Plots Against al-Qathafi: a long time in the US MAKING

  

al-Qathafi to Palestinians: Revolt Against Israel!

Israel may soon be forced to respond to new Palestinian uprisings

If Muammar al-Qathafi has his way, Palestinians will rise up against Israel in the next Middle Eastern revolt. al-Qathafi has criticized Arab states that deal with Israel, calling them cowards.

If Palestinians choose to respond to his call and the situation escalates, the result will not be pretty. Israel will be forced to respond with force, and al-Qathafi will surely be demonized and

blamed for whatever results.

TRIPOLI, 13 Febr. 2011(Reuters)

Palestinian refugees should capitalise on the wave of popular revolts in the Middle East by massing peacefully on the borders of Israel until it gives in to their demands, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qathafi said on Sunday.

al-Qathafi is respected in many parts of the Arab world for his uncompromising criticism of Israel and Arab leaders who have dealings with the Jewish state, though some people in the region dismiss his initiatives as unrealistic. (ISRATINE)

« ISRATINE » as hopefully proposed by Muammar al-Qathafi: The ONLY SOLUTION
https://theorbo1.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/isratine-as-hopefully-proposed-by-muammar-al-qathafi-the-only-solution/

He was giving his first major speech since a popular uprising in neighbouring Egypt forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign, an event which electrified the Arab world and prompted speculation that other Arab governments could also be toppled.

Muammar al-Qathafi was shown saying on state television:

“Fleets of boats should take Palestinians … and wait by the Palestinian shores until the problem is resolved,”… “This is a time of popular revolutions.”

source: Reuters

40 Years of F-UK-US Attempts to Kill al-Qathafi

Posted: 2011/05/01

From: Mathaba   http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626593?related

by Richard Lance Keeble, Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln. Photo: Muammar al-Qathafi in 1969 just after seizing power which he held until 1977 when he resigned from government. Since then he has retained the title “Leader of the Revolution”.

Richard Lance Keeble

Behind a wall of silence, France the US and UK have been conducting over the last four decades a massive, largely secret war against Libya – often using Chad, the country lying on its southern border, as its base. The current attacks on Col. Gadafi’s troops and attempts to assassinate the Libyan leader with the US deployment of unmanned drones are best seen as part of a wide-ranging and long-standing strategy by the US/UK secret states to dislodge Gadafi.

Seizing power in Libya by ousting King Idris in a 1969 coup, [1] Gadafi (who had been sent along with other officers by the Kings army to undertake a military training course in England in 1966) quickly became the target of massive covert operations by the French, US, Israeli and British. Stephen Dorril (2000), in his seminal history of MI6, records how in 1971 a British plan to invade the country, release political prisoners and restore the monarchy ended in a complete flop.

Dorril reports: ‘What became known as the “Hilton assignment” was one of MI6’s last attempts at a major special operation designed to overthrow a regime opposed to British interests.’ The plan to bring down Gadafi had originally been a joint MI6/CIA operation but the CIA suddenly withdrew after they concluded that ‘although Gadaffi was anti-West, he was also anti-Soviet, which meant there could be someone a lot worse running Libya. The British disagreed’ (ibid: 736).

In 1980, the head of the French secret service, Col. Alain de Gaigneronde de Marolles, resigned after a French-led plan ended in disaster when a rebellion by Libyan troops in Tobruk was rapidly suppressed (Deacon 1990: 262-264).

Throughout the early 1980s Gadafi was demonised in the mainstream US and UK media as a ‘terrorist warlord’ and prime agent of a Soviet-inspired ‘terror network’. According to Noam Chomsky, Reagan’s campaign against ‘international terrorism’ was a natural choice for the propaganda system in furtherance of its basic agenda: ‘expansion of the state sector of the economy; transfer of resources from the poor to the rich and a more “activist” (i.e. terrorist and aggressive) foreign policy’. Such policies required the public to be frightened into obedience by some ‘terrible enemy’. And Libya fitted Reagan’s need, using al-Qathafi as its BLACK SHEEP,  perfectly (Chomsky 1991: 120).

Professor Robert Charvin, 23 December 2011:
http://www.afrique-asie.fr/index.php/category/maghreb/actualite/article/l-intervention-en-libye-et-la-violation-de-la-legalite-internationale-un-retour-a-la-pseudo-morale-internationale-du-xix-siecle
“In the catalog of attempts to eliminate al-Qathafi, one can raise the operation initiated by President Giscard d’Estaing in 1975 (+ some dissident military ESDP), the Franco-Egyptian commandos (at time of Saadat in 1977 ), an attack in 1979 Action Service where al-Qathafi was injured in 1980, the SDC and Egyptians fail again (resulting in the dismissal of the Marenches) in 1980 still an attempt (revealed by President Cossiga) to shoot the official plane of al-Qathafi visiting Warsaw with the help of NATO in 1984 supported by a U.S. coup attempt, with the help of exiles and military in 1986 bombing al-Qathafi’s residence. “

See also:
The posthumous revenge for al-Qathafi. 03 October 2012:

http://lavoixdelalibye.com/?p=5906
“The dark history of Itavia flight 870, 82 passengers killed in midair in 1980 by French hunters who mistook the plane of Gaddafi … On the night of June 27, 1980, theft Itavia 870 (DC 9 registered I-TIGI) took off from Bologna, Italy to Palermo in Sicily. was carrying 77 passengers, two pilots and two cabin crew members. Passengers included 64 adults, 11 children aged 2 to 11 years, and two children under two years old. ”
and:
“Muammar al-Qathafi: a long hunt” By Komla Kpogli, July 3, 2012:See also: The posthumous revenge for Gaddafi. October 3, 2012 http://lavoixdelalibye.com/?p=5906

“The dark history of Itavia flight 870, 82 passengers killed in midair in 1980 by French hunters who mistook the plane of Gaddafi … On the night of June 27, 1980, theft Itavia 870 (DC 9 registered I-TIGI) took off from Bologna, Italy to Palermo in Sicily. was carrying 77 passengers, two pilots and two cabin crew members. Passengers included 64 adults, 11 children aged 2 to 11 years, and two children under two years old. “

and: Muammar Gaddafi: a long hunt. By Komla Kpogli, July 3, 2012:

http://tsimokagasikara.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/mouammar-kadhafi-une-si-longue-traque/.

In July 1981, a CIA plan to overthrow and possibly kill Gadafi was leaked to the press. At roughly the same time, the lie was spread that Libyan hit squads were reported to have entered the United States [though this has since been revealed to have been a piece of Israeli secret service disinformation (Rusbridger 1989: 80)]. Joe Flynn, the infamous con man, was also able to exploit Fleet Street’s fascination with the Gadafi myth. In September 1981, posing as an Athens-based arms dealer he tricked almost out of the News of the World with his filthy story that the Libyan leader was ‘masterminding a secret plot to arm black revolutionary murder squads in Britain’ (Lycett 1995).

Then in 1982, away from the glare of the media, Hissène Habré, with the backing of the CIA and Israeli troops (Cockburn and Cockburn 1992: 123), overthrew the Chadian government of Goukouni Wedeye. Human Rights Watch records: ‘Under President Reagan, the United States gave covert CIA paramilitary support to help install Habré in order, according to secretary of state Alexander Haig, to “bloody Gadafi’s nose”.’ Bob Woodward, in his semi-official history of the CIA, reveals that the Chad covert operation was the first undertaken by the new CIA chief William Casey, and that throughout the decade Libya ranked almost as high as the Soviet Union as the ‘bête noir’ of the administration(Woodward 1987: 348, 363, 410-11).

A report from AmnestyChad: The Habré Legacy,[2] recorded massive military and financial support for Habré by the US Congress. It added: ‘None of the documents presented to Congress and consulted by Amnesty International covering the period 1984 to 1989 make any reference to human rights violations.’

US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq(Hunter 1991: 49). According to John Prades (1986: 383), the Saudis, for instance, donated m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed (Perry 1992: 165). In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused (Martin and Walcott 1988: 265-6). By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.

Thrilled To Blitz

Frustrated in its covert attempts to topple Gadafi, the US government’s strategy suddenly shifted. In March 1986, US planes patrolling the Gulf of Sidra were reported to have been attacked by Libyan missiles but the Press never explained why those planes were attacked! But Noam Chomsky suggests this incident was a provocation ‘enabling US forces to sink several Libyan boats, killing more than 50 Libyans and, it was hoped, to incite Gadafi to acts of terror against Americans, as was subsequently claimed’; but Gadaf’s religious beliefs withheld him from doing any retaliation. All Gadhafi asked is “Why do  the Americans want to kill me?” (Chomsky op cit: 124). In the following month, the LIES circulated and the US “responded” with a military strike on key Libyan targetsThe attack was widely condemned. James Adams (1987: 372) quotes a British intelligence source: ‘Although we allowed the raid there was a general feeling that America had become uncontrollable and unless we did something Reagan would be even more violent the next time.’

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was perhaps hoping for an action-replay of the Falklands factor when she gave the US permission to fly F-111 attack jets from bases in East Anglia to bomb Libyan targets. Also, according to Annie Machon, Mrs Thatcher was ‘anxious for revenge’ after the shooting of W.P.C. Fletcher during a demonstration by Libyan oppositionists outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984 (Machon 2005: 104).

[Later it was shown that this was a CIA-MOSSAD operation involving a sniper from a rented nearby building, and that the WPC’s body was cremated quickly to avoid further forensics. However, subsequent forensics and investigations carried out by Australian Joe Vialls, who was himself subsequently murdered by the Australian state, prove what really happened: that this was yet another false flag attack against Libya. It is not known to us whether Thatcher herself was privy to the information.]  

It was an archetypal move of the secret state: only a select few in her cabinet were involved in the decision. Yet the attack appeared to win little support from the public. Harris, Gallup and MORI all showed substantial majorities opposed.

Much of the UK mainstream press, however, responded with jingoistic jubilation. The Sun’s front page screamed:
‘Thrilled to blitz: Bombing al-Qathafi was my greatest day, says US airman.’

The Mirror concluded: ‘What was the alternative? In what other way was Colonel al-Qathafi to be forced to understand that he had a price to pay for his terrorism?’[all LIES ofcourse]; The Times: ‘The greatest threat to Western freedoms may be the Soviet Union but that does not make the USSR the only threat. The growth of terrorist states must be curbed while it can be curbed. The risks of extension of the conflict must be minimised. And in this case it would appear that it has been.’ The Star’s front page proclaimed: ‘Reagan was right.’ In the Sunday Telegraph, of 01 June, columnist Paul Johnson denounced the ‘distasteful whiff of pure cowardice in the air’ as ‘the wimps’ raised doubts about the US bombing of ‘terrorist bases’ in Libya (LIES again).

But there was an intriguing mediacentric dimension to the mission as the BBC, transformed into the ‘enemy within’ of the vulnerable state, was to come under some considerable attack from the Conservative government over its coverage of the attacks. Though most of the press responded ecstatically to Britain’s role in the bombing, all their contrived jingoism could not hide the fact that the raid failed to capture the imagination of important elements of the elite. Opposition even came from cabinet members.

The BBC became the perfect scapegoat. Kate Adie’s on-the-spot reports could not fail to mention the casualties (Sebba 1994: 266-7). Many of the main targets were missedFour 2,000lb bombs fell on the suburb of Bin Ghashir, causing far more devastation than any ‘terrorist’ bomb could ever achieve. Even so, Norman Tebbitt, chairman of the Conservative Party, engaged in a highly personalised attack on Adie. Yet there was an air of theatre about the whole event. Adie was one of the most trusted BBC correspondents. And both government and BBC could benefit from the spat. The Tory right, on the ascendancy at the time, and ever hasty to criticise the BBC it so desperately wanted privatised as the ‘enemy within’, was satisfied and the BBC, who stuck by their star reporter throughout the attacks, could appear to be courageously defending media freedom. Amidst the many contradictions and complexities of modern-day politics, mediacentric elements are put to many diverse uses by (usually competing) factions in the ruling elites.

According to US academic Douglas Kellner, the bombing was a manufactured crisis, staged as a media event and co-ordinated to coincide with the beginning of the 7 pm news in the US (Kellner 1990: 138). Two hours later President Reagan went on network television to justify the raid. Chomsky also argues that the attack was ‘the first bombing in history staged for prime-time television’ (Chomsky op cit: 127). Administration press conferences soon after the raid ensured ‘total domination of the propaganda system during the crucial early hours’. Chomsky continues: ‘One might argue that the administration took a gamble in this transparent public relations operation, since journalists could have asked some difficult questions. But the White House was justly confident that nothing untoward would occur and its faith in the servility of the media proved to be entirely warranted.’

Yet the main purpose of the raid was to kill Muammar Qaddafi – dubbed a ‘mad dog’ by Reagan. David Yallop quotes ‘a member of the United States Air Force intelligence unit who took part in the pre-raid briefing’: ‘Nine of 18 F-111s that left from the UK were specifically briefed to bomb Gadafi’s residence inside the barracks where he was living with his family’ (Yallop 1994: 713). In the event, the first bomb to drop on Tripoli hit Gadafi’s home killing Hana, his adopted daughter aged 15 months – while his eight other children and wife Safiya were all hospitalised, some with serious injuries, particularly badly burned were Saif al-Arab and Khamis. Muammar Qaddafi escaped. David Blundy and Andrew Lycett report (1987: 22):

The attack on Gadafi’s Aziziya compound was a military failure. Gadafi himself was deep underground. The administration building, where he lives, was missed by two bombs which fell thirty yards away, knocking out the windows but doing no structural damage. The tennis courts received two direct hits and a bomb fell outside the front door of the building where Gadafi’s family lives. Blasts tore through the small bedrooms to the right of the living room, injuring two of Gadafi’s sons (Saif-al-Arab and Khamis) and killing his fifteen-month old adopted daughter, Hana. During interviews only a month before Gadafi had said, sadly, that he had only one natural daughter, eight-year-old Aisha, and wished that he had more. He did not say that they had adopted a baby girl ten months before.

Consider the outrage in the Western media if a relative of Reagan had been killed by a Libyan bomb. There was no such outrage over the Libyan deaths. In November, the UN General Assembly passed a motion condemning the raid. Interestingly, Israel was one of the few countries to back the US over the raid. Yet when the Israeli representative came to justify his country’s stance, he used evidence of Gadafi’s “alleged commitment to terrorism” taken from the German mass-selling newspaper Bild am Sonntag and the London-based Daily Telegraph (Yallop op cit: 695) [both of which are totally discredited gutter-press media].

Following the April 1986 attack, reports of US military action against Libya disappeared from the media. But away from the media glare, the CIA launched by far its most extensive effort yet to spark an anti-Gadafi coupA secret army was recruited from among the many Libyans captured in border battles with Chad during the 1980s (Perry op cit: 166). And, as concern grew in MI6 over Gadafi’s “alleged plans to develop chemical weapons” (ANOTHER LIE circulated purposely), Britain funded various opposition groups in Libya including the London-based Libyan National Movement.

Then in 1990, with the crisis in the Gulf developing, French troops helped oust Habré and install Idriss Déby as the new president in a secret operation. The French government had tired of Habré’s “genocidal policies” while the Bush administration decided not to frustrate France’s objectives in exchange for their co-operation in the war against Iraq. Yet even more under Déby,  there were real abuses of civil rights by government forces.[3]

Attempts to oust Gadafi also continued. David Shayler, a former MI5 agent, even alleged that MI6 were involved in a plot in 1996 to assassinate the Libyan leader (Hunter op cit). His motorcade was attacked by planted terrorists with Kalashnikovs which were  intentially handed out in preparance for Gadhafi’s arrival, and equipped with rocket grenades. Gadafi escaped with a right shoulder injury only because one of his Amazon/Angel guards (in sacrifice) used her body to cover the grenade; but six other bystanders were also killed. Shayler claimed MI6 paid the Libyan Islamic Fighting group [of Osama Bin Laden] to carry out the attack (see Dorril op cit: 793-794; Machon op cit: 172; Jaber 2010). [and seewww.mathaba.net/data/sis]

Following Libya’s decision after the 9/11 US terrorist attacks to build closer ties with the West and renounce all efforts to develop nuclear weapons, UN sanctions against the country were lifted in 2003. The demonisation of Col. Gadafi predictably declined and members of the political, financial and academic British elite lined up to welcome the Libyan leader back into the ‘international community’.

However, reports coming to light and which have been published on Mathaba and are available in the Gold Subscribers archives, show that F-UK-US have continued their plans and created a fake uprising in Benghazi by at first using snipers to kill innocent civilians who were demonstrating in support of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, and the presence of British, French, American and other EU countries elite military squads to assist the LIFG, NFSL and other allied groups, to seize weapons from the military and take over in Benghazi. Other reports show that Libyan diplomats received threatening SMS and calls to their private numbers, because most of them use Yahoo Email and chat for all their personal activities, and were easy to blackmail.

This shows a detailed and coordinated attack on Libya that was prepared well in advance, and used the cover of the “Mistral” join F-UK operation to attack Libya, signed off in November 2010 and with attack date to be March 20, 2011, their SACRED RITUAL OF WAR-DATE. The launch of the military attack was brought forward by one day in order to prevent the arrival of an African Union delegation to mediate a solution to the Libyan crisis. Again, these are all documented at Mathaba Gold.

The Western elites (assisted by a compliant mainstream media) are seizing the new opportunities in their increasingly desperate attempts to eliminate the Libyan leader.

Notes


[1] The role of the CIA in the coup is disputed. Blundy and Lycett (1987: 69) report the former Libyan Prime Minister, Abdul Hamid Bakoush, saying: ‘The Americans had contacts with Gadaffi through the embassy in Tripoli. They encouraged him to take over. There were dozens of CIA operatives in Libya at that time and they knew what was going on. The Americans were frightened of the senior officers and the intelligentsia in Libya because they thought that these people were independent and could not be run as puppets.’ But Blundy and Lycett add (ibid): ‘Bakoush’s refusal to give names that might corroborate his theory does not help his credibility.’ Further, Bakoush is totally discredited as from the outset he was an opponent of Gadaffi and was likely himself a CIA or MI6 asset.

[2] See http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AFR20/004/2001/fr/2343f1a0-d902-11dd-ad8c-f3d4445c118e/afr200042001en.html, accessed on 1 May 2010

[3] See http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/chad/report-2010, accessed on 1 January 2011

References

Adams, James (1987) Secret armies: The full story of SAS, Delta Force and Spetsnaz, London: Hutchinson

Blundy, David and Lycett, Andrew (1987) Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson

Chomsky, Noam (1991) Pirates and emperors, Montreal/New York: Black Rose Books

Cockburn, Alexander and Cockburn, Leslie (1992)Dangerous liaison: The inside story of US-Israeli covert relationship, London: Bodley Head

Deacon, Richard (1990) The French secret service, Grafton Books: London

Dorril, Stephen (2000) MI6: Fifty years of special operations, London: Fourth Estate

Hunter, Jane (1991) Dismantling the war on Libya,Covert Action Information Bulletin, summer pp 47-51

Jaber, Hala (2010) Libyans thwart Fletcher inquiry,Sunday Times, 19 September

Kellner, Douglas (1990) Television and the crisis of democracy, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press

Lycett, Andrew (1995) I study my targets. I find out what makes them tick, Independent, 22 June

Machon, Annie (2005) Spies, lies and whistleblowers, Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild

Martin, David and Walcott, John (1988) Best laid plans: The inside story of America’s war against terrorism, New York: Harper and Row

Perry, Mark (1992) Eclipse: The last days of the CIA, New York: William Morrow and Company

Prades, John (1986) President’s secret wars: CIA and Pentagon covert operations from World War II through Iranscan, New York: William Morrow

Rusbridger, James (1989) The intelligence game: Illusions and delusions of international espionage, London: Bodley Head

Sebba, Anna (1994) Battling for news: The rise of the woman reporter, London: Hodder and Stoughton

Woodward, Bob (1987) Veil: The secret wars of the CIA, London: Simon Schuster

Yallop, David (1994) To the ends of the earth: The hunt for the Jackal, London: Corgi

#

Evil Brotherhood leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, issued a false- SATANIC-fatwa, that urged (perverted) Wahabi and their mercenaries, to kill Muammar al-Qathafi, if they were any way able, to do so !

By Allah, highly illegal-False brotherhood Fatwa to kill Mu’ammar al-Qathafi, issued by Quaradawi.

BTW: only a direct decendent of Fatima can be called to be a leader or an IMAMYusaf al-Quaradaw is NOT in any way or manner a decendent of Fatima….

Report of 24 FEBRUARY 2011
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41753687/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/gadhafi-blames-bin-laden-drugs-libya-unrest/#.UxOFEb3R2kw

 

Today colonel Muammar al-Qathafi downplayed the violence and offered a radically different explanation in a bizarre and revealing radio address. We were in a car as he spoke. I’ve listened to speeches in arabic of middle east leaders for 15 years. this did not sound like the same person. al-Qathafi is speaking now on state radio . it’s very difficult to follow.

He’s all over the place. he’s already mentioned the kurds in northern iraq , the unabomber in dyia, and saying the people carrying out this revolt are taking drugs that make them insane. In the address, al-Qathafi claimed al-Qaeda is behind the revolt.Osama bin laden’s followers are slipping Libyans hallucinogenic pills in coffee with milk, and the pills are distributed in mosques with help from the United States .

BENGHAZI, Libya — Libyan leader Muammar al-Qathafi on Thursday blamed the uprising in his country on al-Qaida followers who give young Libyans hallucinogenic pills in their coffee to get them to revolt.

