are one and the same thing and the latest sickening display from this
military wing of the oil lobby which gravitates around the White House makes it patently
obvious that this evil force is endemically hell-bent upon a policy of violence to perpetrate
greed. In Libya, NATO has got it monumentally wrong - again.

The ink was still fresh on UN Resolution 1973, and the western (bought) media were
already speaking about air strikes and how to help the rebels. Two mistakes here - firstly,
that was not the scope of the document and secondly, why are President Obama and
Prime Minister Cameron deliberately misquoting the words of Muammar Al-Qathafi?

The Brotherly Leader of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had not
sworn to show no mercy to the people of Benghazi - he had given the "rebels" (armed
groups of thugs) a window in which to lay down their arms and had said hat he would
show no mercy to those launching this armed uprising. He was not speaking about
civilians in Benghazi - many of his supporters there have already been murdered by the "rebels".

Is it legal or acceptable in France, Britain or the United States of America to take up
arms, torch buildings, massacre unarmed civilians (the "rebels" did this in Benghazi)
and commit acts of terrorism? No, neither is it in Libya.

The fact that President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron deliberately twisted the
words of the Libyan statesman, misquoting him and taking them entirely out of
context does nothing to foster the notion that they are either reasonable, or balanced,
or competent to perform their roles. What they have done is to join President Sarkozy
in committing an act of terrorism against Libya as NATO strikes against Africa and
turns its might against the Arab world. The Crusade has begun, Libya is but the first stage.

The adage in Iraq was today a child, tomorrow a terrorist so blast his face off him,
blast his limbs off him and destroy his family. That is why cluster bombs were
dropped in civilian areas. Then the oil companies moved in. The adage in Libya
seems to be protect the Libyan people by allying with Al-Qaeda, instigating
revolt in the oil-rich endemically separatist area of Cyrenaica, Benghazi being
its capital, installing a Washington-friendly regime...then the oil companies move in.

For the people of Libya, if the Great Plan works, gone will be the free housing, gone
will be the excellent and free education system, gone will be the excellent and free
healthcare, gone will be the tremendous social benefits distributed among the people.
Libya will become the prostitute of the West, its resources raped as people on the
fringes of Libyan society are placed in positions of power. Mark my words.

For the war mongerers Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy, a few questions. Did you
know that in 1951, Libya was the poorest nation in the world? Did you know that today
it has the highest human development indices in Africa? Have any of you three
implemented free housing programmes in your countries? No, you have destroyed
people's hopes by creating systems whereby people cannot afford to keep their homes.

Have any of you implemented free healthcare schemes? No you have turned healthcare
into a business. Do any of you distribute land for free and donate agricultural equipment
for free? No, you impose tariffs on imports from poor countries and give subsidies
to your own farmers, while pretending to follow the precepts of the WTO.

How do you justify the attacks on civilian targets in last night's raids? These are war
crimes. Did you know that three medical facilities were hit? What kind of "dictator" distributes
arms to a million citizens? Where is the no-fly zone over Bahrain and Yemen, where
unarmed civilians are being slaughtered by your friends?

And now for Mr. Cameron. Have you bothered to explain to your people, as they are faced
with your savage, barbaric and inhumane attack on British society by your ludicrous and
totally unnecessary public spending cuts, how much it costs to take part in this unfettered
act of terrorism? Then I will inform you the cost per aircraft per day is in the region
of 200.000 GBP. That is 35.000 to 50.000 GBP per flying hour per aircraft - of your
taxpayers' money. How do you justify spending that kind of money bombing hospitals,
when you cut the spending for your National Health Service?

So much for your public spending cuts.

Now for the truth: The "rebellion" in Libya is based around Islamic fundamentalists in the
historically separatist hotspot of Benghazi. The Libyans call them "the bearded ones". The
"rebellion" has been instigated by the West. It failed, and when the military forces of
Colonel Al-Qathafi won the initiative, they panicked. They refused the Russian-sponsored
resolution of a ceasefire and they tried to push through a Resolution allowing a full-scale
military invasion.

When that was quashed by Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany, all they got was a
no-fly zone and permission to use military force to protect civilians. But the Libyan authorities
not fighting "civilians". They, like the West, are fighting Islamic terrorists.

And Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron have the murders of 64 people
on their hands. These men are responsible for the indiscriminate use of military resources
against civilian targets in Libya, including allegedly three medical facilities, outside the scope
of the UN Resolution. Ladies and gentlemen, Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy are responsible
for war crimes.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.