In a rambling phone call to Libyan state TV, al-Qathafi said

 

those revolting are “loyal to bin Laden … This is al-Qaida that the whole world is fighting.” Al-Qaida militants are “exploiting” teenagers, giving them “hallucinogenic pills in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe,” the embattled leader said.

Referring to violent clashes in Zawiya, which lies about 30 miles from the capital Tripoli, al-Qathafi said the unrest in that town is a “farce. … Sane men don’t enter such a farce.” He called on citizens to “leave the country calm.”

‘I only have moral authority’
al-Qathafi urged Libyans to take weapons away from protesters who have assumed control of large parts of the country.

The Holy Quran is very clear: take the weapons from them,” al-Qathafi said. “I only have moral authority,”

 

said the leader, who has traditionally sought to present himself as “Leader of the Revolution”; that the country is led by the people, rather than a traditional executive head of state.

Mu 24 FEBR. 2011
The Associated Press

Last Edited By: galantarie 02/28/11 15:30:38.

 
Osama bin Laden out to capture Gadhafi “as a heretic- Infidel”!Benghazi, Libya—
Zoom
AFP/ SITE

Pictured here is al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. Another al-Qaida leader said: “It is true the revolution is not entirely what we had envisioned.”

The terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda’s , has repeatedly tried to use propaganda to take credit for the revolts, but no one in the West is listening. The propaganda they have been spreading for decades, and their original goal — the overthrow of the secular regimes in the Arab world — is through the Internet-savvy youth of the Arab world. Those who live in the universe of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his associates are putting-in an all-out effort: an effort that is already underway to reinterpret recent events in the Arab world. At first, it seemed as if the terrorist network hadn’t found any words to comment on the massive upheavals. But now al-Qaeda’s spin on the events in the Middle East is gradually becoming clear.

Al-Qaeda is serving up a mixture of currying favor and issuing dire warnings. On Thursday, the North African branch of the organization, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), declared its support for the revolt in Libya. Of course, that revolt is being portrayed as “jihad,” while al-Qaeda insists that it makes sense for the Libyans to be rising up against dictator Moammar Gadhafi because he is an “enemy of God.” Besides, as AQIM claims with some audacity, “we have consistently fought solely for your defense.” The Divide Between Real and Wannabe Revolutionaries

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second-in-command and one of the Egyptian jihadists who has spent a lifetime fighting against the “godless” regime there, issued a statement on the situation in Egypt on Feb. 18. He too congratulated the revolutionaries, but the first thing he felt compelled to say about his native Egypt was that it is “secular and democratic,” and that this is what must change.

This is remarkable. While hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets precisely because the regime was only outwardly democratic, this is exactly the issue Zawahiri emphasizes as a reason for a revolt! The divide that is apparent here between the real and the wannabe revolutionaries is enormous and embarrassing, even for the occasional hardcore Islamist, especially when Zawahiri ups the ante and accuses Mubarak of having rigged elections. This isn’t exactly a coherent analysis.

Meanwhile, also on Thursday, the Libyan-born al-Qaeda ideologue Attiyat Allah addressed the uprisings in North Africa and his native Libya. At least he was honest enough to admit that “it is true that this revolution is not entirely what we had envisioned.”

But he too had little more to offer than the warning not to ignore the Koran as a guideline for action. He suggested that the newly won freedoms in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya be used for missionary work and activism to help shape the future in a jihadist sense.

It is easier to fight democratic governments than despots, and chaos has always been a fertile breeding ground for jihadists. Jihadism hasn’t been defeated yet. Thanks to the revolts, it has only become recognizable for what it is: the ideology and bloody practice of a very small minority among Arabs and Muslims.

Miniature

IN THE THEATRE OF THE ABSURD, LIBYA NOW TAKES

CENTER STAGE

01 Sunday May 2011

Gerald A. Perreira. Featured Writer. 5.1.11

We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaeda in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It’s an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali.… If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?
– From a letter sent by the Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to the US president Barack Obama.

In the Theatre of the Absurd, anything is possible. However, this latest scenario in Libya has taken absurdity to a whole new dimension. A rag-tag bunch of armed, al-Qaeda affiliated tribesmen, being referred to as a ‘pro-democracy movement’ by British State TV (BBC) and other mainstream media outlets, are now being openly armed and trained by the French, British and American governments. This same Coalition of Crusaders, with the support of the Arab League, is fighting alongside the rebels, launching continual bombing raids on targets in Tripoli and beyond, including Muammar Qadhafi’s compound, in a brazen attempt to assassinate the man and re-colonise Libya.

And what is the support inside Libya for this so-called ‘Libyan pro-democracy movement’? The answer is less than 2% of the entire Libyan population. One might have expected that the Western and Arab worlds would have offered Qadhafi and the Libyan armed forces assistance to deal with this al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) inspired insurgency. But no. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, instead, Britain and the US, led by the clown Sarkozy, in what can only be described as a war mongering frenzy, launched an all out attack on Muammar Qadhafi, his family, and the Libyan people.

As this article goes to press, the Coalition forces continue to savagely bomb targets in Tripoli and beyond, killing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure. They are pounding Libya with a force that was last seen when they invaded Iraq, doing their utmost to leave Qadhafi and his people defenceless against this insurgency. In fact, so brazen is the imperialist Obama, that he has announced an ‘overt operation’, sending in CIA operatives to train and equip the rebels. Rebels who the State Department admits are disorganised and untrained and unable to articulate a vision for Libya, beyond killing Qadhafi.

These rebels however do have an agenda. Their leaders and ideologues, inside and out of Libya, are well known for misinterpreting verses from the Quran, quoting out of context, in an attempt to justify their so-called jihad and practices which are fundamentally alien to the Islamic spirit. The best the Libyan rebels, read counter-revolutionaries, can do, is to chant ‘From Tunisia, Egypt to Libya and on, we will spread Jihad!’

Western Powers and al-Qaeda – On the Same Side

As far back as the mid 90s, a former MI5 agent, David Shayler, testified that British intelligence employed the services of an al-Qaeda cell inside Libya, paying them a large fee to assassinate Muammar Qadhafi. The assassination attempt was carried out. A grenade was lobbed at Qadhafi as he walked among a crowd in his hometown, Sirte. He was saved by one of his bodyguards, who threw herself on the grenade.

Shayler revealed that while he was working on the Libya desk in the mid 90s, British secret service personnel were collaborating with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was connected to one of Osama bin Laden’s trusted lieutenants. The LIFG officially joined al-Qaeda in 2007. On an Islamist website in 2009, Ayman al-Zawahiri welcomed them to the fold.

Over the past two years, the Libyan authorities have released scores of imprisoned Islamists from the LIFG into the custody of their families and communities in a humanitarian attempt to integrate them back into Libyan society. With a pledge that they would use the forums set up in the country, under the auspices of the General People’s Congress, to express their views. Many of the released prisoners had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and been returned to the Libyan authorities as part of an agreement with the US. If Qadhafi was truly the ruthless man the West would have us believe, then surely these rebels, classified as terrorists by the US, would have remained in prison and their fate very different.

One of those released in 2008 was the LIFG commander, Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi, now one of the leaders of this uprising. Over the last decade, al-Hasidi fought in Afghanistan, was captured in Pakistan in 2002, handed over to the US, and subsequently handed back to the Libyan authorities. In a recent interview with the Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasidi admitted that, “jihadists who fought in Iraq against the US are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Qadhafi.”

Libya was the first country to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. The Libyan authorities have for years tried to warn the world about the very serious threat posed by these Islamic deviants. According to David Shayler, Western intelligence turned a deaf ear to Libya’s warnings as far back as the mid 90s because they were actually working with the al-Qaeda group inside Libya, to kill Qadhafi, and roll back the Libyan revolution.

True Religion versus False Religion

The battle being fought in the Libyan desert today dates way back beyond the mid 90s. Today’s battle is essentially a battle between, on the one hand, the revolutionary Islam of Prophet Muhammad, manifest in the writings of Muammar Qadhafi and in the practice of the Libyan revolution. And on the other hand, the reactionary Islam of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) and their off shoots such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The Muslim revolutionary scholar, Ali Shariati, notes that, “the battle of history is the battle of religion against religion… true religion versus false religion.”

The Islam of the Wahhabist/Salafi sect, adhered to by the LIFQ, is a reactionary interpretation and practice of Islam that seeks to replicate the political and social structures of 7th century Arabian society. Although for the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera cameras, the rebels are careful to present themselves to the world as a force fighting for ‘liberal democracy’ and to show their love and admiration for the West. Off camera, they are calling for what AQIM has named the ‘Islamic Emirate in the Maghreb’.

Qadhafi, along with other progressive Islamic scholars, argues the message of the Quran and Islamic theology is incompatible with the idea of an emirate. They point out dynastic rule was imported into the body politic of Islam by the likes of Abu Sufyan Muawiyah, the governor of Damascus, in the period 642 to 661, who borrowed these anti-Islamic practices from the Byzantium Empire and the Persians. Qadhafi points out this particular system of governance has nothing at all to do with Islam.

The central ideological concern of Muammar Qadhafi and the Libyan revolution was to redefine Islam in the context of modern knowledge and contemporary political systems and thought. This is a task that requires us to revisit and rethink previous political systems set up by Muslims, without losing any of the Perennial Truth that is Islam.

The Third Universal Theory, outlined in Qadhafi’s Green Book, is a comprehensive worldview – a body of philosophical, political, economic, sociological and scientific principles, all inter-related. Together they form an alternative and largely self-sufficient intellectual structure. It is a guide for authentic Islamic revolution, and can be applied to non-Islamic, popular revolutions. It ushers in a whole new social and political practice, outlining an alternative model of democracy.

Progressive academics worldwide have acclaimed Green Book as a serious body of political thought, offering an incisive critique of Western parliamentary democracy, capitalism and Marxist socialism. In addition, there is no denying the system of direct democracy, posited by Qadhafi’s Third Universal Theory, offers an alternative model and solution for Africa and many other parts of the ‘Third World’, where multi-party ‘democracy’ has been a dismal failure, resulting in ethnic/tribal conflict, social fragmentation and political chaos.

In his book Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of Muammar al Qadhafi, the respected Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub points out that, “the first part of the Green Book is an interpretation of one single verse of the Quran: ‘and their affairs are decided through consultation (shura) among themselves’… To others it means an assembly of jurists ruling over a traditional Islamic society strictly governed by Shariah. Only Qadhafi has taken the important Quranic precept seriously, understanding it literally, and applying it equally to every member of society.”

Ayoub further states that, “Qadhafi sees Islam as a perpetual revolution against unnecessary and illegitimate wealth, exploitation and oppression. Qadhafi asserted that the Islam which both the East and the West knew was that observed by kings and princes, as well as mendicants (darawish) who live off Islam. Thus, people thought of Islam as a reactionary movement, a message which could never keep up with life. They considered Islam simply as a religious heritage which could be venerated but which had to be kept from the fields of action and human struggle.”

This Islam, whose theology is primarily one of liberation, has been marginalised, distorted and co-opted to serve the interests of ruling elites throughout the Muslim world. Theirs is the Islam observed by kings and princes, the ‘feudal Islam’ of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) and its Wahhabi spiritual leaders, such as Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently issued a fatwa stating that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Muammar Qadhafi should do so “to rid Libya of him.”

Qaradawi is a neo-feudalist, who has defended the practice of female genital mutilation, called for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and advocates separate systems of law for different classes of citizens. Qadhafi views Qaradawi and those like him as the spiritual heirs of the corrupt Umayyad dynasty (661-750) that transformed the revolutionary Islam of the Holy Prophet into a feudal dispensation.

How does Qadhafi’s revolutionary Islam play out in practice? Why is this man and the revolution he has led such a threat? And why, over recent weeks, have people from every corner of the globe spoken out in support of Qadhafi and the Libyan revolution? Why have thousands of African freedom fighters (not mercenaries as the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera would have us believe) poured into Libya from the Congo, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso to fight to the death for this leader and Libya?

Who is this man and this revolution that has the moral authority and power to draw an army of Africans from every corner of the continent and solidarity from liberation movements, political parties and progressive governments worldwide?

A Libyan Jamahiriya

On September 1st, 1969, the 27 year old Qadhafi, an army captain, carried out a bloodless coup overthrowing the corrupt monarchy of King Idris Senussi, who had ruled Libya for 18 years. Qadhafi established what he called the Libyan Jamahiriya or the State of the Masses. When asked what was the Constitution of Libya, he replied “the Quran.”

Immediately after the 1969 coup, Qadhafi told Gamal Abdel Nasser to consider Libya a partner in his Pan-Arab project, offering Nasser access to Libyan resources in the struggle against Israel. From a young age Qadhafi understood the absolute necessity of unity if Western hegemony and colonialism was to be challenged effectively.

Not long after the revolution Qadhafi earned the wrath of the imperialists by closing the British Naval Base at Tobruk and the American Wheelus Air Base on the outskirts of Tripoli. He nationalised key sections of Libya’s vast oil resources and used his influence within OPEC to negotiate fairer prices for oil producing countries. Qadhafi used the oil revenue to benefit the Libyan people, building schools, universities, hospitals and much needed infrastructure.

During the reign of King Idris, fewer than one in five Libyans was literate and there was virtually no access to education for the majority of people. Today, Libya boasts a quality education system, free right up to university level, and the literacy rate is 83 per cent, the highest in North Africa and the Arab world. In addition, Libya has one of the finest health care systems in the ‘Third World’. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, free of charge. If a Libyan needs surgery that is unavailable in Libya, funding is provided for the surgery to be carried out overseas. Average life expectancy is now 75, during the time of King Idris it was as low as 44.

Soon after the revolution, basic food items were subsidised and electricity was made available throughout the country. Huge irrigation projects were established in order to support a drive towards agricultural development and self-sufficiency in food production.

Recognising that water, not oil, would be the most scarce resource of the future, Qadhafi initiated the construction of the Great Man Made River, which took years to complete (see illustration and photo above). Referred to as a wonder of the modern world, this river pumps millions of cubic metres of water daily from the heart of the Sahara desert to the coast where the land is suitable for agriculture. Any Libyan who wanted to become a farmer was and still is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, livestock and seed.

At the outset of the revolution, Qadhafi vowed to house every Libyan, many of whom were still living in tents and houses made out of flattened oil drums. He also vowed that his own parents, who lived in a tent in the Sirte desert, would not be housed until every Libyan was housed. He fulfilled that promise, his own father dying before he had the opportunity to move him into a home. Large scale housing construction took place right across the country, all Libyans being given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free. In Qadhafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”

Under the revolutionary leadership of Muammar Qadhafi, Libya has now attained the highest standard of living in Africa. Rated on the UN’s Human Development Index ahead of Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. In 2007, in an article which appeared in the African Executive Magazine, Norah Owaraga noted that Libya, “unlike other oil producing countries such as Nigeria, utilised the revenue from its oil to develop its country. The standard of living of the people of Libya is one of the highest in Africa, falling in the category of countries with a GNP per capita of between and 6,000.”

Qadhafi believes that economic democracy can only be achieved when the GDP of a country benefits all of its citizens and when the country’s wealth is dispersed to every single citizen. Today, money from Libya’s oil revenue is directly deposited into the bank account of every Libyan.

From the beginning, Qadhafi was dedicated to the emancipation of Libyan women, encouraging them to participate in all aspects of political life. The revolution ensured that women gained full access to education and has actively encouraged acceptance of female paid employment. Qadhafi has enabled women to serve in the armed forces, and as a way of breaking down stereotypes and taboos, he established a corps of female bodyguards, assigned to his protection. Libya is a very traditional society and these moves by Qadhafi have been met with stiff resistance, especially by the forces in Benghazi.

From the outset of the revolution, Qadhafi channelled a great deal of effort and resources into continued attempts, following on from Gamal Abdel Nasser, to bring about Arab unity. At meeting after meeting of the Arab League, he condemned and exposed their ineptness at arriving at a unified position in relation to the Palestinian issue and other issues relating to neo-colonial control of the region. He became impatient as he realised that the Arab rulers of the day were more interested in protecting and preserving their own parochial interests in tandem with Western imperialism, and were only too willing to stab each other in the back behind closed doors, despite their rhetoric at the summits.

He vehemently opposed the US led invasion of Iraq and condemned those Arab leaders who supported the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’, earning the wrath of the Saudi monarchy when he said that “the Kabah was under the yoke of American occupation,” and questioned “what meaning the Haj has for Muslims as long as the American occupation of the sacred House of God continues.”

He worked tirelessly to encourage African-Arab unity, and built strong relationships with African leaders and the African streets. In October 2010, at the second African-Arab summit in Libya, Qadhafi was the first and only leader in the Arab world to formally apologise for the Arab role in the trade in captured Africans. He was highly critical of Arab leaders/elites condescending attitude toward Africans, and their despicable treatment of African workers, and in particular African domestic workers in their own countries. He stated:

“I regret the behaviour of Arabs… they brought African children to North Africa, they made them slaves, they sold them like animals and treated them in a shameful way. I regret and am ashamed when we remember these practices. I apologise for this. Today we are embarrassed and shocked by the outrageous practices of rich Arabs who treat Africans with contempt and condescension.”

This riled the Arab leaders and ruling elites and was an affront to their notion of Arab supremacy.

Disgruntled with the arrogance of the Arab leaders, and a continual thorn in their side as he openly criticised their hypocrisy and servitude to Western imperialism, Qadhafi became isolated in the Arab world.

Africa Called, Qadhafi Answered

Meanwhile, Libya’s neighbours to the south were far more receptive to Qadhafi’s ideas. When African nations called, Qadhafi answered. He is passionate about the plight of Africans and Africa and longs to see the liberation of the continent and its people. He called on the African Union to give representation to Africans in the Diaspora – the US, Europe, the Caribbean and South America, and acknowledge the need to deal with the conditions of poverty, underdevelopment and marginalisation that continues to confront these communities. At a recent conference held in Libya in January this year, to address the needs and concerns of African migrants to Europe, Qadhafi stated:

“From now on, by the will of God, I will assign teams to search, investigate and liaise with the Africans in Europe and to check their situations… this is my duty and role towards the sons of Africa; I am a soldier for Africa. I am here for you and I work for you; therefore, I will not leave you and I will follow up on your conditions.”

Today, Qadhafi is seen by Africans on the continent and throughout the diaspora as a leading Afrocentric Pan-Africanist, articulating a vision for a United States of Africa – with one government, one currency and one army.

One of Muammar Qadhafi’s most controversial and difficult moves has been his determined drive to unite Africa with a shared vision for the true independence and liberation of the entire continent. He has contributed a great deal of his time, energy and large sums of money to this project, and like Kwame Nkrumah, he has paid a high price.

Many years ago, Qadhafi told a large gathering, which included Libyans and revolutionaries from many parts of the world, that the Black Africans were the true owners of Libya long before the Arab incursion into North Africa. Adding Libyans need to acknowledge and pay tribute to their ancient African roots. He ended by saying, as is proclaimed in his Green Book, “the Black race shall prevail throughout the world.”

‘Brother Leader’, ‘Guide of the Revolution’ and ‘King of Kings’ are some of the titles that have been bestowed on Qadhafi by Africans. Only recently Qadhafi called for the creation of a secretariat of traditional African Chiefs and Kings, with whom he has excellent ties, to co-ordinate efforts to build African unity at the grassroots level. This bottom up approach is widely supported by Pan-Africanists.

While the Libyan revolution has irritated the West since its inception, and although they never forgave Qadhafi for nationalising Libya’s oil, the most worrying move has been his call for the unification of Africa. After years of tireless effort on the part of Qadhafi and the Libyan revolutionary movement, the idea of a United States of Africa is gaining real momentum and support on the continent and amongst Pan-Africanists worldwide.

Unity is something the imperialists fear and loathe. They are well aware that a united Africa would completely alter the balance of power globally. The well-documented fact is that if Africa stopped the flow of all resources and raw materials to the Western nations for just one week, the United States and Europe would grind to a halt. They are that dependent on Africa, and are therefore determined to maintain their ability to control events on the continent.

The leader of the Nation of Islam in the US, Minister Louis Farrakhan, pointed out many years ago at a conference in Libya, “Europe and the US cannot go forward into the new century without unfettered access to the vast natural resources of Africa.” He added: “Qadhafi is one who stands in their way.”

If they cannot maintain control, then at least they must try to maintain Africa’s divisions, thereby ensuring it is always in a position of weakness. African unity and true independence is something white supremacy, in all of its manifestations – capitalism, imperialism and neo-colonialism – will oppose with all its might. The French are presently spearheading a plan, with other southern European nations, to form a Mediterranean bloc, incorporating the whole of North Africa, to try to bring about the balkanisation of the continent, in an attempt to halt this unification project.

Liberation Movements Worldwide Called, Qadhafi Answered

In addition to his tireless efforts in the Arab and African worlds, in 1982 the World Mathaba was established in Libya. Mathaba means a gathering place for people with a common purpose. The World Mathaba brought together revolutionaries and freedom fighters from every corner of the globe to share ideas and develop their revolutionary knowledge. Many liberation groups throughout the world received education, training and support, including the ANC, AZAPO, PAC and BCM of Azania (South Africa), SWAPO of Namibia, MPLA of Angola, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, the Polisario of the Sahara, the PLO, the Moro National Liberation Front of the Philippines, the Pattani National Liberation Front of Thailand, the Dalits of India, Indigenous movements throughout the Americas and the Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan to name but a few.

Nelson Mandela called Muammar Qadhafi one of the 20th century’s greatest freedom fighters, and insisted the eventual collapse of the apartheid system owed much to Qadhafi and Libyan support. Mandela said that, “in the darkest moments of our struggle, when our backs were to the wall, Muammar Qadhafi stood with us.”

Having examined not only the words and writings, but also Qadhafi’s life time of unwavering revolutionary action dedicated to the liberation of humankind, it is not difficult to answer the questions posed above regarding how Qadhafi’s revolutionary Islam has played out in practice? Why this man and the revolution he has led is such a threat to Western powers, and why freedom fighters from all over Africa are willing to fight to the death for him and the Libyan revolution.

The Final Act – Imperialism’s Last Hideous Gasp

As neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism plunges the world deeper and deeper into chaos, Western imperialism is in crisis. As people revolt in every corner of the world, their ability to influence global affairs is challenged. Even in the economic sphere, their power is decreasing, as China, India and Brazil emerge as vital new trading partners in Africa and South America. In the words of Kwame Nkrumah, “Neo-colonialism is not a sign of imperialism’s strength, but rather of its last hideous gasp.”

As the capitalist crisis worsens, the imperialists will become more and more desperate in their attempts to regain their influence and direct events as they are used to doing. Events which they are increasingly incapable of comprehending – not only because of the speed at which these events are occurring, but also because of the complexity of the events and the paradigm shifts taking place, that are, quite simply, far outside the Western imagination.

Furthermore, they have lost all credibility as the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles continue. The Emperor is naked, and the hypocrisy of the Empire has become so transparent, that even the least informed observers are finally realising that something is horribly wrong.

Imperialism is experiencing its ‘last hideous gasp’ and it is imperative for progressive movements and decent minded citizens worldwide to seize this moment and to oppose this current assault on Libya with all of our collective strength. Those who still struggle to see the wood from the trees will remain enablers of the reactionary and destructive forces that have arrested the advancement of humanity, subjugating and enslaving us since the beginning of time.

GERALD A. PERREIRA is from Guyana and a founding member of the Guyanese organisations, Joint Initiative for Human Advancement and Dignity and Black Consciousness Movement Guyana (BCMG). He lived and worked in Libya for many years and served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defence of the Libyan revolution, and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 126 (May-June 2011).

Bin Laden, Bush Serve the Same   Master

25 November2002

http://www.henrymakow.com/osama.gif Bin Laden: I want you to invade Ira

The headquarters of Islamic terrorism is London, England, where the Anglo-American Establishment sponsors the radical “Muslim Brotherhood” in order to advance its long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship.These globalists have fabricated a bogus “war on terror” to crush the remaining vestiges of nationalism and democracy in both Muslim countries and the West. Expect more incitements like the current “Miss World ” imbroglio to convince both sides the other endangers its way of life.

In a comprehensive online report, the perceptive Hawaii-based researcher Peter Goodgame concludes: “Osama bin Laden is not, nor has he ever been, the leader of the international Islamist movement which is directed by the International Muslim Brotherhood.”

Goodgame continues: “Osama bin Laden has been used effectively as a figurehead for the Brotherhood’s militant branch to take responsibility for its atrocities, but he is not the mastermind… By the same token, the Muslim Brotherhood is a tool by the British-based Globalists whose main objective is to overthrow the established world order and create a new one-world system of global governance.”

Goodgame cites former British Intelligence Officer, Dr. John Coleman, who says the Muslim Brotherhood is a secret freemason order set up by the great names of British Middle East Intelligence, T.E. Lawrence, Bertrand Russell and St. John Philby to “keep the Middle East backward so its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has been used to check nationalist movements led by such figures as Nasser, Bhutto and the Shah of Iran who tried to develop their countries. Without the British, “radical Islam would have remained the illegitimate, repressive minority movement that it has always been, and the Middle East would have remained stable and prosperous,” Goodgame says.

The Muslim Brotherhood is now a powerful faction in the global oligarchy. Goodgame cites Robert Drefuss, author of “Hostage to Khomeini” (1980):

“The real Muslim Brothers are … the secretive bankers and financiers who stand behind the curtain, the members of the old Arab, Turkish, or Persian families whose genealogy places them in the oligarchic elite, with smooth business and intelligence associations to the European black nobility and, especially, to the British oligarchy.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is money. Together, the Brotherhood probably controls several tens of billions of dollars in immediate liquid assets, and controls billions more in …everything from oil trade and banking to drug-running, illegal arms merchandising, and gold and diamond smuggling. By allying with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Anglo-Americans are not merely buying into a terrorists-for-hire racket; they are partners in a powerful and worldwide financial empire…”

By fabricating a bogus war between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, the globalists are able to attack their real enemy, humanity. Pulling the strings, they will ensure that both Western and Muslim states are degraded and finally completely subjugated to their odious rule.

The globalists have long been using wars to subvert, demoralize and destroy Western civilization. They backed the Nazis and the Soviets in World War Two. They created the Punch and Judy show that was the Cold War. They tied U.S. hands while backing Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

Who are they? Also called the illuminati, they represent a recrudescence of the alliance of Rothschild finance and European aristocracy secretly coordinated by a Satanic dogma hidden in freemasonry.

They plan a new feudalism that will impoverish the middle classes, depopulate and enslave the masses, and leave only the rich served by a technocracy. The whole world will resemble a repressive third world country governed by the IMF, UN and World Bank.

The globalists are headquartered in London and centred on the Rothschild-dominated Bank of England, MI-6 and the secretive Round Table society, which spawned the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The American branches include the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA and the Rockefeller foundations which all ensure the American people continue to finance and enforce one-world tyranny. The Bush family has owed its prominence to this cabal ever since grandfather Prescott Bush helped arrange financing for Nazism.

Zionism is supposed to represent the “West” in this sham war with Islam. Americans are being groomed to become like Israelis, victims of daily acts of “Muslim terror.” Last week, when another suicide bomber struck in Jerusalem, Benjamin Netanyahu said, “Whether the explosion takes place in Bali, Moscow, New York or Jerusalem we are all united in a war against a common terrorist enemy.”

According to Swiss journalist Richard Labeviere (“Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam” 2000) radical Islam is an essential “complementary enemy” to Zionism, which also seeks regional hegemony. According to the “Yinon Memorandum” (1982) Israel intends to splinter the Arab countries into several small cantons along ethnic lines. None of these will be able to challenge Israel, which, like the US is a disposable implement of the globalist agenda. (207)

The Palestinian terrorist “Hamas” movement is a product of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Labeviere, it serves the interests of the Israeli right wing, and has received secret financial support from the Israeli “Shin Beth.” (203-205). Thus, Palestinian suicide bombers play straight into Ariel Sharon’s hand.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, “Muslim terrorist attacks” are an excuse to lay the foundations of a police state. These attacks, which could become nuclear or biological, might serve as a pretext to declare martial law, suspend elections and round up dissidents, i.e. anyone who is not buying the lie.

This may seem incomprehensible to Americans now when the economy is still being propped up. Once the US has done the globalist’s dirty work, interest rates could rise and debt ridden Americans could be stripped of their assets, as they were in the Depression.

The Homeland Security Act is designed to control all US law enforcement agencies so that elements in the CIA and Mossad can target Americans with impunity, like they did on Sept. 11. American agencies were designed to remain independent so they could serve as a check on each other.

The Act is also designed to allow George W. to place his henchmen in positions of control. Remember, he is a product of a secret Satanic cult, the “Skull and Bones.” This sounds gruesome but the Twentieth Century provided many precedents. The illuminati was behind both Nazi and Communist mass slaughter and terror. Our position is akin to the European Jews who disbelieved warnings of the holocaust.

There is even a provision in the Homeland Security Act against whistle blowers. Why? Another provision allows mandatory vaccinations while giving vaccine manufacturers immunity from prosecution. Why? The “Total Information Awareness” program will “red flag” troublemakers by monitoring all personal communications and financial transactions, even your library records. You didn’t attack the WTC. Why are you targeted?

What is the justification for this destruction of freedom, which Bush supposedly protects? In 14 months since Sept.11, 2001, there has been not one Muslim terrorist attack in the US despite the bloody American invasion of Afghanistan. If “Al Queda” were capable of pulling off Sept. 11, don’t you think it would have planned an encore? Don’t get me wrong: I am grateful to the Mossad and CIA for sparing us. But Americans simply don’t deserve freedom if they accept this obvious ruse and its ominous consequences.

In conclusion, mankind is in the clutches of a diabolical multi generational conspiracy. A Satanic, criminal cartel has subverted all social institutions and is slowly crafting a brutal global dictatorship. Our political and cultural leaders are witting and unwitting pawns. They are fabricating a phony war between Islam and the West in order to accomplish the degradation of both.

I realize this vision seems incredibly bleak. The mass media holds us in a powerful illusion of normalcy. However, expecting the worst means you will never be disappointed. If you are wrong, you are relieved. If you are right, you are prepared.

Libya and Western media manipulation

Posted: 2011/06/21

From: Source

<!–abbr title=”Coming Soon! (Not Yet Working)”><sup–><!–/sup></small–>   http://api.flattr.com/button/view/?uid=27697&category=text&button=compact&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathaba.net%2Fnews%2F%3Fx%3D627226&title=Libya%20and%20Western%20media%20manipulation&description=More%3A&Share on TwitterFacebook

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627226

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru

It is by now obvious that the monstrous illegal and murderous NATO attack against the people of Libya and their guide is failing and that this evil military organisation is getting increasingly desperate. The 150 terrorist strikes per day every day bear witness to this. The increasing lies and brainwashing propaganda by western media backs this up.

When SKY News accompanied the US troops on their illegal romp into Iraq – this was before the blatant acts of mass murder, mass rape, mass kidnapping, illegal detention, torture, sodomy, urinating in food and so on were discovered (thank God this rabble is not allowed in Libya under Resolutions 1970 and 1973) – its correspondent crawled up to a group of GIs and asked in a sickeningly grovelling voice: “Hey you guys! Are you looking for some revenge for 9/11?”

It was a stupid question, which received a stupid answer: “Yeah!” and that, ladies and gentlemen, was enough to confirm the utterly false impression that the gullible and unthinking western public had been fooled so easily into believing – that Saddam Hussein had perpetrated 9/11 or was in some way linked to it. Supposedly intelligent people reiterated this “statement of fact” without batting an eyelid time and time again.

No thought of how Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were at opposite ends of opposing ideologies, no thought of the fact they hated each other. And this afternoon, Thursday June 16, 2011, right on cue and also on SKY News, in one and the same statement, the reference to “Colonel Gaddafi and the Taleban” being buoyed by the mention of Prince Harry rushing off to war in an Apache helicopter.

It was a very clever piece of sublime information yet for those with an iota of instruction, an affirmation of either sheer and total crass stupidity, or else unadulterated pure white-hot evil. The common link is that Apache helicopters are being deployed in Libya (because spreading “Freedom and Democracy” from 30.000 feet is committing a tad too many murders) and also in Afghanistan.

There is another common link between Libya and the Taleban – the enemies of Colonel Gaddafi, led by an Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi and the Taleban/Al_Qaeda worked together. This Hasidi gentleman, who NATO supports so vehemently, has himself admitted he belonged to Al-Qaeda, recruited the Benghazi terrorists (well-known in Libya as being Islamist fanatics) to fight against Britain and the USA in Afghanistan and also recruited record numbers of suicide bombers from Benghazi to use against British and American forces in Iraq. That is the common link.

No mention of the fact that Colonel Gaddafi was the first international leader to issue an arrest warrant against Osama bin Laden, no mention of the fact that Colonel Gaddafi was the first international leader to issue a writ against Al-Qaeda, no mention of the fact that the Taleban and Colonel Gaddafi are like oil and water, hate each other and no mention of the fact that while the West was gallivanting with Islamist criminals, Colonel Gaddafi had already pronounced himself against them.

The sheer idiocy of today’s SKY statement underlines how powerful the western media machine is. It is none other than a factory of lies, a bulwark of total bullshit, a monster of manipulation which churns out swayed public opinion like a sausage factory. It also underlines the collective stupidity of the fools who believe what their TV, radio and newspapers shove down their throats, a daily dose of massified ignorance hastily and eagerly swallowed and digested. It is the massification of stupidity and they fall for it hook, line and sinker without so much as even questioning the bilge they are being fed.

Like geese being fattened with funnels shoved down their throats by the cynical and cruel producers of foie gras, the gullible western public guzzle their daily dose of chicken-shit down with ever-increasing ease, like battery hens fed on their own excrement and yes I do hope they are reading this while looking at a juicy blood-red steak on a plate, because this is the same colour splattered by NATO around the walls of Libyan hospitals, shops, schools, universities, museums and private homes, the same colour washed from the walls of the home of Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Arab al-Qathafi, where three of Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren were slaughtered by a NATO pilot enforcing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, sorry, armed terrorists.

So, if the western media is intent on telling lies, someone has to tell the truth. I appeal to the intelligence inside these easy-to-dupe western minds and request just three minutes of their time as they curl up giggling helplessly to the sound of farts and belches on The Simpsons.

Firstly, I would urge you to take a look at the photos in this article. Now, a simple question: Are these the photos of innocent civilians being slaughtered or are they armed Islamist terrorists running amok committing acts of terrorism, aided and abetted by Washington and its poodles in Europe? Why is your Government siding with terrorists and interfering in an armed insurrection in a sovereign nation, against international law?

Secondly, please consider why Colonel Gaddafi was about to be awarded with a humanitarian prize by the United Nations Organization, this year, just when mayhem broke out in his country with marauding gangs of terrorists (see the photos) going around beheading black Libyans in the streets, attacking Government property, torching buildings, raping young girls and impaling a small boy with a metal rod.

Thirdly, has anyone bothered telling you why he was going to receive this prize? Have you considered the UNO does not just say “Hey! See that guy over there? Let’s give him a prize!!” And have you seen the reasons why he was to receive the prize? It was for his excellent human rights record taking into account gender rights, the protection of women, religious minorities, his inclusion programmes, respect for the law and his speaking out against the murder of homosexuals because they are gay, against the stoning of women by Islamist courts and against the dress code imposed upon women by fundamentalists.

Fourthly, has your media told you about Muammar Al-Qathafi’s work in Africa and his tremendous energy behind the African Union? His cultural programmes? His scientific programmes? His education programmes? His telecommunications projects? His Green programme? His respect for the ecology, the Mr. Green of Africa?

Have they told you he is behind the Pan-African e-learning programme enabling all Africans to learn for free while your governments were shooting them, holding them down and denying them access to education, keeping them ignorant while they stole their resources? Have they told you about his telemedicine programme, bringing medical treatment to all Africans everywhere, even in the desert? Have they told you about his financing of African satellites, while your countries were holding the poorest continent on earth to ransom, saddled with a 500 million dollar a year charge to use your satellites?

Fifthly, just think for a second. If he is such a dictator as your media insinuate, how come only a small minority of his country is against him, and these in the endemically separatist Benghazi? What dictator educates people for free? What dictator walks around his capital city being greeted with love and enthusiasm? These images they do not show you do they?

Sixthly, how do you feel about your countries bombing children? Would you like your children or grandchildren to be bombed? How would you feel? You would complain if a terrorist blasted the faces and limbs off your family wouldn’t you? What would you say if someone murdered three two-year-old kids in their own home? Well, that is what your countries have done. Don’t tell me they didn’t tell you.

Seventhly, have you stopped to question why the “air strikes against civilians” referred to by your countries were wholly refuted by evidence from Russian satellites, which proved there was no such thing? Have you stopped to question why when the West said Libyan Air Force pilots had bombed civilian buildings in Tripoli, a visit to the sites showed it was a tissue of lies?

Eighthly, and finally, how do you feel about your governments spending 300 million pounds (483.7 million USD) to date, each, on this illegal act of slaughter, these war crimes?

Sorry to have interrupted your dinners. Get back to The Simpsons (BELCH) oh and the nine o’clock news follows. I bet you they won’t mention Hasidi, what? Maybe if you ask your Congressman or MP exactly what he/she thinks your Government is doing? Or are you happy to sit back in your callous ignorance as innocent civilians are being slaughtered by your Governments which is supporting Islamist terrorists?

#

http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya

Gadhafi blames Osama bin Laden for savage clashes across Libya

 by PAUL SCHEMM and MAGGIE MICHAEL &

 McClatchy Newspapers

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/24/109362/gadhafis-forces-pound-3-libyan.html#ixzz1EyTfULST 

   Thursday, Gadhafi, in a rambling phone call to Libyan state TV, Mr. Gadhafi accused al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden of being behind the uprising. The Libyan leader said the revolt that began Feb. 15 has been carried out by young men who were hopped-up and drugged, and were agents of al-Qaeda. “Their ages are 17. They give them pills at night, they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafé…Shame on you, people of Zawiya, control your children,” he said, addressing residents of the city outside Tripoli where the mosque attack took place. “They are loyal to bin Laden,” he said of those involved in the uprising. “What do you have to do with bin Laden, people of Zawiya? They are exploiting young people … I insist it is bin Laden.”Gadhafi accused Osama bin Laden of instigating the nine-day rebellion seeking his overthrow, delivering a fresh diatribe over state-run television during which the Libyan leader admitted he was losing control of Zawiya, 30 miles west of Tripoli.

 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2011

Muammar Al Gaddafi – THIS DANGEROUS DREAM

How sweet will be the victory of the wretched, and how great! 
How sweet will the songs be on that golden day, and how brilliant the golden sun of the wretched as it blazes. 
How sweet this dangerous dream – that hopes will be realized, that wishes become true. 
That a dream will become reality, that the wretched of the earth will have their state. 

 

How sweet will the songs be on that golden day

“Escape to Hell, and other stories”, Muammar Qaddafi;
 Review by David Seals / June 17, 1998
  

A few pages into Muammar Qaddafi’s ‘Escape to Hell, and other stories’ a strange feeling came over me; I didn’t realize what it was at first. Under the heading of Part I: Novels, I read the first sentence, “The city has been with us since ages long past, but regard its plight today!” It quickly became apparent this was no ordinary work of fictional entertainment with characters and a narrative plot. It wasn’t going to fit into any genre of post-modernist minimalism,much like Qaddafi himself does not fit into any one place in the world as a political or religious figure.

This is the city: a mill that grinds down its inhabitants …
Children are worse off than adults. They move from darkness to darkness;
from three darknesses to the fourth, as in the Quran.

Then it struck me: I was hearing the same voice of the Libyan people I had not heard for a third of a century, since I was a teenager living in Libya from 1962-65 as a dependent of the United States Air Force. It was the plaintive directness I heard in our houseboy Mobruk when he said, in October ’62 as Tripoli erupted in anti-American riots because of the Cuban missile crisis, “We don’t all hate Americans.” He had tears in his eyes, as if his country’s exuberant idealism had been laid bare. We were two teenage boys from different corners of the world terribly afraid of a world gone mad.

Most Americans sneered at Libyans back then and called them “Mos.” A Mo was very poor and his country was very hot. He was an incompetent servant or laborer at best, he drank foul-smelling green water from dirty sandstonewells and hepatitis and dysentery were rampant among us foreigners.
Not one road in his city or country was free of huge potholes and donkeys and camels slowing the speed of our American Century. The women were treated like slaves in full-body barracan robes and were bought and sold like goats
 
A Mo was very poor and his country was very hot
Their religion was an alien apostasy from Christianity. Libya, to the Europeans and Anglo-Americans, from the time of Caesar to Rommel, was only a strategic outpost of the central Mediterranean shipping lanes, and a riperesource of oil from olives to petroleum. The Greek historian Herodotus called them “Barbarians”, after the indigenous Berbers. Theirs was the infamous Barbary Coast of pirates on the shores of Tripoli, to which President Thomas Jefferson first sent the Marines.

O wise, kind-hearted people…, humanitarians: have mercy on children, and do not deceive them by making them live in the city. Do not let your children turn into mice, moving around from hole to hole, from sidewalk to sidewalk.

But there was always that haunting voice, and Qaddafi’s book has reminded me of it, as the muezzins reminded us five times a day of the memory of another strident voice crying simply in another desert, from Arabia 1400 years ago, for Allah, al-Rahman, ir-Rahim.

 
Libya at the time of King Idris

And there is something else in ‘Escape to Hell’, a self-criticism and self-irony not heard in this country from a national leader since Abraham Lincoln.

Back on the streets of Tripoli and Wheelus Air Base in 1962 Anglo-Americanshated that voice like they hated Arabic music on the radioQaddafi articulates why he and his people were so hated back then, when he says in ‘Long Live the State for the Wretched!’ in Part II: Essays:

This is the true secret for their hating you: you are not of this world, you are not wealthy, and for this they hate you. You are not oppressors, and for this they hate you. You are not pretenders, so they hate you. You are not hypocrites or liars, and for this they hate you.

Not until I read this book did I realize why Libya has also haunted my dreams for a third of a century, and perhaps why it haunts the world still today out of all proportion to its size. In another chapter titled ‘Death to the Incapable…Until Revolution’, an essay like a chapter in the odd novel:

Although the world of the incapable has no meaning and no effectiveness, is null and void and silly … and although they create nothing and change nothing … despite all of this, the world of these incapable ones is the richest, most fertile, most teeming, and full of literary meaning. For the world of these people has its culture; it has an ability to accumulate psychologies and narratives of literature, myth, and metaphysics.

Now of course the Libyans are hated even more because they are wealthy, having taken over their own oil resources for the first timeand building up a powerful defensive military capability from incessant attacks by those same heirs of Caesar and Rommel
 
Moammar Al Gaddafi with Libyan people
They have turned over their annual oil revenues in the billions to themselves, making themselves anew, from being the poorest country on earth in 1951 (before oil was discovered in 1959) – with a annual per capita income, lower than India’s – to the best in Africa, and higher than England’s. They are building a Great Manmade River in the Sahara from vast subterranean seas of waternext to the oil oceans, and dams and irrigation canals thousands of kilometers long to turn the desert into a greenagricultural resource.
 
The Brother Gaddafi pray in pipe of The Great Manmade River
But we don’t hear anything about that. 
Qaddafi and his Libyans are branded one of the greatest ‘Terrorist Regimes’ on the planet.
Why?
His book provides a lot of clues, helping to explain their national consciousness behind the press clippings and quotes, such as the one he made in 1996 when he opened the second multi-billion dollar phase of the Great Manmade River Project,
“This is the biggest answer to America and all the evil forces who accuse us of being concerned with terrorism. We are only concerned with peace and progress. America is against life and progress; it pushes the world toward darkness.”
 
Muammar Al Gaddafi – Libya and Libyans
According to an article on the Green Book internet website, it is this River Project that has caused a lot of American paranoia (Qaddafi’s ‘Green Book’ came out in 1980, delineating the social and economic structure of his unique system of governance):

The newly-inaugurated stage of the project will provide Tripoli and the surrounding region with fresh water pumped from sub-Saharan aquifers and transported over hundreds of kilometres through vast networks of pre-stressed concrete pipelines. Because a mountainous formation known as ‘Jabal Nefussa’ blocks the natural flow of the piped water from the areas where the aquifers are located to the coastal plain, it was necessary to drill a tunnel through the mountain and install a pumping station. It is this tunnel, located at Tarhunah, that U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry earlier this year threatened to attack with nuclear weapons on the pretext that it was a chemical weapons factory.

Mobruk once laid bare some of my own most basic emotions, in 1962, when he also asked me, pointedly, ” Do you buy your wives?”

I laughed at the absurdity of the question then, but I was quickly shamed when I saw tears in his eyes again. “We have to pay many sheep and goats to a girl’s father. It takes many years of hard work.” I think now about how my arrogance must have looked to him, for I had girlfriends, a transistor radio, money to spend on soft drinks and movies, F-100s roaring overhead day and night from our superpowered NATO Base at Wheelus. I think now about how we bombed our own base in 1986 and killed hundreds of Libyan women and children in downtown Tripoli and Benghazi, including Qaddafi’s own 16-month old daughter Hana. 
 
1986 Bombs killed hundreds of Libyan
& Qaddafi’s own 16-month old daughter Hana
 So I was pleased to hear Mobruk’s disturbing grassroots voice again as I read the first chapters of ‘Escape to Hell’. Maybe it can only be a personal excitement, and you can only care about someone if you’ve lived with them andshared cous-cous on the ground with them, and listened to the lovely Suras of the Quran in musical Arabic while sipping chai in the little servant’s shack behind the big white American villa. But then the best books evoke just such emotional reactions, and I found Qaddafi’s direct passion very moving.
He takes me back into the Suq and the Casbah of the Old City where Mobruk took me, where it was forbidden for Americans to go. In those dirty reeking sewers of poverty I can hear Qaddafi’s anger, and piety too. Whole tent cities for refugees from the desertbedouins and Berbers looking for non-existent jobs in the booming new oil industry, were constructed and fenced off on the perimeters of Tripoli and our consciousness, reminding me ofAndersonville and Auschwitz.
The stink was indescribable, with open sewers in the dirt trails running between cardboard shacks, miles and miles of concentration camps fenced off and patrolled by NATO policemen. (While at the same time the U.N.-created King Idris presided over a Constitutional Monarchy from one of his huge palaces)
He takes me out into the baking hardscrabble fields where the women toiled like mules, and I was never never allowed to even look at them, let alone talk to them.
 
Tripoli, Libya 1990
Today I am shocked to see pictures of Libyan women without barracans working in modern hospitals as doctors, and in a whole New Tripoli of superhighways and skyscrapers as engineers and teachers. They are wearing fashionable short dresses with high heels and chic Italian stockings!
The Libyans tell me today, “You wouldn’t recognize it. We have 3 or 4 cars in front of every house, and everyone in the country has a home, and the world’s best health care and education. You should find yourself a good Libyan woman. There are lots of them!”
 
Qaddafi evokes the spirit of his people and his land.
It is a wildly unfamiliar joke but the easy laughter is a good friend. There is a lot of that kind of humor in Qaddafi’s book too, in the irreverent-reverent sarcasm of the chapters ‘Stop Fasting When You See the New Moon’ and‘The Prayerless Friday’
These are people who are human first and foremost, but, like their “Guide” as Qaddafi is called, or “The Brother Colonel”, they are as passionate about the forbidden topics of politics and religion as anybody I’ve met anywhere in the world. There was never a shortage of good conversation and stimulating new perspectives, and here again Qaddafi evokes the spirit of his people and his land.

Revolution: when feelings of impotence penetrate every part of the life of the incapable, and they lose the feeling of impotence and the decline that it involves. When neglect, ignominy, and baseness fail to provoke, the life of the impotent reaches zero, a static level of silliness and marginality. The countdown to approaching nothingness begins…

‘Escape to Hell’ is a philosophical fiction intended as a test of the reader’s willingness to really consider new possibilities for the next millenium, as the Libyan people themselves have been tested; and even without the amazingly complicated political and religious pre-conditioning most First Worlders would bring to this treatise by one of the world’s most notorious outlaws, it is a challenging mixture of post-Socialist Islamism that Qaddafi calls “a radical social progressive trend.

He calls it a Novel as much as an Essay because he is his own great fictional creation. The persona of Qaddafi reminds me of the way Sitting Bull got in the face of the 19th century, until he was like one of Qaddafi’s own larger-than-life paintings (which I saw in the lobby of the Libyan UN Mission in New York) on a big white horse in flowing romantic robes and headdress. And it is thisgrammar of genuine myth that went far beyond psychology, making Sitting Bull’s image the dominant face of frontier America. After all, who has stood the test of time – the “Savage Red Devil” or President Rutherford B. Hayes? 
 
Muammar AL Gaddafi larger-than-life
 Will Qaddafi’s green revolution in the desert survive Bill Clinton’s highway bill?
What is the real nature of the pan-Arabic hostility to Zionism?
These are important questions and we cannot just dismiss Qaddafi’s voice in the heretofore uneven debate. We have not heard much from the Arabs and non-Arab Muslims. Qaddafi’s book is a valuable addition to the debate. Arafat is routinely demonized as one of the generic “Terrorists” in popular cinema and journalism. It is just as unfair and counterproductive as the one-dimensional Hollywood stereotypes of Sitting Bull and his people.

 
Yasser Arafat and Muammar Al Gaddafi

It would take a lot more than a book review to explore the truth of Libya’s real place in our geopolitical paradigm at the end of the millenium, and Qaddafi himself probably doesn’t know the half of it. “Flee, flee the city” he exclaims in the second chapter titled ‘The Village’“Leave the irritation behind, the anxious places, the sealed locations.” Here we can begin to see his characteristic Libyan idealism shining through:

How beautiful the village and countryside are! Clean air, the horizon before you, the heavens without pillars thou canst behold [Quran, sura 13, verse 2], with their divine lanterns above.

A structure and a fallible human purpose start to become evident by the next chapters of ‘The Earth’ and ‘The Suicide of the Astronaut’, in which he says, “You can leave everything, except the earth … Land has been the context of the conflict … Whither then are you going?” The astronaut, modern technological man, goes out into the solar system looking for meaning, but … ” … man returned to the earth, dizzy, nauseous, and fearing doom.” The astronaut then committed suicide “after he gave up on being able to find work on the ground that could sustain him.”

All this builds quickly to the revealing core, which is the enigmatic title of the book. ‘Escape to Hell’ begins with one stunning statement after another:
“The tyranny of the masses is the harshest type of tyranny”; “I love the freedom of the masses, as they move freely with no master above them.” 
Suddenly there is the personal cry of the author that lifts it all out of an interesting sociopolitical news analysis by a famous public figure into a Dantesque journey of the soul: “What terror! Who can address the unfeeling self and make it feel?” What is this? Before I could switch nonfiction-fiction gears he goes back to “a collective intelligence” and “social conflagration”, then back again in one sentence to “a society that loves you yet will never show you mercy.” He himself is feeling the terrorism.

Within this mass of people, who poisoned Hannibal, burnt Savonarola, and smashed Robespierre, who loved you but failed to reserve a seat for you at the cinema, or even a table in a cafe, who love you without expressing this in any simple way …

This is what the masses have done and continue to do to such people. “So what can I – a poor bedouin – hope for in a modern city of insanity? People snap at me whenever they see me: build us a better house! Get us a better telephone line! Build us a road upon the sea! Make a public park for us!” … A poor, lost bedouin, without even a birth certificate, with his staff upon his shoulder. A bedouin, who will not stop for a red light, nor be afraid when a policeman takes hold of him. 
 
 “Leave me in peace to tend my flock.”
 Is this, as suspicious Americans might say, the same lament of other billionaires like Howard Hughes or Nero who felt so totally centralized by all the wretched masses yearning for money that they went crazy, retreating into isolation and paranoia?
“I am an illiterate bedouin … I do not know what money looks like … the mad people of the city constantly ask me for these things … I am a poor simple person … leave me in peace to tend my flock.”
Or is Qaddafi more like Sitting Bull, the unelected Medicine Chief, a poet-king like David personifying all the wealth and all the myths of his people?
A simple bedouin in a tent, running an Empire?
What a great character out of fiction, following his own Virgil into the inferno while simultaneously ascending into higher Hegiras: “I have decided to make my escape to hell.”

I will now tell you the story of my experiences when I made that journey, that escape to hell. I will describe the road that leads there, describe hell itself for you, and tell you how I came back by the same way. It was truly an adventure, and one of the strangest true stories ever, and I swear to you that it is not fiction. In fact, I escaped twice to hell, fleeing from you only in order to save myself…… 
First of all, hell has wild, dark mountainsides, covered by fog.                           There is volcanic stone which has been burnt black since time immemorial. What is truly strange is that I found wild animals on their way to hell before me, also making their escape from you, for hell meant life to them, while life among you meant death. Everything then disappeared around me, except for my own existence, which I felt more strongly than at any previous time. The mountains shrank, the trees dried up, the animals bolted and melted into the jungles of hell, seeking refuge and fleeing mankind. Even the sun became obscured by hell, and began to disappear. Nothing remained clear except hell, and the most distinct part of it was its heart. I headed toward it, with practically no difficulty.

This rings of Lao Tzu’s ‘Tao te Ching’ (“The blackness within the blackness”),or what Sitting Bull spoke of in the Siouan cosmogony as a Thunderbird obscured in the black misty mountains of the west.
The Mediterranean and the Sahara will do that to you. I swam in those same crystalline seas also, where Odysseus and Calypso played in the Blue Grotto.
The Berbers talk of pictographs of pyramids in the remote Kufra Oasis too.
Qaddafi mentions an Arab prince discovering America long before Columbus, and Aladdin, and a genie’s ring, and a magic golden helmet. He is just as torn by this sublime modern dilemma as we all are, between mythology and psychology:

...the hell on earth never gave me the time to spend time with my self, contemplate it, and commune with it. For we – I mean me and myself – were like dangerous criminals in your city, subjected to searches and surveillance. Even after our innocence was proven, and our identity became known, we were placed in prison, guarded closely. Your purpose was always to prevent me and myself from coming together, so that you could sleep easily and contentedly. How beautiful hell is compared to your city! Why did you bring me back? I want to return to hell, and live in it. I would travel there without any passport, just give me myself so that I may go. The self that I discovered had been disfigured by you, as you tried to corrupt its innocence.

I came away from this book knowing a lot more about Muammar Qaddafi, andthe historic transformation, the apotheosis, of Libya. His other stories about redemption and the death of his father, who fought Mussolini’s Fascists who killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans in the 1930s, and his identification with Joseph in the Quran and the injustices that have been done by ‘Jacob’s Cursed Family’ to Joseph, and the ‘Blessed Caravan’ of Ishmael’s tribes who rescued Joseph and took him to Egypt (which was originally called Libya, as were Arabia and Canaan), make it clear that Libya is not a backwater outpost onthe fringes of civilization as Americans saw it in 1962, or a third-rate culture with no tolerance of literature, liberation, or modern progress. 
 

How sweet this dangerous dream

But it is more like the mythic subconscious Homer called The Land of The Lotus Eaters, where Odysseus shipwrecked on his way home, and which Qaddafi describes as “this dangerous dream”

How sweet will be the victory of the wretched, and how great! How sweet will the songs be on that golden day, and how brilliant the golden sun of the wretched as it blazes. How sweet this dangerous dream – that hopes will be realized, that wishes become true. That a dream will become reality, that the wretched of the earth will have their state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Black Hills, South Dakota
June 17, 1998
David Seals

Escape to Hell, and other stories
Muammar Qaddafi
(Stanke Press, Montreal/NY, 1998, 193 pp.)
http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/muammar-al-gaddafi-this-dangerous-dream.html
Review by David Seals
[David Seals is the author of many books, including ‘The Powwow Highway’ a contemporary comedy about his Cheyenne Indian relatives which was made into a feature film by George Harrison’s Handmade Films]
 http://www.reocities.com/Athens/8744/dsreview.htm

LibyaS.O.S. Template images by konradlew. Powered by Blogger.

 

NATO and al-Qathafi: What All Friends of Africa Should Know

Posted: 2011/05/05

From: Mathaba    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626622?related

Anyone wishing to know the truth about what is happening in Libya and why it affects everyone in the world in this major and expanding war between Africa and the collapsing states of the West, should read and share this article.

By Gerald A. Perreira

We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaeda in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It’s an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali.… If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?
– From a letter sent by the Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to the US president Barack Obama.

In the Theatre of the Absurd, anything is possible. However, this latest scenario in Libya has taken absurdity to a whole new dimension. A rag-tag bunch of armed, al-Qaeda affiliated tribesmen, being referred to as a ‘pro-democracy movement’ by British State TV (BBC) and other mainstream media outlets, are now being openly armed and trained by the French, British and American governments. This same Coalition of Crusaders, with the support of the Arab League, is fighting alongside the rebels, launching continual bombing raids on targets in Tripoli and beyond, including Muammar Qadhafi’s compound, in a brazen attempt to assassinate the man and re-colonise Libya.

And what is the support inside Libya for this so-called ‘Libyan pro-democracy movement’? The answer is less than 2% of the entire Libyan population. One might have expected that the Western and Arab worlds would have offered Qadhafi and the Libyan armed forces assistance to deal with this al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) inspired insurgency. But no. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, instead, Britain France and the US, the “F-UK-US Alliance” led by the clown Sarkozy, in what can only be described as a war mongering frenzy, launched an all out attack on Muammar Qadhafi, his family, and the Libyan people.

As this article goes to press, the Coalition forces continue to savagely bomb targets in Tripoli and beyond, killing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure. They are pounding Libya with a force that was last seen when they invaded Iraq, doing their utmost to leave Qadhafi and his people defenceless against this insurgency. In fact, so brazen is the imperialist Obama, that he has announced an ‘overt operation’, sending in CIA operatives to train and equip the rebels. Rebels who the State Department admits are disorganised and untrained and unable to articulate a vision for Libya, beyond killing Qadhafi.

These rebels however do have an agenda. Their leaders and ideologues, inside and out of Libya, are well known for misinterpreting verses from the Quran, quoting out of context, in an attempt to justify their so-called jihad and practices which are fundamentally alien to the Islamic spirit. The best the Libyan rebels, read counter-revolutionaries, can do, is to chant ‘From Tunisia, Egypt to Libya and on, we will spread Jihad!’

Western Powers and al-Qaeda – On the Same Side

As far back as the mid 90s, a former MI5 agent,David Shayler, testified that British intelligence employed the services of an al-Qaeda cell inside Libya, paying them a large fee to assassinate Muammar Qadhafi. The assassination attempt was carried out. A grenade was lobbed at Qadhafi as he walked among a crowd in his hometown, Sirte. He was saved by one of his bodyguards, who threw herself on the grenade.

Shayler revealed that while he was working on the Libya desk in the mid 90s, British secret service personnel were collaborating with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was connected to one of Osama bin Laden’s trusted lieutenants. The LIFG officially joined al-Qaeda in 2007. On an Islamist website in 2009, Ayman al-Zawahiri welcomed them to the fold.

Over the past two years, the Libyan authorities have released scores of imprisoned Islamists from the LIFG into the custody of their families and communities in a humanitarian attempt to integrate them back into Libyan society. With a pledge that they would use the forums set up in the country, under the auspices of the General People’s Congress, to express their views. Many of the released prisoners had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and been returned to the Libyan authorities as part of an agreement with the US. If Qadhafi was truly the ruthless man the West would have us believe, then surely these rebels, classified as terrorists by the US, would have remained in prison and their fate have been very different.

One of those released in 2008 was the LIFG commander, Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi, now one of the leaders of this uprising. Over the last decade, al-Hasidi fought in Afghanistan, was captured in Pakistan in 2002, handed over to the US, and subsequently handed back to the Libyan authorities. In a recent interview with the Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasidi admitted that, “jihadists who fought in Iraq against the US are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Qadhafi.”

Libya was the first country to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. The Libyan authorities have for years tried to warn the world about the very serious threat posed by these Islamic deviants. According to David Shayler, Western intelligence turned a deaf ear to Libya’s warnings as far back as the mid 90s because they were actually working with the al-Qaeda group inside Libya, to kill Qadhafi, and roll back the Libyan revolution.

True Religion versus False Religion

The battle being fought in the Libyan desert today dates way back beyond the mid 90s. Today’s battle is essentially a battle between, on the one hand, the revolutionary Islam of Prophet Muhammad, manifest in the writings of Muammar Qadhafi and in the practice of the Libyan revolution. And on the other hand, the reactionary Islam of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) and their off shoots such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The Muslim revolutionary scholar, Ali Shariati, notes that, “the battle of history is the battle of religion against religion… true religion versus false religion.”

The Islam of the Wahhabist/Salafi sect, adhered to by the LIFG, is a reactionary interpretation and practice of Islam that seeks to replicate the political and social structures of 7th century Arabian society. Although for the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera cameras, the rebels are careful to present themselves to the world as a force fighting for ‘liberal democracy’ and to show their love and admiration for the West. Off camera, they are calling for what AQIM has named the ‘Islamic Emirate in the Maghreb’.

al-Qathafi, along with other progressive Islamic scholars, argues the message of the Quran and Islamic theology is incompatible with the idea of an emirate. They point out dynastic rule was imported into the body politic of Islam by the likes of Abu Sufyan Muawiyah, the governor of Damascus, in the period 642 to 661, who borrowed these anti-Islamic practices from the Byzantium Empire and the Persians. Qadhafi points out this particular system of governance has nothing at all to do with Islam.

The central ideological concern of Muammar Qadhafi and the Libyan revolution was to redefine Islam in the context of modern knowledge and contemporary political systems and thought. This is a task that requires us to revisit and rethink previous political systems set up by Muslims, without losing any of the Perennial Truth that is Islam.

The Third Universal Theory, outlined in Qadhafi’sGreen Book, is a comprehensive worldview – a body of philosophical, political, economic, sociological and scientific principles, all inter-related. Together they form an alternative and largely self-sufficient intellectual structure. It is a guide for authentic Islamic revolution, and can be applied to non-Islamic, popular revolutions. It ushers in a whole new social and political practice, outlining an alternative model of democracy.

Progressive academics worldwide have acclaimedThe Green Book as a serious body of political thought, offering an incisive critique of Western parliamentary democracy, capitalism and Marxist socialism. In addition, there is no denying the system of direct democracy, posited by Qadhafi’s Third Universal Theory, offers an alternative model and solution for Africa and many other parts of the ‘Third World’, where multi-party ‘democracy’ has been a dismal failure, resulting in ethnic/tribal conflict, social fragmentation and political chaos.

In his book Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of Muammar al Qadhafi, the respected Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub points out that, “the first part of the Green Book is an interpretation of one single verse of the Quran: ‘and their affairs are decided through consultation (shura) among themselves’… To others it means an assembly of jurists ruling over a traditional Islamic society strictly governed by Shariah. Only Qadhafi has taken the important Quranic precept seriously, understanding it literally, and applying it equally to every member of society.”

Ayoub further states that, “Qadhafi sees Islam as a perpetual revolution against unnecessary and illegitimate wealth, exploitation and oppression. Qadhafi asserted that the Islam which both the East and the West knew was that observed by kings and princes, as well as mendicants (darawish) who live off Islam. Thus, people thought of Islam as a reactionary movement, a message which could never keep up with life. They considered Islam simply as a religious heritage which could be venerated but which had to be kept from the fields of action and human struggle.”

This Islam, whose theology is primarily one of liberation, has been marginalised, distorted and co-opted to serve the interests of ruling elites throughout the Muslim world. Theirs is the Islam observed by kings and princes, the ‘feudal Islam’ of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) and its Wahhabi spiritual leaders, such as Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently issued a fatwa stating that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Muammar Qadhafi should do so “to rid Libya of him.”

Qaradawi is a neo-feudalist, who has defended the practice of female genital mutilation, called for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and advocates separate systems of law for different classes of citizens. Qadhafi views Qaradawi and those like him as the spiritual heirs of the corrupt Umayyad dynasty (661-750) that transformed the revolutionary Islam of the Holy Prophet into a feudal dispensation.

How does Qadhafi’s revolutionary Islam play out in practice? Why is this man and the revolution he has led such a threat? And why, over recent weeks, have people from every corner of the globe spoken out in support of Qadhafi and the Libyan revolution? Why have thousands of African freedom fighters (not mercenaries as the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera would have us believe) poured into Libya from the Congo, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso to fight to the death for this leader and Libya?

Who is this man and this revolution that has the moral authority and power to draw an army of Africans from every corner of the continent and solidarity from liberation movements, political parties and progressive governments worldwide?

A Libyan Jamahiriya

On September 1st, 1969, the 27 year old Qadhafi, an army captain, carried out a bloodless coup overthrowing the corrupt monarchy of King Idris Senussi, who had ruled Libya for 18 years. Qadhafi established what he called the Libyan Jamahiriya or the State of the Masses. When asked what was the Constitution of Libya, he replied “the Quran.”

Immediately after the 1969 coup, Qadhafi told Gamal Abdel Nasser to consider Libya a partner in his Pan-Arab project, offering Nasser access to Libyan resources in the struggle against Israel. From a young age Qadhafi understood the absolute necessity of unity if Western hegemony and colonialism was to be challenged effectively.

Not long after the revolution Qadhafi earned the wrath of the imperialists by closing the British Naval Base at Tobruk and the American Wheelus Air Base on the outskirts of Tripoli. He nationalised key sections of Libya’s vast oil resources and used his influence within OPEC to negotiate fairer prices for oil producing countries. Qadhafi used the oil revenue to benefit the Libyan people, building schools, universities, hospitals and much needed infrastructure.

During the reign of King Idris, fewer than one in five Libyans was literate and there was virtually no access to education for the majority of people. Today, Libya boasts a quality education system, free right up to university level, and the literacy rate is 83 per cent, the highest in North Africa and the Arab world. In addition, Libya has one of the finest health care systems in the ‘Third World’. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, free of charge. If a Libyan needs surgery that is unavailable in Libya, funding is provided for the surgery to be carried out overseas. Average life expectancy is now 75, during the time of King Idris it was as low as 44.

Soon after the revolution, basic food items were subsidised and electricity was made available throughout the country. Huge irrigation projects were established in order to support a drive towards agricultural development and self-sufficiency in food production.

Recognising that water, not oil, would be the most scarce resource of the future, Qadhafi initiated the construction of the Great Man Made River, which took years to complete. Referred to as the 8th world wonder, this river pumps millions of cubic metres of water daily from the heart of the Sahara desert to the coast where the land is suitable for agriculture. Any Libyan who wanted to become a farmer was and still is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, livestock and seed.

At the outset of the revolution, Qadhafi vowed to house every Libyan, many of whom were still living in tents and houses made out of flattened oil drums. He also vowed that his own parents, who lived in a tent in the Sirte desert, would not be housed until every Libyan was housed. He fulfilled that promise, his own father dying before he had the opportunity to move him into a home. Large scale housing construction took place right across the country, all Libyans being given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free. In Qadhafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”

Under the revolutionary leadership of Muammar Qadhafi, Libya has now attained the highest standard of living in Africa. Rated on the UN’s Human Development Index ahead of Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. In 2007, in an article which appeared in the African Executive Magazine, Norah Owaraga noted that Libya, “unlike other oil producing countries such as Nigeria, utilised the revenue from its oil to develop its country. The standard of living of the people of Libya is one of the highest in Africa, falling in the category of countries with a GNP per capita of between and 6,000.”

Qadhafi believes that economic democracy can only be achieved when the GDP of a country benefits all of its citizens and when the country’s wealth is dispersed to every single citizen. Today, money from Libya’s oil revenue is directly deposited into the bank account of every Libyan.

From the beginning, Qadhafi was dedicated to the emancipation of Libyan women, encouraging them to participate in all aspects of political life. The revolution ensured that women gained full access to education and has actively encouraged acceptance of female paid employment. Qadhafi has enabled women to serve in the armed forces, and as a way of breaking down stereotypes and taboos, he established a corps of female bodyguards, assigned to his protection. Libya is a very traditional society and these moves by Qadhafi have been met with stiff resistance, especially by the forces in Benghazi.

From the outset of the revolution, Qadhafi channelled a great deal of effort and resources into continued attempts, following on from Gamal Abdel Nasser, to bring about Arab unity. At meeting after meeting of the Arab League, he condemned and exposed their ineptness at arriving at a unified position in relation to the Palestinian issue and other issues relating to neo-colonial control of the region. He became impatient as he realised that the Arab rulers of the day were more interested in protecting and preserving their own parochial interests in tandem with Western imperialism, and were only too willing to stab each other in the back behind closed doors, despite their rhetoric at the summits.

He vehemently opposed the US led invasion of Iraq and condemned those Arab leaders who supported the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’, earning the wrath of the Saudi monarchy when he said that “the Kabah was under the yoke of American occupation,” and questioned “what meaning the Haj has for Muslims as long as the American occupation of the sacred House of God continues.”

He worked tirelessly to encourage African-Arab unity, and built strong relationships with African leaders and the African streets. In October 2010, at the second African-Arab summit in Libya, Qadhafi was the first and only leader in the Arab world to formally apologise for the Arab role in the trade in captured Africans. He was highly critical of Arab leaders/elites condescending attitude toward Africans, and their despicable treatment of African workers, and in particular African domestic workers in their own countries. He stated:

“I regret the behaviour of Arabs… they brought African children to North Africa, they made them slaves, they sold them like animals and treated them in a shameful way. I regret and am ashamed when we remember these practices. I apologise for this. Today we are embarrassed and shocked by the outrageous practices of rich Arabs who treat Africans with contempt and condescension.”

This riled the Arab leaders and ruling elites and was an affront to their notion of Arab supremacy.

Disgruntled with the arrogance of the Arab leaders, and a continual thorn in their side as he openly criticised their hypocrisy and servitude to Western imperialism, Qadhafi became isolated in the Arab world.

Africa Called, Qadhafi Answered

Meanwhile, Libya’s neighbours to the south were far more receptive to Qadhafi’s ideas. When African nations called, Qadhafi answered. He is passionate about the plight of Africans and Africa and longs to see the liberation of the continent and its people. He called on the African Union to give representation to Africans in the Diaspora – the US, Europe, the Caribbean and South America, and acknowledge the need to deal with the conditions of poverty, underdevelopment and marginalisation that continues to confront these communities. At a recent conference held in Libya in January this year, to address the needs and concerns of African migrants to Europe, al-Qathafi stated:

“From now on, by the will of God, I will assign teams to search, investigate and liaise with the Africans in Europe and to check their situations… this is my duty and role towards the sons of Africa; I am a soldier for Africa. I am here for you and I work for you; therefore, I will not leave you and I will follow up on your conditions.”

Today, Qadhafi is seen by Africans on the continent and throughout the diaspora as a leading Afrocentric Pan-Africanist, articulating a vision for a United States of Africa – with one government, one currency and one army.

One of Muammar Qadhafi’s most controversial and difficult moves has been his determined drive to unite Africa with a shared vision for the true independence and liberation of the entire continent. He has contributed a great deal of his time, energy and large sums of money to this project, and like Kwame Nkrumah, he has paid a high price.

Answering Qadhafi’s call, Libya deposited billion into a billion fund for the creation of a national African Central Bank (HQ to be in Nigeria), African Monetary Fund (HQ to be in Cameroun) and African Investment Bank (HQ to be in Libya), to fund health, education and communications infrastructure projects across Africa. This money, along with 45 billion Euros and even yet more billions of dollars, was confiscated by the U.S. and European countries during the past month, to prevent the 2011 launch of Africa’s own non-private supra-national monetary system.In 2007, reports also indicate that Libya contributed million of a total million to launch Africa’s first and only communication satellite, saving Africa’s 53 states around million in annual fees that used to be paid to non-African communication satellites. As a result, the cost of phone calls to and from Africa, dropped drastically, providing yet another dent in the coffers of her former colonial masters in the West.

Many years ago, al-Qathafi told a large gathering, which included Libyans and revolutionaries from many parts of the world, that the Black Africans were the true owners of Libya long before the Arab incursion into North Africa. Adding Libyans need to acknowledge and pay tribute to their ancient African roots. He ended by saying, as is proclaimed in hisGreen Book, “the Black race shall prevail throughout the world.”‘Brother Leader’, ‘Guide of the Revolution’ and ‘King of Kings’ are some of the titles that have been bestowed on al-Qathafi by Africans. Only recently al-Qathafi called for the creation of a secretariat of traditional African Chiefs and Kings, with whom he has excellent ties, more than 200 of them nominating him as their King and bestowing upon him the title of “African King of Kings” to co-ordinate efforts to build African unity at the grassroots level. This bottom up approach is widely supported by Pan-Africanists.

While the Libyan revolution has irritated the West since its inception, and although they never forgave Qadhafi for nationalising Libya’s oil, the most worrying move has been his call for the unification of Africa. After years of tireless effort on the part of al-Qathafi and the Libyan revolutionary movement, the idea of a United States of Africa is gaining real momentum and support on the continent and amongst Pan-Africanists worldwide.

Unity is something the imperialists fear and loathe. They are well aware that a united Africa would completely alter the balance of power globally. The well-documented fact is that if Africa stopped the flow of all resources and raw materials to the Western nations for just one week, the United States and Europe would grind to a halt. They are that dependent on Africa, and are therefore determined to maintain their ability to control events on the continent.

The leader of the Nation of Islam in the US, Minister Louis Farrakhan, pointed out many years ago at a conference in Libya, “Europe and the US cannot go forward into the new century without unfettered access to the vast natural resources of Africa.” He added: “Qadhafi is one who stands in their way.”

If they cannot maintain control, then at least they must try to maintain Africa’s divisions, thereby ensuring it is always in a position of weakness. African unity and true independence is something white supremacy, in all of its manifestations – capitalism, imperialism and neo-colonialism – will oppose with all its might. The French are presently spearheading a plan, with other southern European nations, to form a Mediterranean bloc, incorporating the whole of North Africa, to try to bring about the balkanisation of the continent, in an attempt to halt this unification project.

Liberation Movements Worldwide Called, Qadhafi Answered

In addition to his tireless efforts in the Arab and African worlds, in 1982 the World Mathaba was established in Libya. Mathaba means a gathering place for people with a common purpose. The World Mathaba brought together revolutionaries and freedom fighters from every corner of the globe to share ideas and develop their revolutionary knowledge. Many liberation groups throughout the world received education, training and support, including the ANC, AZAPO, PAC and BCM of Azania (South Africa), SWAPO of Namibia, MPLA of Angola, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, the Polisario of the Sahara, the PLO, the Moro National Liberation Front of the Philippines, the Pattani National Liberation Front of Thailand, the Dalits of India, Indigenous movements throughout the Americas and the Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan to name but a few.

Nelson Mandela called Muammar Qadhafi one of the 20th century’s greatest freedom fighters, and insisted the eventual collapse of the apartheid system owed much to Qadhafi and Libyan support. Mandela said that, “in the darkest moments of our struggle, when our backs were to the wall, Muammar al-Qathafi stood with us.”

Having examined not only the words and writings, but also al-Qathafi’s life time of unwavering revolutionary action dedicated to the liberation of humankind, it is not difficult to answer the questions posed above regarding how Qadhafi’s revolutionary Islam has played out in practice? Why this man and the revolution he has led is such a threat to Western powers, and why freedom fighters from all over Africa are willing to fight to the death for him and the Libyan revolution.

The Final Act – Imperialism’s Last Hideous Gasp

As neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism plunges the world deeper and deeper into chaos, Western imperialism is in crisis. As people revolt in every corner of the world, their ability to influence global affairs is challenged. Even in the economic sphere, their power is decreasing, as China, India and Brazil emerge as vital new trading partners in Africa and South America. In the words of Kwame Nkrumah, “Neo-colonialism is not a sign of imperialism’s strength, but rather of its last hideous gasp.”

As the capitalist crisis worsens, the imperialists will become more and more desperate in their attempts to regain their influence and direct events as they are used to doing. Events which they are increasingly incapable of comprehending – not only because of the speed at which these events are occurring, but also because of the complexity of the events and the paradigm shifts taking place, that are, quite simply, far outside the Western imagination.

Furthermore, they have lost all credibility as the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles continue. The Emperor is naked, and the hypocrisy of the Empire has become so transparent, that even the least informed observers are finally realising that something is horribly wrong.

Imperialism is experiencing its ‘last hideous gasp’ and it is imperative for progressive movements and decent minded citizens worldwide to seize this moment and to oppose this current assault on Libya with all of our collective strength. Those who still struggle to see the wood from the trees will remain enablers of the reactionary and destructive forces that have arrested the advancement of humanity, subjugating and enslaving us since the beginning of time.

GERALD A. PERREIRA is from Guyana and a founding member of the Guyanese organisations, Joint Initiative for Human Advancement and Dignity and Black Consciousness Movement Guyana (BCMG). He lived and worked in Libya for many years and served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defence of the Libyan revolution, and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 126 (May-June 2011).

#

 
 
 
 
 
An image grab taken from Libyan state television on Friday, Feb. 25 shows Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi gesturing at supporters during an address at the Green Square in Tripoli. Kadhafi told his supporters to “prepare to defend Libya”. (Libyan-TV / AFP – Getty Images)
“In Zawiya, this is unbelievable,” Gadhafi said. “People claim they are engineers and teachers and lecturers ,so they should have reasonable demands. But these people have no reasonable demands. Their demands are being dictated to them by bin Laden. People of Zawiya, your sons are being duped by bin Laden.”

“Zawiya is slipping from our hands because your sons are listening to bin Laden,” adding  that “a real man doesn’t use arms against innocent people.”

Gadhafi, whose voice was broadcast against a still photograph of him swathed in a brown cloak and brown headdress, Gaddafi addresses the nation, Tuesdaysaid that bin Laden and his al-Qaeda followers instigated the uprising by giving hallucinogenic drugs to young people.
“You can find them in the mosques trying to pontificate and give your sons drugs. They should be put on trial,” he said. “My brothers, you shouldn’t listen to bin Laden and his followers. I am ordering every family. Go after your sons.” Gadhafi insisted that “the whole world is siding with us to fight international terrorism, including Europe and the West.”

Tripoli’s streets were eerily quiet overnight, with portraits of Gadhafi adorning street corners and a few police cars patrolling after a day in which residents said pro-Gadhafi forces fired at and over the heads of protesters in many areas.

“Peace is coming back to our country,” one of Gadhafi’s sons, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, told reporters flown into Libya under close supervision.

“If you hear fireworks don’t mistake it for shooting,” the 38-year-old London-educated younger Gadhafi said, smiling.

He acknowledged pro-Gadhafi forces had “a problem” with Misurata, Libya’s third-largest city, and Zawiya, also in the west, where protesters had beaten back counter-attacks by the military but said the army was prepared to negotiate.

“Hopefully there will be no more bloodshed. By tomorrow we will solve this,” he said on Friday evening.

The country’s second city Benghazi fell to the opposition along with much of eastern Libya earlier in the uprising, which began more than a week ago. Gadhafi vowed to “crush any enemy” on Friday, addressing a crowd of supporters in Tripoli’s central Green Square.

State television said the government was raising wages and food subsidies and ordering special allowances for all families, a late bid to enroll the support of Libya’s 6 million citizens.

It said the Libyan officials said that some members of CNN, BBC Arabic and Al Arabiya channels would be officially allowed in the country.
 In Zawiya, 50 kilometers west of Tripoli, at the Souq Mosque, [where regime opponents had been camped], some of the young men (among the protesters, who were inside the mosque and in a nearby lot) had hunting rifles.
Mr. Gadhafi’s crackdown has so far helped him maintain control of Tripoli, home to about a third of Libya’s six-million population. But the uprising has divided the country and raised the spectre of a civil war: In cities across the east, residents rose up and overwhelmed government buildings and army bases, joined in many cases by local army units that defected. In those cities, tribal leaders, residents and military officers have formed local administrations, passing out weapons looted from the security forces’ arsenals.
In the city of Zawiya, after police fled days earlier, residents had organized local watchgroups to protect government buildings and homes. Pro-Gadhafi militiamen – a mix of Libyans and foreign mercenaries – have clamped down on the city since the Libyan leader went on state TV Tuesday night and called on his supporters to take back the streets. Residents say militiamen roam Tripoli’s main avenues, firing into the air, while neighborhood watch groups have barricaded side streets trying to keep the fighters out and protesters lay low.

 

 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Gadhafi’s son Seif al-Islam claimed Thursday that the reported death tolls have been exaggerated, although he didn’t provide his own figure. In a press conference aired on state TV, he said the number killed by police and the army had been limited and “talking about hundreds and thousands [killed] is a joke.”He also said a committee had been formed to investigate alleged foreign involvement in the protests. Earlier Thursday, Libyan TV showed Egyptian passports, CDs and cellphones purportedly belonging to detainees who had allegedly confessed to plotting “terrorist” operations against the Libyan people. Other footage showed a dozen men lying on the ground, with their faces down, blindfolded and handcuffed. Rifles and guns were laid out next to them. msnbc.com staff and news service reports updated 2/24/2011 3:25:48 AM ET 2011-02-24T08:25:48

TRIPOLI — Libya’s authorities called on protesters to surrender their weapons and offered rewards for those who inform on protest leaders, in a statement broadcast live on Libyan TV, as the opposition said it planned to liberate the capital Tripoli and “capture” Gadhafi.

Libyan security has cracked down on anti-government protesters and fighting has spread to the capital Tripoli after erupting in Libya’s oil-producing east last week with no signs of Leader Moammar Gadhafi stepping down after 41 years in power.

“He who submits his weapon and shows remorse will be exempted from being pursued legally. The committee calls on citizens to cooperate and inform on those who led on the youth or supplied them with money, equipment or intoxicating substances and hallucinatory pills,” the statement by the Libyan People’s Committee for General Security said. The committee also said a lucrative monetary reward will be given to anyone who contributes or informs on them,” the statement, read out by a Libyan army officer, said on television monitored in Cairo.

Protesters and the mutinous army units that have joined them were consolidating their hold on nearly the entire eastern half of the 1,000-mile Mediterranean coastline, stretching from the Egyptian border to Ajdabiya, about 480 miles east of Tripoli, encroaching on key oil fields around the Gulf of Sidra. Across their territory, mutinous army officers were governing, often collecting weapons looted from pro-Gadhafi troops. “There is now an operating room for the militaries of all the liberated cities and they are trying to convince the others to join them,” said Lt. Col. Omar Hamza, an army officer who had allied with the rebels in Tobruk. “They are trying to help the people in Tripoli to capture Gadhafi.”

Militiamen and Gadhafi supporters — a mix of Libyans and foreign African fighters bused in — roamed the capital’s main streets, called up Tuesday night by the Libyan leader. The gunmen fired weapons in the air, chanting “Long live Gadhafi,” and waved green flags. With a steady rain, streets were largely empty, residents said.

Last updated Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 2:54PM EST  In an exclusive statement given by telephone to the Serbian television station TV Pink, Colonel Gaddafi, in power for nearly 42 years, said that “Libya is completely calm.”

“Des gens ont été tués par des bandes terroristes qui appartiennent sans aucun doute à Al-Qaïda”, at-il tout juste reconnu au 13e jour d’une révolte sans précédent, précisant qu’un “petit groupe” d’opposants était actuellement “encerclé”. “People have been killed by terrorist bands that definitely belong to Al-Qaeda”, he just recognized the 13th day of an unprecedented revolt, noting that a “small group” of opponents was currently “circled”.

In New York, the Security Council of the United Nations has adopted a series of tough sanctions against the Libyan leader and his relatives.

La résolution est “sans valeur”, a réagi le colonel Kadhafi, balayant ainsi le gel des avoirs à l’étranger, une interdiction de voyager et un embargo sur les ventes d’armes à la Libye. The resolution is “worthless,” responded Colonel Gaddafi, sweeping and the freezing of assets abroad, a travel ban and an embargo on arms sales to Libya.

A Tripoli, des foules faisaient la queue devant les banques pour retirer les 500 dinars (environ 400 dollars ou 300 euros) promis aux familles par le gouvernement. In Tripoli, crowds lined up at banks to withdraw the 500 dinars (about 400 dollars or 300 euros) promised the families by the government. Cette mesure, annoncée vendredi, a été relayée par SMS dans les quartiers les plus fidèles au régime. This measure, announced Friday, was relayed by SMS in the city’s most loyal to the regime. Only drove into the town militia of Colonel Gaddafi, aboard 4X4. Des postes de contrôle ont été mis en place dans et autour de la capitale, où le pain et l’essence étaient rationnés, selon un habitant joint par téléphone. Checkpoints were set up in and around the capital, where bread and gasoline were rationed, according to a resident reached by telephone. “There is no fire. The morale is good. 

Gadhafi’s forces have been trying for days to push back a revolt that has won over large parts of the military. “An aircraft was shot down this morning while it was hovering over the local radio station. Protesters captured its crew,” the witness, Mohamed, told Reuters by telephone. “Fighting to control the military air base started last night and is still going on. Gadhafi‘s forces control only a small part of the base. Protesters control a large part of this base where there is ammunition.”

The European Union said Monday most of the oil and gas fields in the country are no longer in Gadhafi‘s hands, but in those of of regional families or provisional regional leaders that have emerged from the revolt and chaos. The unrest in the North African nation has sent shudders through global oil markets, with concern centering on the possibility that the unrest could spread to other OPEC members, triggering a major supply crunch that would propel prices forward and potentially undercut global economic recovery efforts.

Gaddafi’s Spokesman Mussa Ibrahim, struck a new, conciliatory tone at a briefing on Monday. He conceded that government forces had fired on civilians, but said this was because they were not properly trained…. “We also believe it is time for change,” he said. “But this movement has been hijacked by the West … and by Islamic militants.” Regional experts expect rebels eventually to take the capital and kill or capture Gadafi. The rebels have the firepower to foment chaos or civil war — a prospect Gadafi and his sons have warned of.

THE LIBYAN INSURRECTION:

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. Gadhafi, in an interview with ABC News at a seafrtont restaurant in Tripoli, dismissed a question about whether he would step down.

“My people love me. They would die for me,” he said. ABC reported that Gadhafi invited the U.N. or any other organization to Libya on a fact-finding mission.

Gadhafi denied using his air force to attack protesters but said planes had bombed military sites and ammunition depots. He also denied there had been demonstrations and said
young people were given drugs by al-Qaida and therefore took to the streets.

The turmoil in the oil-rich nation roiled markets for another day. Libya’s oil chief said production had been cut by around 50 percent, denting supplies that go primarily to Europe.

Gadhafi‘s opponents are holding the east and much of the country’s oil infrastructure; & also control pockets in western Libya near Tripoli. They are backed by mutinous army units.
Those forces appear to have a good supply of ammunition and weapons. The “Opposition-Army” is backed by numerous units of the military in the east that joined the uprising,
and they hold several bases and Benghazi’s airport. But so far, the units do not appear to have melded into a unified fighting force. The Libyan Defense Ministry denied the bombing
an ammunition depot in the rebel-held east. Gadhafi long kept Libya’s military weak,* fearing his rule to be considered a fascist-state; so, many of those units are plagued now by shortages of supplies and ammunition.

(*: Where Tunis and Egypt had existing strong armies that embodied nationalism, Gadhafi kept his military of roughly 40,000 soldiers weak.)

A helicopter that was recently liberated by revolutionaries from the Libyan military taxis on a runway at an airbase in Benghazi, Libya, on Sunday, February 27, 2011. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times/MCT)A helicopter that was recently comindeared by revolutionaries from the Libyan military, taxis on a runway at an airbase in Benghazi, Libya, on Sunday

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/27/109498/libyan-rebels-admit-their-military.html#ixzz1FLRtvDfaA government spokesman, Musa Ibrahim, said Monday night that 10 Libyan soldiers loyal to Gadhafi were killed in fighting in Zawiya, The New York Times reported. The elite Khamis Brigade, named after one of Gadhafi’s sons who commands it, is considered by U.S. diplomats to be the best-equipped brigade-force in Libya. In Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city 125 miles east of Tripoli, pro-Gadhafi troops who control part of an air base on the outskirts tried to advance Monday. But they were repulsed by opposition forces, who included residents with automatic weapons and defected army units allied with them, one of the opposition fighters said. “The Opposition” controls most of the air base, and the fighter said dozens of anti-Gadhafi gunmen have arrived from farther east in recent days as reinforcements. “An aircraft was shot down this morning….
Protesters captured its crew,” Mohamed, a witness in Misrata, told Reuters by telephone. Faraj al-Maghrabi, said the Ammunitions Depot of the eastern city of Ajdabiya was partially damaged. The site contains bombs, missiles and ammunition — key for The Opposition Military Forces.

State TV carried a statement by Libya’s Defense Ministry denying any attempt to bomb the depot. Ajdabiya is about 450 miles east of Tripoli along the Mediterranean coast. Gadhafi

supporters said they were in control of the city of Sabratha, west of Tripoli, which has seemed to go back and forth between the two camps in the past week. Several residents
told the AP that protesters set fire to a police station, but then were dispersed. Anti-Gadhafi graffiti — “Down with the enemy of freedom” and “Libya is free, Gadhafi must leave” —
were scrawled on some walls, but
residents were painting them over. There were signs of economic distress in the country, with long lines forming for bread and gasoline.

U.S. Banks froze a record billion of Libyan assets over the weekend in response to an Obama administration order aimed at pressuring the regime of Gaddafi. A senior Treasury Department
official said the amount was the largest total blocked by any single order ever issued by the U.S. government.
 

The United States said it was moving warships and air forces closer to Libya.The U.S. said all options were open, including the use of warplanes. “The Opposition” is backed by numerous units of the military in the east that joined the uprising, and they hold several bases and Benghazi’s airport.

The United States said it was moving warships and air forces closer to Libya.The U.S. said all options were open, including the use of warplanes. “The Opposition” is backed by numerous units of the military in the east that joined the uprising, and they hold several bases and Benghazi’s airport. 

According to Serbian television, Gadhafi said foreigners and al-Qaeda were responsible for the revolt. He condemned the U.N. Security Council’s decision to levy sanctions and order a war crimes inquiry.

“The people of Libya support me,” he said. “Small groups of rebels are surrounded and will be dealt with.”

Published Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 6:20AM EST

Last updated Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 2:54PM EST

Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay,

Posted on 25 February 2011 by theorbo1

video lang: en

(Traduction désactivée)

[SAVE-LIBYA] Protesters Tear Down Green Book Statue In Misrata

The recycling of Bin Laden’s men

Once NATO enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, now NATO allies in Libya

Once NATO enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, now NATO allies in Libya

by Webster G. Tarpley

Drawing on the West Point Military Academy’s analysis of records seized in the Islamic Emirate of Iraq, U.S. scholar Webster G. Tarpley demonstrates that the Libyan National Transitional Council is largely made up of elements affiliated with Al-Qaeda. In the context of a vast reorganization of its secret operations, the United States is enlisting in Libya – and in Syria – the jihadists that it is tracking down in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Bin Laden is dead! Long live the Bin Ladenists”, cynics in Washington could well be exclaiming.

Voltaire Network | Washington D.C. (USA) | 24 May 2011

+ -

<:ARTICLE>

JPEG - 15.8 kb

Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.”
Lucan, Pharsalia

The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.

But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-al-Qathafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of al-Qathafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study [1] permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

Darnah, northeast Libya: World Capital of Jihadis

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).” [2]

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” [3]

JPEG - 18.4 kb

But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.

As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.” [4] Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all.

JPEG - 14.8 kb

What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.

Felter and Fishman remark that “The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (52) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on ‘infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt’ and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jama-ah al-libiyah al-muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.” [5]

Northeastern Libya: Highest Density of Suicide Bombers

Another remarkable feature of the Libyan contribution to the war against US forces inside Iraq is the marked propensity of the northeastern Libyans to choose the role of suicide bomber as their preferred method of struggle. As the West Point study states, “Of the 112 Libyans in the Records, 54.4% (61) listed their ‘work.’ Fully 85.2% (51) of these Libyan fighters listed “suicide bomber” as their work in Iraq.” [6] This means that the northeastern Libyans were far more apt to choose the role of suicide bomber than those from any other country: “Libyan fighters were much more likely than other nationalities to be listed as suicide bombers (85% for Libyans, 56% for all others).” [7]

The anti-Qaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Merges with al Qaeda, 2007

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.” [8] This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda. [9]

Terrorist “Emir” Touts Key Role of Benghazi, Darnah in al Qaeda

The West Point study makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’” [10]

JPEG - 16.5 kb

Ammar Ashoor al-Rufaie, aka “Abu Laith al-Libi” (the Libyan), (1967-2008) took part as a teenager in the anti-Soviet struggle in Afghanistan, under the authority of Osama Bin Laden and the CIA. During the 1990’s he commanded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and was made Ayman al-Zawahiri’s assistant. He was involved in a failed Al-Qaeda attempt to oust Muammar Gaddafi. A British counter-intelligence agent, David Shayler, subsequently revealed that the operation had been ordered by Her Majesty’s services. Abu Laith “the Libyan” is said to have organized the suicide bombing of the U.S. Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan on 27 February 2007 during the visit of Vice-President Cheney. A 5 million dollar price tag was put on his head. He was eventually taken out by the CIA drone in early 2008.

This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.” [11]

The December 2007 West Point study concludes by formulating some policy options for the United States government. One approach, the authors suggest, would be for the United States to cooperate with existing Arab governments against the terrorists. As Felter and Fishman write, “The Syrian and Libyan governments share the United States’ concerns about violent salafi-jihadi ideology and the violence perpetrated by its adherents. These governments, like others in the Middle East, fear violence inside their borders and would much rather radical elements go to Iraq rather than cause unrest at home. U.S. and Coalition efforts to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq will be enhanced if they address the entire logistical chain that supports the movement of these individuals—beginning in their home countries — rather than just their Syrian entry points. The U.S. may be able to increase cooperation from governments to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq by addressing their concerns about domestic jihadi violence.” [12] Given the course of subsequent events, we are on firm ground in concluding that this option was not the one selected, neither in the closing years of the Bush administration nor during the first half of the Obama administration.

The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.” [13] This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.

Arming the Rebels: The Experience of Afghanistan

Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.

Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta. [14] This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.

A broader problem is represented by the conduct of the future Libyan government dominated by the current rebel council with its large current majority of northeastern Islamists, or of a similar government of a future Cyrenaica rump state. To the extent that such regimes will have access to oil revenues, obvious problems of international security are posed. Gamage wonders: “If the rebellion succeeds in toppling the Qaddafi regime it will have direct access to the tens of billions of dollars that Qaddafi is believed to have squirreled away in overseas accounts during his four-decade rule.” [15] Given the northeast Libyan mentality, we can imagine what such revenues might be used for.

What is al Qaeda and Why the CIA Has Used It

Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a gaggle or congeries of fanatics, dupes, psychotics, misfits, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. As noted, Al Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and the current rising star Anwar Awlaki, are evidently double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. This is precisely what is happening in Libya today.

Al Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Moslem Brotherhood or Ikhwan, itself a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who scored immense victories for his country by nationalizing the Suez Canal and building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt would be simply unthinkable. The Muslim brotherhood provided an active and capable fifth column of foreign agents against Nasser, in the same way that the official website of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is trumpeting its support for the rebellion against Colonel Qaddafi.

I have discussed the nature of Al Qaeda at some length in my recent book entitled 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, and that analysis cannot be repeated here. It is enough to say that we do not need to believe in all the fantastic mythology which the United States government has spun around the name of Al Qaeda in order to recognize the basic fact that militants or patsies who spontaneously join al Qaeda are often sincerely motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration is now doing something different, intervening on the side of a rebellion in which Al Qaeda and its co-thinkers are heavily represented while attacking the secular authoritarian government of Colonel Gaddafi. Both of these policies are bankrupt and must be abandoned.

Rebel Leaders Jalil and Younis, Plus Most of Rebel Council are Members of the al Qaeda-linked Harabi Tribe

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes. As the late Foreign Minister of Guyana Fred Wills, a real fighter against imperialism and neo-colonialism, taught me many years ago, political formations in developing countries (and not just there) are often a mask for ethnic and religious rivalries; so it is in Libya. The rebellion against Qaddafi is a toxic brew compounded of fanatical hatred of Qaddafi, Islamism, tribalism, and localism. From this point of view, Obama has foolishly chosen to take sides in a tribal war.

When Hillary Clinton went to Paris to be introduced to the Libyan rebels by French President Sarkozy, she met the US-educated Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, already known to readers of Wikileaks document dumps as a favorite of the US.

While Jibril might be considered presentable in Paris, the real leaders of the Libyan insurrection would appear to be Jalil and Younis, both former ministers under Qaddafi. Jalil seems to be the primus inter pares, at least for the moment: “Mustafa Abdul Jalil or Abdul-Jalil (Arabic: مصطفى عبد الجليل, also transcribed Abdul-Jelil, Abd-al-Jalil, Abdel-Jalil or Abdeljalil; and frequently but erroneously as Abud Al Jeleil) (born 1952) is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi…. Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi… although this position is contested by others in the uprising due to his past connections to Gaddafi’s regime.”

As for Younis, he has been closely associated with Qaddafi since the 1968-9 seizure of power: “Abdul Fatah Younis (Arabic: عبد الفتاح يونس) is a senior military officer in Libya. He held the rank of General and the post of Minister of Interior, but resigned on 22 February 2011….”

What should concern us most is that both Jalil and Younis come from the Haribi tribe, the dominant one in northeast Libya, and the one that overlaps with al Qaeda. According to Stratfor, the “…Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members’ land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes…. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.” [16] This is like a presidential ticket where both candidates are from the same state, except that Libya’s ferocious tribal rivalries make the problem infinitely worse.

The Rebel Council: Half the Names Are Kept Secret; Why?

This picture of a narrow, sectarian tribal and regional base does not improve when we look at the rebel council as a whole. According to one recent version, the rebel council is “chaired by the well-spoken former justice minister for Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, [and] consists of 31 members, ostensibly representatives from across Libya, of whom many cannot be named for “security reasons”…. “The key players on the council, at least those who we know about, all hail from the north-eastern Harabi confederation of tribes. These tribes have strong affiliations with Benghazi that date back to before the 1969 revolution which brought Gaddafi to power.” [17] Other accounts agree about the number of representatives: “The council has 31 members; the identities of several members has not been made public to protect their own safety.” Given what we know about the extraordinary density of LIFG and all Qaeda fanatics in northeast Libya, we are authorized to wonder as to whether so many members of the council are being kept secret in order to protect them from Qaddafi, or whether the goal is to prevent them from being recognized in the west as al Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers. The latter seems to be a more accurate summary of the real state of affairs.

Names released so far include: Mustafa Abduljaleel; Ashour Hamed Bourashed of Darna city; Othman Suleiman El-Megyrahi of the Batnan area; Al Butnan of the Egypt border and Tobruk; Ahmed Abduraba Al-Abaar of Benghazi city; Fathi Mohamed Baja of Benghazi city; Abdelhafed Abdelkader Ghoga of Benghazi city; Mr. Omar El-Hariri for Military Affairs; and Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, Ibrahim El-Werfali and Dr. Ali Aziz Al-Eisawi for foreign affairs. [18]

The State Department needs to interrogate these figures, starting perhaps with Ashour Hamed Bourashed, the delegate from the terrorist and suicide bomber stronghold of Darnah.

How Many al Qaeda Members, Veterans, or Sympathizers are on the Rebel Council?

Seeing as clearly as we can in the fog of war, it looks like slightly more than a dozen of the members of the rebel council have had their names officially published — in any case, not more than half of the reported 31 members. The US and European media have not taken the lead in identifying for us the names that are now known, and they above all have not called attention to the majority of the rebel council who are still lurking in the shadows of total secrecy. We must therefore demand to know how many LIFG and/or al Qaeda members, veterans, or sympathizers currently hold seats on the rebel council.

We are thus witnessing an attempt by the Harabi tribe to seize dominance over the 140 tribes of Libya. The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica. At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes. [19] All of this might be of purely academic ethnographic interest, were it not for the fact of the striking overlap between the Harabi tribe and the LIFG and al Qaeda.

The Senussi Movement of Libya — Monarchist Democracy?

The political-religious tradition of northeast Libya makes this area such fertile ground for the more extreme Muslim sects and also predisposes it to monarchism rather than to the more modern forms of government favored by Qaddafi. The relevant regional tradition is that of the Senussi or Sanussi order, an anti-western Moslem sect. In Libya the Senussi order is closely associated with monarchism, since King Idris I, the ruler installed by the British in 1951 who was overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was also the leader of the Senussi order. The Senussi directed the rebellion against Italian colonialism in the person of Marshal Rodolfo Graziani and his army in the 1930s. Today, the rebels use the monarchist flag, and may advocate the return to the throne of one of the two pretenders to the Idris line. They are far closer to monarchism than to democracy

King Idris, Revered by the Libyan Rebels of Today

Here is the Stratfor view of King Idris and the Senussi: “King Idris came from a line of rulers of the Sanussi order, a Sufi religious order founded in 1842 in Al Bayda, that practices a conservative and austere form of Islam. The Sanussiyah represented a political force in Cyrenaica that preceded the creation of the modern state of Libya, and whose reverberations continue to be felt to this day. It is no coincidence that this region is the home of Libyan jihadism, with groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The Gadhafi family has thus been calling the current uprising an elaborate Islamist plot….” [20] Under the monarchy, Libya was by some estimates absolutely the poorest country in the world. Today, Libya ranks 53 on the UN Human Development Index and qualifies as the most developed country in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Qaddafi’s stewardship has objective merits which cannot be seriously denied.

Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report has correctly sought to show the racist and reactionary character of the Libyan insurrection. The tribes of southern Libya, known as the Fezzan, are dark skinned. The tribal underpinning of the Gaddafi regime has been an alliance of the tribes of the West, the center, and the southern Fezzan, against the Harabi and the Obeidat, who identify with the former monarchist ruling class. The Harabi and Obeidat are known to nurture a deep racist hatred against the Fezzan. This was expressed in frequent news reports from the pro-imperialist media at the beginning of the rebellion evidently inspired by Harabi accounts, according to which black people in Libya had to be treated as mercenaries working for Gaddafi — with the clear implication that they were to be exterminated. These racist inventions are still being repeated by quackademics like Dean Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. And in fact, large numbers of black Africans from Chad and other countries working in Libyan have been systematically lynched and massacred by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The Obama White House, for all its empty talk of not wanting to repeat the massacre in Rwanda, has conveniently ignored this shocking story of real genocide at the hands of its new racist friends in Cyrenaica.

Against the obscurantism of the Senussi, Qaddafi has advanced the Moslem equivalent of the priesthood of all believers, arguing that no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran. He has supplemented this with a pan African perspective. Gerald A. Perreira of the Black Agenda Report writes the following about the theological division between Gaddafi and the neo-Senussi of northeast Libya, as well as other obscuranitsts: “Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for [Qaddafi] to be tried in a court…. [Qaddafi] has questioned the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so…. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.” [21] And what would be for example the status of women under the neo-Senussi of the Benghazi rebel council?

Al Qaeda from Demon to US ally in Libya

For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago. [22]

JPEG - 20.3 kb

In its 11 June 2008 edition, the New Republic attuned public opinion to the possible recycling of Bin Laden’s men.

But such a reversal of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.” [23] But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.

Northeast Libyan Jihadis Killing US, NATO Forces in Afghanistan Right Now

One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.

In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government. According to this account, a top Al Qaeda commander in northwest Pakistan was killed by US action as recently as October 2010: “A senior al Qaeda leader who serves as al Qaeda’s ambassador to Iran, and is wanted by the US, is reported to have been killed in a Predator air strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan two days ago…. [This was] Atiyah Abd al Rahman, a Libyan national who has been based in Iran and served as Osama bin Laden’s ambassador to the mullahs. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that Rahman was killed in an airstrike….” [24] The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice page for Atiyah Abd al Rahman notes that he was al Qaeda’s “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Atiyah “recruited and facilitated talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and was “also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.” [25] Rahman was ranked high enough in al Qaeda to be able to give orders to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qeada in Iraq, in 2005.

Also killed in Pakistan was another apparent northeast Libyan going by the name of Khalid al Harabi, whose choice of a nom de guerre may well link him to the jihadi farm among the Harabi tribe in Cyrenaica. According to one account, “Khalid al Harabi is an alias for Khalid Habib, al Qaeda’s former military commander who was killed in a US Predator strike in October 2008.” [26]

The Scenario Uncovered by the 1995 Shayler Affair is Operative Today

In 1995, David Shayler, an official of the British counterintelligence organization MI-5, became aware that his counterpart at the British foreign espionage organization MI-6 had paid the sum of to an Al Qaeda affiliate in exchange for the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. The assassination attempt did occur, and killed several innocent bystanders, but failed to eliminate the Libyan ruler. As Shayler understood the MI-6 scenario, it included the liquidation of Gaddafi, followed by the descent of Libya into chaos and tribal warfare, with a possible option for a direct seizure of power by al Qaeda itself. This situation would then provide a pretext for Britain, probably but not necessarily acting together with the United States or other countries, to invade Libya and seize control of the oil fields, probably establishing a permanent protectorate over the oil regions, the pipelines, and the coast. [27] This remains the goal today.

Timed to coincide with the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi, MI-6 and other Western secret intelligence agencies fomented a considerable insurrection in northeast Libya, almost precisely in the same areas which are in rebellion today. Its insurrection was successfully crushed by Qaddafi’s forces by the end of 1996. The events of 2011 are simply a reprise of the imperialist attack on Libya 15 years ago, with the addition of outside intervention..

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-433962193837007700&hl=fr&fs=true David Shayler’s testimony at the Axis for Peace Conference organized by Voltaire Network in 2005.

The War Against the Nation State

Today’s attack on Libya comes in the context of a broad attack on the institution of the sovereign nation state itself, as it has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United States and the British are deeply concerned by the large number of nations which are seeking to escape from Anglo-American hegemony by actively pursuing large-scale cooperation with Russia on security, with China on economic questions, and with Iran for geopolitical considerations. The CIA/MI-6 response has been a wild orgy of destabilizations, people power coups, color revolutions, and palace putsches, signaled by the document dumps by the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks, which has targeted names of the CIA hit mist from Ben Ali to Qaddafi. The Obama strategy would have preferred an exclusive reliance and the illusion that the Arab Spring was really a matter of youthful visionary idealists gathering in the public square to praise democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This was never the reality: the actual decisions were being made by brutal cliques of generals and top officials bribed or blackmailed by the CIA who were moving behind the scenes to oust such figures as Ben Ali or Mubarak. Whatever else Qaddafi has done, he has undoubtedly forced the CIA and NATO to drop the pleasant mask of youthful idealism and human rights, revealing a hideous visage of Predator drones, terror bombing, widespread slaughter, and colonialist arrogance underneath. Qaddafi has also ripped the mask of “Yes We Can” off Obama, revealing a cynical warmonger intent on the continuation of Bush’s infamous “Dead or Alive” and “Bring it on” policies, although by other means.

A Distant Mirror for Imperialists in Libya: Lucan’s Pharsalia

Modern imperialists eager to rush into Libya should ponder Lucan’s Pharsalia, which treats of warfare in the Libyan desert during the contest between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great at the end of the Roman Republic. A critical passage in this Latin epic is the speech by Cato of Utica, a follower of Pompey, who urges his soldiers to undertake a suicide mission into Libya, saying: “Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Cato goes forward, and finds “a little tomb to enclose [his] hallowed name, Libya secured the death of Cato….” [28]

Let us not imitate this folly.

Investigative leads from the West Point Study: An Appeal to Scholars

The West Point study, as noted, was conducted on the basis of almost 700 Al Qaeda personnel files captured by coalition forces in Iraq. The authors of the study have promised to keep available online the documentary basis of this investigation, both in the form of the raw Arabic language al Qaeda personnel files, and also of the same file cards in English translation. Assuming that this material remains available, it might be possible for researchers and reporters, and especially those with capabilities in Arabic not possessed by the present writer, to investigate the Libyan fighters who went into Iraq with a view to determining whether any of them are family members, neighbors, or even political associates of the known members of the Benghazi rebel council or of other anti-Qaddafi forces. Such a procedure could contribute to allowing the European and American public as well as others around the world to better understand the nature of the military adventure currently unfolding in Libya by gaining a more specific knowledge of who the Libyan rebels actually are, as distinct from the hollow panegyrics purveyed by the controlled Western media.

Printable version Send this article Facebook Twitter Delicious Seenthis Digg RSS

  • Your e-mail address
  • Recipient
  • Text of your message:

Attached documents

by SaveLibya | il y a 1 semaine | 4 127 vue(s)

Miniature3:02Ajouter àAjoutée à la file d’attente

video lang: ar en ar en

(Traduction désactivée)

Gaddafi’s Green Book Burning and Celebrations in Masrata Libya

Protesters in Masrata gather and burn Gaddafi’s manifesto “The Green Book” حرق الكتاب الاخضر و كل ما يتعلق به فى مصراتة اليوم الاربعاء الثانى من مارس
by ibnomar2005 | il y a 1 jour | 521 vue(s)

Miniature2:22Ajouter àAjoutée à la file d’attente

video lang: en

(Traduction désactivée)

Gaddafi’s Green Book Destroyed in Misrata Libya 22.02.112 الكتاب الأخضر للقذافي

Miniature1:40Ajouter àAjoutée à la file d’attente

video lang: ar ar

(Traduction désactivée)

تدمير مجسم للكتاب الأخضر destroy gadafi green book in tobruk

حرق مثابة اللجان الثورية وتدمير مجسم للكتاب الأخضر من قبل المتظاهرين في مدينة طبرق يوم 17-2-2011 .. هذا ويعتبر المواطنون في ليبيا ان اللجان

by bluo85 |

Libya: The Great Debate

Posted: 2011/06/27

From: Mathaba

<!–abbr title=”Coming Soon! (Not Yet Working)”><sup–><!–/sup></small–>   More: There can be no doubt at all that the situation in Libya provides one of those moments which provide a collective test to measure where Humankind stands, what its values are and how far it has progressed towards a state in which our societies are governed by the precepts of the rule of law, in which international law not only exists but is applied. Share on Twitter// Facebook

showInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (_odiogo_feed_id, ‘627306’, 290, 0);

There can be no doubt at all that the situation in Libya provides one of those moments which provide a collective test to measure where Humankind stands, what its values are and how far it has progressed towards a state in which our societies are governed by the precepts of the rule of law, in which international law not only exists but is applied.

http://ads.heyu.net/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=24&target=_top&cb=random&ct0=clickurl

HeyU Quality Ads

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
With editing by Adam King

I invite our readers to participate in an active discussion on the points raised in this article and to reflect on them before making knee-jerk reactions, because to be qualified to enter into a meaningful debate, you have to be informed. How many of those who call Muammar al-Qathafi a “dictator” have bothered to read his Green Book, how many of those who say that his humanitarian record is deplorable have bothered to read the UN Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Libyan Arab Jamahiriya?

In this report, the systematic commitment to uphold human rights in Libya by the Libyan authorities is praised, a record for which Colonel Gaddafi was to receive a UN award in March.

The sheer stupidity of the attack on Libya by a handful of (powerful) nations underlies the difference between a balanced and responsible Government and the clique of self-seeking lightweight and cheap wannabes which run Britain, France and the USA today. Due to their ill-judged impetuousness, high-handedness and arrogance, they have painted themselves and the Institution they represent – NATO – into a corner.

Let us examine the background to this conflict and let us collectively reflect on the best way out.

The background

Colonel Gaddafi (Qathafi, Kadhafi, various spellings) saw this coming, a long time ago. To start with, Benghazi and Tripoli are two cities representing, formerly, two ancient countries: Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and Benghazi has long had a radical and Islamist streak running through members of its population. This is the city which provided the highest number of suicide bombers in Iraq to act against NATO troops, this is the city which produced Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the al-Qaeda operational who recruited these terrorists for the Iraq and Afghan theatres of war.

The “rebels” are obviously funded from abroad and have been prepared for a long time. The sudden appearance of hundreds of “new” Libyan flags representing the time before Colonel Gaddafi, before he transformed Libya from the poorest country in the world to the most prosperous in Africa, was a telling sign; the timing of the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions on the Western and Eastern frontiers provided a timely, crafted no-man’s land for NATO to coordinate the operation.

The Libyan Government tried to reason with the “rebels”, contrary to what has been reported, and Colonel Gaddafi sent his son Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi to talk with them. He was promptly murdered by NATO along with three of the Colonel’s grandchildren in yet another horrific NATO war crime. Who are the rebels? See this report. And this video:

Now, here is one of the main events which sparked it all off – the “massacre” was in fact a false flag event and carried out not by Libyan Government forces (after all why would a Government commended for its human rights record suddenly start the indiscriminate shelling of civilians?) but by the “unarmed civilians” themselves:

The reaction

What was also behind this horrific surge in violence by the marauding groups of armed fanatics called “The Rebels”, basically representatives from the very dregs of society, a hotchpotch of lunatics, bandits, terrorists, criminals and opportunists, was ethnic cleansing carried out against Black Libyans. The “rebels”, indeed, refer to themselves as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.” The Wall Street Journal has also reported that the “rebels” are trained by former al-Qaeda operationals, released from the US concentration camp Guantanamo Bay.

While the Libyan Government itself has said an armed reaction was “regrettable” it has also asked what else it was supposed to do. What would anyone do if their nation was being torn apart by armed terrorists torching Government buildings and committing massacres in the streets? There is evidence of horrific “rebel” attacks against children. In this video, you can see a boy who was impaled. He later died:

By now we can see that to describe this as a fight between a “brutal dictator” and “innocent civilians who wanted freedom” is sickeningly and dangerously naïve, however easy it is to sell to generations brought up on western movies with fights between the good cowboy in the white hat and the bad cowboy in the black hat.

The danger

The problem with this simplistic attempt to brainwash the public, manipulate public opinion and whitewash NATO’s war crimes in Libya (murder of children, acting outside the rules of engagement occasioning the crimes of murder, attempted murder, criminal damage with intent, grievous and actual bodily harm) and crimes under international law, interfering in an internal armed struggle, against the UN Charter, is that it creates the space for a travesty of international law to be committed with impunity.

More seriously, this ill-planned, ill-conceived and very amateurish attempt at foreign policy and, unbelievably, a total absence of crisis management by poorly-advised politicians in countries with serious internal problems (Britain, France and the USA) has serious consequences for the future of Libya and the region. Indeed, the longer it goes on, the more ancient fault lines and tribal conflicts appear. The country has already shown a massive crack down the middle: the ancient countries of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica mentioned above and fighting in different areas is not based upon population vs. Gaddafi (who you will be surprised to hear, is genuinely liked and popular among the vast majority of Libyans, who would certainly vote for him in an election – that is why NATO refused this offer from the Libyan Government), but rather, upon ancient tribal feuds which are surfacing with every week that passes.

The solution

Deriding NATO, calling its leaders incompetent, at best and criminals, at worst, feels great. However, this situation has gone beyond name-calling and it is time for action. In this non-Clauswitzian world, in which military action can be taken by entities which are not an organised military force controlled by a State apparatus, NATO countries engaging in this murderous outrage have rendered themselves open for revenge attacks by non-State players. After all, what is the difference between the slaughter of a Libyan civilian in Tripoli and a British, French or American citizen in London, Paris or Washington? One was caused by a bomb dropped from 30,000 feet and the other, by a grenade tossed through his window? Or does NATO have some God-given right to go around the world breaking international law and committing massacres?

Such revenge attacks are not the first option, because violence engenders violence and escalates it, as is the case with the conflict in question. The answer is a political solution, so long as NATO is willing to accept one; if not, there would be no alternative in the minds of those most enraged by this travesty of international law.

NATO has painted itself into a corner – or to be more precise, certain members of NATO have painted the Organization into a corner and the squirming and twisting and turning of most of its members is visible and audible. Italy wants out (now which bases are going to be used? Who is going to admit that its territory could well be a target?), Obama is being systematically neutered in the USA and Hillary Clinton is sounding more hysterical by the day as she sees her Grand Plan slipping though her fingers (destroying the African Union which Al-Qathafi mentors and replacing it with AFRICOM).

Meanwhile, the British and French voters are starting to question why their family members are denied hospital treatment, why there are no places in schools or police on the street because their governments say they cannot afford it, when each of them has shelled out some 300 million USD to date and daily spends 50,000 to per aircraft per hour plus accommodation plus insurance and other expenses…on supporting Islamist terrorists in Libya.

Australians too must be wondering why $A70 million was given by its foreign minister to the terrorists, as “humanitarian aid”, when there are still untold problems in Queensland after it was almost wiped out by floods. Not even the US has given that much, giving only million, but out of the million (150 billion) it confiscated from the Libyan government. That’s right, the USA gave 0.01% (one hundredth of a percent) as “aid” to the terrorists, all out of Libyan money, while Australia gave Australian dollars of its taxpayers money, to aid the terrorists. No doubt the Australian People’s Conference would not have approved that.

Therefore, there is a need to help NATO extricate itself because it does not have the wherewithal to back down and lose face, even though its politicians deserve it. The best option would be to admit that the terms of Resolution 1973 (2011), namely the imposition of a no-fly zone, have been met, while at the same time accepting the Libyan Government’s offers of allowing international mediation (something it has said from the beginning), allowing the African Union to monitor the situation on the ground but not the discredited United Nations which is a mere tool of NATO, and allowing the Libyans, together with the African Union, to sort it out for themselves before it is too late and before the country and the region implode. If NATO does not accept this, then what exactly is it supporting? Obviously not democracy.

NATO’s reputation therefore rests, once and for all, upon a decision to use the get-out strategy referred to above.

#

http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya

More: There can be no doubt at all that the situation in Libya provides one of those moments which provide a collective test to measure where Humankind stands, what its values are and how far it has progressed towards a state in which our societies are governed by the precepts of the rule of law, in which international law not only exists but is applied.
showOdiogoSubscribeButton (_odiogo_directory_name);

Obama and NATO Turn Libya, and a B Check, Over to Jihadists

by Tara Servatius

07/24/2011

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44986&mid=57


How would Americans feel if they knew the Obama administration just agreed to hand people affiliated with a designated terrorist group a billion dollar check and recognize them as the legitimate rulers of Libya?

Things weren’t looking so good for the  Libyan Islamic Fighting Group back in 2004when they were designated a foreign terrorist group by the State Department.  In chilling testimony, then-CIA Director George Tenet warned the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 that even if Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda was completely destroyed, “a global network of Islamic extremists bent on killing Americans had emerged.”  Tenet listed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) as one of those groups.

In 2007, the LIFG formally joined al-Qaeda, an event so well documented that evenReuters covered it.  Its goals, which it is now close to achieving thanks to airpower help from President Obama and NATO, include killing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, setting up an Islamic caliphate in Libya and waging international jihad.

The known leaders of the Libyan rebel forces on the ground are all former LIFG fighters, some with documented personal connections to al-Qaeda.  The Transitional National Council, which the Obama administration recognized last week as the official government of Libya, is packed with pro-LIFG activists, lawyers who have advocated for imprisoned LIFG fighters, and Islamic scholars from LIFG strongholds.

Something smells strongly of jihad here.

What Americans have been told about Libya is that there were some protests, some people rebelled, and Gaddafi started killing them, so we had to intervene.  The media never got around to explaining that the people behind the “Day of Rage” protests in Libya that kicked off the civil war were supporters of the more than 1,000 LIFG fighters who were killed in a prison massacre in 1995 by Gaddafi after they attempted an uprising.  Gaddafi had jailed them to halt their jihadist takeover of the country and save his own skin.

The LIFG has waged jihad against American forces before.  Documents captured by allied forces in 2007 show LIFG fighters made up the second-largest cohort of jihadists battling in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.  After that, it appears that many of their military leaders transferred their expertise to Libya.

Gaddafi is a brutal dictator with a long history of support for terror, but his ruthless zeal for taking out the LIFG and their fellow jihadists in the post-9/11 era was one of the reasons he was able to forge a relationship with the U.S. during the Bush administration.

But that was then.  In a bizarre twist that defies explanation, under Obama, Gaddafi’s repression of LIFG sympathizers and allied jihadist rebel groups—the very people Tenet once warned us about—is now being used by NATO and the Obama administration to justify taking Gaddafi out and turning over the country’s wealth to the LIFG-connected leadership.

Over the past few years, Gaddafi made a series of fatal errors.  As part of a goodwill gesture aimed at quieting civil unrest in the deeply Islamic eastern part of the country, the Gaddafi family released hundreds of imprisoned LIFG fighters.  They immediately took up arms against his regime, declaring the eastern part of the county an Islamic caliphate.  Gaddafi had largely beaten the rebels and their sympathizers into submission when the unthinkable happened and the U.S. and NATO decided to intervene on their behalf, not his.

Allegedly, this was to save some civilians or something.

Oddly though, one of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invaded Libya in March was to help the rebels capture the oil fields.  If Libya’s radical Islamists can get their hands on that oil revenue, they will control oil fields capable of generating billion worth of black gold a year.  You can sure fund a lot of jihad with that.

Earlier this year, a debate broke out over whether there were al-Qaeda fighters in the rebel ranks.  The answer the Washington establishment settled on was that there were “flickers” here and there.

But everyone was asking the wrong question.

A better question would have been about the extent to which LIFG fighters were leading the ground battle.

It is well-documented that a handful of former Gaddafi military leaders oversaw the rebellion in Libya.  But the actual training of troops and fighting on the ground was largely led by LIFG veteran fighters fresh from battling U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Among them were LIFG veteran fighters such as Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, who has admitted to fighting allied forces in Afghanistan and was turned over to Libya by the U.S. after his capture in 2002.

His field commander on the front lines, Salah al-Barrani, is also a well-known LIFG fighter.  Before serving as a Libyan rebel commander, former Guantanamo inmate Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was transferred to Libya in 2007, was named to the military committee of the LIFG in between stints training with al-Qaeda and fighting alongside the Taliban.

Fewer than half of the 33 members of the Transitional National Council (TNC), which the LIFG-led rebels now say they answer to, are even publicly known.  The rest have gone unnamed, supposedly to protect their families.  Several of those who are known have ties to or were supporters of the LIFG, did legal work for LFG fighters or advocated on their behalf when they were repressed by Gaddafi.

A graduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who did an extensive technical analysis of the new Libyan leadership warned that the radical Islamists are now one of three groups vying for power among the Obama-recognized Libyan leadership, and that TNC members already sympathetic to them might ally themselves with the radical jihadists to grow their power.

At stake?  Again, billion in Gaddafi-frozen assets that the U.S. promised to turn over to the TNC, and Libya’s oil.

Senior militants in online chat rooms monitored by the West seem to know the score, and are urging a patient, long-term approach rather than a quick revolution, The Australianreports:  “One forum leader warns that declaring an Islamic emirate in Libya would prompt a Western invasion, and stresses instead that they should build up their military forces, ‘educate the people’ on the need for an Islamic state, ‘and then declare the emirate, with weapons, economy and a people ready to fight for Allah.’”

That should be no problem with the billions provided by Obama and NATO to fund it all.


Tara Servatius is radio talk show host. Follow her on Twitter:  @TaraServatius, and Facebook.

____________________________________________________________

YEMEN:

 

Houthis Back Protests and Warn Saleh

Posted on 17 February 2011 by hashimilion

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of the Shia Zaydi movement in Yemen gave an important speech on the 16th of February. It was made during the occasion of the birthday of the Prophet Mohammad, where he was greeted by an enormous crowd.

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi congratulated the peoples of both Tunisia and Egypt, for winning their freedom from their corrupt regime.

He said that a lot of lessons can be learned from the events in Tunisia and Egypt. The most important lesson was that people are in control of their own destiny. Change cannot be achieved through silence, people must strive for change for it to take place.

He also said that Yemen has a great opportunity to change it’s oppressive regime, and that his movement is ready to support the protestors in Sanaa.

Abdul-Malik also warned against any aggression directed at his movement. He said that: “any aggression will result in humiliation, failure and the complete collapse of the aggressor. If the regime wishes to pursue a 7th war, it will be surprised by the manner of the defeated. You have been warned.”

Al-Houthi also advised “the big criminal” Ali Abdullah Saleh:” you’ve damaged the country for 30 years, the country is filled with oppression and corruption. You deceived the people and plundered the wealth of the country. You murdered and imprisoned thousands of Yemenis. You betrayed the people of Yemen when you decided to cooperated with the Israelis, Americans and Saudis in killing our sons. Leave this country so that the people of Yemen can fix and build what you have destroyed. Leave you criminals. Allah will punish you, look at Egypt.”

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi also spoke about America’s presence in Yemen. He said that America wants to control the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Bab-el-Mandeb and the Arab sea. Effectively Yemen’s seas are under American occupation and the Saleh Government is client of America.

al-Houthi added that Yemen had lost it’s soverignty over its airspace. American plans continue to fly over Yemen in order to conduct military operations. American plans had bombed and killed Yemenis in Sa’dah, Abyan, Shabwah and Ma’rib provinces.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Pleas for Humanity to honor peace, justice and human rights #3605 [url] [-]
avatar Member Posts: 602611/24/10 04:05:31Member
“I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it.” [Ratzinger:”Salt of the Earth”] image  May Our Papa’s radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!

Last Edited By: galantarie 11/24/10 04:58:27. Edited 2 times.

Interact

Edit Reply Quote
onlinegalantarie #3606 [url] [-]
avatar Member Posts: 603211/24/10 05:00:40Member

Last Edited By: galantarie 11/24/10 05:52:20. Edited 1 time.

Interact

Edit Reply Quote
onlinegalantarie Muslim Islamists are at War against Ahmadinejad #3607 [url] [-]
avatar Member Posts: 603511/24/10 05:56:25Member

Last Edited By: galantarie 11/24/10 06:06:16. Edited 2 times.

Interact

Edit Reply Quote
onlinegalantarie Noel 2008…a sincere and sweet message of hope, love and peace/& AWAITING JESUS! #3608 [url] [-]
avatar Member Posts: 604111/24/10 07:43:54Member

Last Edited By: galantarie 11/24/10 08:26:00. Edited 1 time.

I
 

JAMES STEWART writes us:

“Ok let me let YOU in on a “wake up call”. Iran has signed the “Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement” and Israel has NOT. Now by LAW the USA may NOT have anything to do with any Country or State that has Nuclear Weapons and has NOT signed that agreement. Also by law the USA must help any signing Country or State with their Nuclear Program. That is the Law. Now since we are talking about Law, out of the 2 … only Israel is under total Defiance of Inter

national Law. Iran complies. Iran has not attacked anybody since 1917 & they have purely a defensive force. Their Military spending is roughly 1/4 that of Saudi Arabia. Lastly, and most importantly, ANYONE exploding a Nuclear Weapon in the Middle East is committing suicide. Especially Iran, as even without retaliation, the Nuclear Cloud would travel directly from Israel over Iran, which is where MOST of the Nuclear Death comes from. Now unplug CNN, get a brain & Google it if you do not know these facts.”https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=284566568311730&set=a.251925374909183.40134.251534891614898&type=1&theater
Photo : <3

———————————————————————————————————– Mahmoud Ahmadinejad very Young Pictured here is Mahmoud Ahmadinjad as a young BEARDLESS Iranian revolutionary. Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinejad: Mideast upheaval will reach America

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
updated 59 minutes ago 2011-02-23T12:06:00

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s president said Wednesday he is certain the wave of unrest in the Middle East will spread to Europe and North America, bringing an end to governments he accused of oppressing and humiliating people. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s own country resorted to force to disperse an opposition rally earlier this month. “The world is on the verge of big developments. Changes will be forthcoming and will engulf the whole world from Asia to Africa and from Europe to North America,” Ahmadinejad told a news conference Wednesday.The tone of the remarks seemed to draw on the belief by Muslims that a revered saint, known as the Hidden Imam, will appear before Judgment Day to end tyranny and promote justice in the world. Ahmadinejad said the world was in need of a just system of rule that “puts an end to oppression, occupation and humiliation of people.*1″…”It’s a wave that’s coming,” he said.  Ahmadinejad spoke of the absurdity of the accusation that al-Qathafi would hurt his own people! “This is very grotesque. It is unimaginable that there is someone who kills and bombards his own people. I strongly advise them to let nations have their say and meet their nations’ demands if they claim to be the officials of those nations,” Ahmadinejad said. “Of course anyone who does not heed the demands of his own nation will have a clear fate,” he added. He seemed to have an air of disbelief that the reports were true about Muammar al-Qathafi (killing his citizens), who does not even hold a position of political power in the Holy Jamahiriya! Copyright 2011 edited from The Associated Press report. *1: THAT SYSTEM is the Third Universal Theory of Muammar al-Qathafi (HOLY JAMAHIRIYA). The Third Universal Theory is the only Salvation for our ailing Planet. Many hold to the belief that Muammar al-Qathafi is not only an IMAM and Mujjadid, he is also the MAHDI!   03 MAY 2010 al-Qathafi on Ahmadinejad:

Der Spiegel interview by Bernhard Zand

SPIEGEL: And how do you view Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Gadhafi: He is cooperative, a revolutionary, but not aggressive. And he believes that he is right. Why are the Israelis not kept in check by the West? Why do these campaigns always only focus on Syria, Iraq and Iran? Why is Israel omitted when everyone of course knows that Israel has nuclear weapons? If Obama wants to be successful, he has to start by controlling the Israelis and eliminating Israeli weapons of mass destruction, and then he will also be successful in Iran and throughout the entire region.

SPIEGEL: Ahmadinejad says that Israel should be wiped off the map. [HE DID NOT. THAT IS A TWISTED LIE!]

You on the other hand have spoken for years in favor of a state in which Israelis and Palestinians would live together.

Gadhafi: I don’t think that Ahmadinejad means the violent destruction of Israel when he says this. I think he is thinking of a new democratic state structure to replace the current state of Israel — on the territory of what is geographically Palestine. No one is talking about throwing Jews into the sea.

__________________

SPIEGEL: You always supported German unity, even at the height of the Cold War, and in the end you proved to be correct. But you have been proved wrong in some of your other predictions, for example that there will never be “an Islamic nuclear bomb.”

[PROVEN TRUE. Ahmadinejad does not desire an atomic bomb or weapons of Mass Destruction.]

What gives you such a sense of confidence in your frequent predictions?

Gadhafi: I look at the facts and calculate the consequences — and when it came to Germany, it was the same as everywhere in the world: Two and two make four. There is no other answer.

SPIEGEL: Where do you get your facts? Do you watch television? Do you read books?

Gadhafi: I get most of them from the Internet. I constantly sit at my computer. I read in Arabic, but now it is of course also possible to immediately get translations from English.

Young Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President leads the faithful awaiting return of 12th imam

Ahmadinejad uses saviour of Shia Islam as powerful tool in political arena

The Guardian, Tuesday 21 February 2006

The deep percussive thud sounded ominously like the drums of doom – an impression compounded by the preacher’s doleful wailing and the copious weeping of thousands of worshippers.However, the bass-like rhythm was produced not by drums, but by the beating of countless hands against chests in the age-old ritual of Shia Islamic worship.
And the faithful inside the packed prayer hall were conveying a message not of dread, but of fervent hope.Encouraged by the preacher’s impassioned pleas, they were expressing their desire for the return of the hidden, or 12th, imam – the revered saviour of Shia Islam, whose reappearance after more than a millennium in occultation is awaited by believers in a manner similar to that with which Christian fundamentalists anticipate the second coming of Jesus.
In Shia Islam, the hidden imam is predicted to reappear in Mecca and herald a new dawn of justice after the world has been torn asunder by violence and oppression.
“O thou who are close to God, be the middle man between us and God,” bellowed the preacher, prompting a noisy chorus of tearful sobs from the crowd in Jamkaran, a 1,000-year-old, five-domed shrine on the outskirts of the holy city of Qom, home to Iran’s religious ruling establishment. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all corners of Iran go there every Tuesday night – when the imam’s spirit is said to be present – to pray for their saviour’s return and ask him to perform miracles.
Such devoutness is in harmony with the beliefs of Iran’s ultra-Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has put the hidden imam’s long-awaited return at the heart of his political philosophy in a manner not exhibited by his predecessors.
Mr. Ahmadinejad‘s preoccupation is reported to have driven his government to allocate $17m (£9.7m) to Jamkaran’s renovation. Officials at the shrine deny knowledge of such funding, but two enormous, half-completed minarets attest to the availability of large amounts of cash.Yet even within Iran’s theocratic governing system, Mr. Ahmadinejad‘s decision to bring Shia Islam‘s most fundamental tenet into the political arena is deeply controversial.
Some characterise his motives as a ploy designed to manipulate the religiously inclined and warn that it could be used to undermine the country’s version of Islamic democracy.”
Using the 12th imam for political purposes and telling people to prepare the streets to await his return is wrong and a misuse of Islam. Nobody knows when he is going to return,” said Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, once in line to become Iran’s supreme leader but now under house arrest for his liberal views.
“Perhaps they think they are going to draw the attraction of people through this. But the risk is that people will start identifying politics with Islam and the prophets and as soon as they spot political defects, they will blame Islam.”
In what has been depicted as an example of Mr. Ahmadinejad‘s excessive religious devotion, a video has been circulated in which he is heard telling a leading ayatollah of having felt “a light” – coming from the imam – while making a fiery speech to the UN on Iran’s nuclear programme last September.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has dismissed the video as part of a campaign of “psychological warfare” by his enemies.  But he is unabashed about his robust beliefs on the hidden imam.
Mr. Ahmadinejad told a recent press conference:
“His name is known and he will emerge and establish justice in the world. I’m proud of this belief. It’s not just a religious belief, it’s very progressive. A belief in the 12th imam is a belief in the world of tomorrow.”
His vocal support has prompted talk of grandiose projects for Jamkaran including a special rail link with Tehran, nearly 100 miles away.
Mr Ahmadinejad is tapping into a deep reservoir of religious fervour that has not run dry since the 1979 Islamic revolution. An estimated 17 million pilgrims visit Jamkaran every year.
Between 500,000 and 600,000 pass through its gates each Tuesday evening during the summer.
The figure falls to 300,000 in the winter months.Many have been coming every Tuesday for the past 40 weeks or longer, believing that their requests for such earthly desires as a job or a cure for a sick child have been realised.
Requests are written on a piece of paper addressed to the imam and deposited into a wishing well.
“I made a vow to come every week if my husband found a job and my wish was fulfilled,” said Khadidje, 26, her eyes wet with tears. “I also prayed that my uncle would be cleaned up from his drug addiction and that also came true. I believe the imam is alive and present here. He is our master.”
Others express a desire for political developments that would please Mr. Ahmadinejad.
“What I hope is that Palestine will get its freedom back. Iran alone cannot free Palestine,” said Farzad Kahzadi, 24, a police officer, who had come from Tehran with his wife to pray for the resolution of a work problem.
“I agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map, but not through war. By the appearance of the 12th imam, Israel would be wiped out automatically.”
Asghar Hatami, 25, a construction businessman who backed Mr. Ahmadinejad in last year’s presidential election, said:
“I hope the 12th imam’s return would bring justice, peace and fairness in the world and put an end to countries like America oppressing Islamic countries, including Iran.”
Mr Ahmadinejad‘s critics believe his public proclamations on the 12th imam go to the heart of a debate on the nature of Iran’s Islamic republic system of government provoked by recent comments from his religious mentor, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi.
Questioning the necessity for elections, Mr. Mesbah-Yazdi, a hardline cleric, said the system’s Islamic component should override the republican element, meaning officials should derive their authority from God rather than people’s votes.
Ahmadinejad is just deceiving the masses,” said Abdel Reza Tajik, political editor of the liberal Shargh newspaper.
“They have been elected by people’s votes but now that they want to put democracy under question, they argue that legislation and legitimacy should come from somewhere else – and that somewhere else is the 12th imam.”
But the president’s supporters insist he is merely stressing the purist values of the revolution.
“In our political system, we are already following and practising for the return of the 12th imam by following the word of our supreme leader,” said Hamid Reza Tarighi. “We are introducing a pattern for an Islamic society. The world should know what kind of pattern and society we long for. That is one of Mr. Ahmadinejad‘s slogans.”

 

Pictures courtesy of

Old 10-28-2008, 04:55 AM

Amir's Avatar
.

The funny little guy with Governor Schwartzennagger on 04 JUNE 2007 is Ahmadinejad! Yes, yes, he’s quite deceptive sporting the clean-shaven look, but the evidence is as undeniable as the fact that there are no homosexuals in Iran…. Many Islamists despise Kadhafi of Libya and Ahmadinejad of Iran because they do not sport massive beards! & cite their Quaran:

Shaving The Beard: A Modern Effeminacy Abu`Abdillah Muhammad al-Jibaly, Al-Quran Was-Sunnah Society

The Islamic Ruling Concerning Beards

Growing the beard is a wajib (mandatory) for all males

A List of Violations

Shaving the beard results in a series of Islamic violations, as is obvious from Allah’s Book and His Messenger’s Sunnah. The following is a list (not necessarily comprehensive) of such violations:

a. A Disobedience to Allah (T) Shaving the beard is a disobedience to Allah (T). The ruler of Yemen, appointed by the Persian emperor Kisraa, sent two envoys to the Messenger (S) to summon him. When they came into his presence, he noticed that they had shaved their beards and grew their moustaches. He hated to look at them (because of their odd appearance) and he said: Woe be to you, who told you to do so? They replied: “Our lord! (referring to Kisraa.)” The Messenger (S) then said:But my Lord, may He be exalted and glorified, has commanded me to leave alone my beard and to trim my moustache. [Recorded by Ibn Jar r a-abar , and judged to be Hasan (good) by al-Albani.] b. A Disobedience To the Messenger (S) Shaving the beard is a disobedience to the Messenger (S). In many hadiths, the Messenger (S) commanded men to leave alone their beards. These different hadiths have a similar meaning: Trim the moustache and save the beard. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] Obeying the Messenger (S) in that is equivalent to obeying Allah (T) who said (what means): He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah. [An-Nisaa 4:80] c. A Deviation from the Appearance and Guidance of the Messenger (S) Shaving the beard is a deviation from the appearance and guidance of the Messenger (S). The Messenger (S) used to have a large beard [Muslim]. One should strive to imitate him (S) in his practices, as Allah (T) said (what means):In the Messenger of Allah is a good example for you to follow. [Al-Ahzab 33:21] And the Messenger (S) said: Verily, the best guidance is Muhammad’s guidance. [Muslim] d. A Deviation from the Way of Believers Shaving the beard is a deviation from the way of believers. All the prophets (S), the sahbah (Prophet’s companions), the great `ulamaa, and the righteous early Muslims of this Ummah (Nation) grew their beards. There is no report of a single one of them ever shaving his beard. Thus, this is their way, and Allah (T) says (in the meaning): Whoever disobeys the Messenger after guidance has been clarified to him, and follows other than the path of the believers, We shall give to him what he deserves and broil him in hell, which is the worst abode. [An-Nisaa 4:115] e. An Imitation of the Disbelievers Shaving the beard is an imitation of the disbelievers. This has been emphasized in several hadiths of the Prophet (S). For example: Cut the moustaches and grow your beards. Be different from the Magians (followers of a religion that dominated in Persia). [Muslim] Cut your moustaches and leave your beards alone. Be different from the people of the scripture. [Muslim] Be different from the Mushrikin (those who worship other than Allah (T)); trim your moustaches and save your beards. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] We have been commanded to be different and distinct from the disbelievers, as in surat ul-Fatihah. Also, Allah (T) said (what means): Follow not the whims of those who have no knowledge (of Islam). [Al-Jathiyah 45:18] And His Messenger (S) said: Whoever imitates a people is but one of them. [Recorded by Abu Dawud, and judged to be authentic by al-Albani] f. Changing Allah’s Creation without Permission The Messenger (S) declared that the women who change what Allah (T) has created (such as removing the hair from their faces or filing their teeth or tattooing their bodies) seeking by that to improve their appearance, are accursed by Allah (T). [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] The hadith mentioned women in particular because they normally seek to beautify themselves more than men. But the warning surely applies to both sexes, because the condition for the curse is declared, and thus the curse applies to anyone who satisfies such condition. Shaving the beard falls under this warning, as it is much worse than the Nam (removal of facial hair) practiced by some women. It involves obeying Satan who said: And I shall tempt them until they change what Allah has created. [An-Nisaa 4:119] g. An Imitation of Women The beard is a major distinction between men and women. Shaving it removes this distinction, and is thus a means of imitating women. The Messenger (S) said: Allah curses those men who imitate the women, and He curses those women who imitate the men. [Al-Bukhari] h. Shaving the Beard Contradicts the Pure Fitrah (Nature) Allah’s Messenger (S) mentioned ten qualities as indicative of a good, clean nature [Muslim]. Two of these qualities are to trim the moustaches and to grow the beard. The Messenger (S) also tells that every child is born with a clean, pure fitrah, which later may get deformed by the influence of the environment and the up-bringing. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. In the footsteps of the disbelievers, many Muslims’ fitrah is now, unfortunately, so much deformed that they seem to find a clean-shaven man more handsome and masculine than one with a beard – exactly the opposite of what the Messenger (S) declared in the above hadith. This fitrah never changes with time: Allah (T) said (what means): The pure nature according to which Allah has created people. There is no change in Allah’s creation. [Ar-Room 30:30] For shaving their beards, some men give the strange excuse that their wives prefer them without one! As if their purpose in this life is to follow the deformed inclinations of their wives instead of the clear-cut commands of Allah (T) and His Messenger (S)! Others claim that growing their beards results in an irritability and scratching. This cannot result from abiding by the pure fitrah, but would result (if true) from neglect of the proper cleaning and washing with wudu as instructed in the Sunnah.

What the `Ulamaa and Imams Say

All the `ulamaa of as-Salaf u- li, including the Four Imams, agreed that shaving the beard is haram (prohibited). They considered shaving it an impermissible mutilation, as has been reported about Umar bin Abdil-Aziz. They used to consider the person who shaved his beard effeminate. Many of them would not accept his witness or allow him to lead the prayers.

 May Allah (T) guide us to abide by His Deen, and to adhere to His Messenger’s Sunnah, and to be among those whom he blessed in both lives. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___  ______Why many people, all over the world, call him their leader but he know himself, only their little brother. Allah bless him and his followers. “Please don’t forget to click on “Suggest to friends” under logo to help Ahmadinejad fans.”

 
Our today gift for Ahmadinejad Fans : Dr. Ahmadinejad and Seyed Hassan Nasrallah ,2007,summer (don’t forget to suggest this page to your friends) / Allah bless you all
 A funny picture from president ! among one of Ahmadinejad speeches this girl – who is daughter of Shahid (who killed for Islam in fights) – come near president and try to silence people who shout their love to president ! Enjoy

__________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Library Binding:112 pages
    THIS IS THE BETTER BOOK 
  • Belle reliure: 112 pages
  • Editeur : Rosen Publishing Group (août 2007)
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 1404219005
  • ISBN-13: 978-1404219007
  • ISBN-10: 1404219005
  • ISBN-13: 978-1404219007

24 October 2007 (Wednesday) HECTORwrites:

Ahmadinejad was asked whether or not he seeks the destruction of Israel at Columbia University, and this is what he said. Judge for yourself: CNN.NET

“We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord.

Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there. We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.” His words sound like the foundations of true democracy to me.

Published on Sep 26, 2012 by 

This video is banned for broadcast on News Networks in USA, Israel and Europe. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel and US does not want you to see. Jewish leaders and prominent businessmen Greet Ahmadinejad with Inshallah and Bless him for long life. Jews have lived in Iran for thousands of years. Over 50,000 Jews live in Teheran. Israeli Jews Love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

War should be outdated in 21st Century. War is a primitive way of forcefully imposing your rules on others. This is times when we should solve our problems across the table like educated people.

Of course some people who are in business of manufacturing weapons, fighter jets and Warships will be pissed. Therefore they are funding propaganda thru channels like FOX, CBS and MSNBC. Stop watching the lies spread by media, especially FOX News.

Please also watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxzZY4JycY&feature=plcp

يحظر هذا الفيديو للبث على شبكات الأخبار في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وإسرائيل وأوروبا. محمود أحمدي نجاد إسرائيل والولايات المتحدة لا تريد لك أن ترى. زعماء اليهود ورجال الأعمال البارزين . لقد عاش اليهود في إيران منذ آلاف السنين. أكثر من 50،000 يهودي في طهران. اليهود الإسرائيليين الحب محمود أحمدي

5.0 out of 5 stars A  comprehensive young adult biography of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,April 20, 2009

By
D. Fowler “Dragonfly77” (Vermont) – See all my reviews (VINE VOICE)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)
This review is from: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Retour aux informations sur le produit

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: President of Iran (Belle reliure)

de Matthew Broyles (Auteur)

Perhaps you have heard the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the news many times, but have no idea who he is, where he comes from and why we hear about him so often. He is the president of Iran and according to this book, “the histories of the United States and Iran are thickly entangled.” One of the many things we often hear about are stories about Shiite and Sunni Muslims. In the history section of this book, we are told the difference. In addition to a brief history of Iran we also learn about its former leadership. Mahmoud was born in 1956 in the small village of Garmsar. He was a very bright student who went on to be a civil engineering student, but he was also very interested in politics. During times of political unrest Mahmoud listened and learned. It is a topic of debate whether or not he was a participant in the American hostage crisis. In 1980 Ahmadinejad’s role in politics began to spiral upwards. Chapters in this book include: Persian and Iranian History, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolution, The Iran-Iraq War, The Iranian System of Government, Ahmadinejad Rises to Power and Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Nuclear Program. This is a very interesting, comprehensive and well written young adult biography of Ahmadinejad. In the back of the book there is a nice timeline of his life, a glossary, additional recommended sources of information (including physical addresses and web sites), a thorough bibliography and index. As the Broyles states in the last chapter, “When the history of the twenty-first century is written, the name Ahmadinejad will undoubtedly be featured prominently.” This is a man young people need to acquaint themselves within their studies.

Ahmadinejad allies charged with sorcery

Iranian power struggle between president and supreme leader sees arrests and claims of undue influence of chief of staff

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who is described as ‘the actual president of Iran’ by allies of the country’s supreme leader.
Close allies of Iran‘s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being “magicians” and invoking djinns (spirits).Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as “a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds”.The arrests come amid a growing rift between Ahmadinejad and Khameneiwhich has prompted several MPs to call for the president to be impeached.On Sunday, Ahmadinejad returned to his office after an 11-day walkout in an apparent protest over Khamenei’s reinstatement of the intelligence minister, who the president had initiallyasked to resign.Ahmadinejad’s unprecedented disobedience prompted harsh criticism from conservatives who warned that he might face the fate of Abdulhassan Banisadr, Iran’s first post-revolution president who was impeached and exiled for allegedly attempting to undermine clerical power.Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, a hardline cleric close to Khamenei, warned that disobeying the supreme leader – who has the ultimate power in Iran – is equivalent to “apostasy from God”.Ahmadinejad has so far declined to officially back Khamenei’s ruling over Heydar Moslehi, the minister at the centre of the row. In the first cabinet meeting since the president returned, Moslehi was absent.Khamenei’s supporters believe that the top-level confrontation stems from the increasing influence of Mashaei, an opponent of greater involvement of clerics in politics, who is being groomed by Ahmadinejad as a possible successor.But the feud has taken a metaphysical turn following the release of an Iranian documentary alleging the imminent return of the Hidden Imam Mahdi – the revered saviour of Shia Islam, whose reappearance is anticipated by believers in a manner comparable to that with which Christian fundamentalists anticipate the second coming of Jesus.Conservative clerics, who say that the Mahdi’s return cannot be predicted, have accused a “deviant current” within the president’s inner circle, including Mashaei, of being responsible for the film.Ahmadinejad’s obsession with the hidden imam is well known.
He often refers to him in his speeches and in 2009 said that he had documentary evidence that the US was trying to prevent Mahdi’s return.
Since Ahmadinejad’s return this week, at least 25 people, who are believed to be close to Mashaei, have been arrested. Among them is Abbas Amirifar, head of the government’s cultural committee and some journalists of Mashaei’s recently launched newspaper, Haft-e-Sobh.
On Saturday, Mojtaba Zolnour, Khamenei’s deputy representative in the powerful Revolutionary Guard, said: “Today Mashaei is the actual president. Mr. Ahmadinejadhas held on to a decaying rope by relying on Mashaei.”

Iran’s president and supreme leader in rift over minister’s reinstatement

MPs call for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be impeached after his refusal to back Khamenei’s judgment

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not been seen in public since Friday. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images
A rift is emerging between Iran‘s president and its supreme leader, prompting several members of the parliament to call for the impeachment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has not been seen in public for days.
Ahmadinejad has refused to appear at the presidential palace since Friday in what is being seen as a reaction to Ayatollah Khamenei’s reinstating of a minister he initially “asked to resign”. Under pressure from Ahmadinejad the intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, a close ally of the supreme leader, stepped down on 17 April but was reinstated when Khamenei asked him in a letter to stay. The president has not publicly shown his support for that decision and on Wednesday he refused for the second time to chair a cabinet meeting in which Moslehi was present.
Ahmadinejad also reportedly cancelled an official visit to the holy city of Qom prompting reactions among conservatives that “the president was sulking”. Under Iran’s constitution, the president is in charge of appointing cabinet ministers who will hold the ministerial office after the approval of the parliament but an unwritten law requires all officials to abide by the supreme leader. Iran’s opposition has speculated that Khamenei is worried about the increasing power of Ahmadinejad and especially his chief-of-staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei.
Khamenei is believed to be particularly concerned about two key positions in the cabinet, the ministry of foreign affairs and the intelligence ministry, where he traditionally has influence. Ahmadinejad’s administration is also accused of losing billions of dollars of Iran’s oil revenues in recent years. Last December, Ahmadinejad sacked Manouchehr Mottaki without consulting Khamenei while the former foreign minister was in middle of an official visit to Africa. Mottaki was replaced by Ali Akbar Salehi, the former head of the country’s atomic energy agency.
After the dismissal of Mottaki, Ahmadinejad‘s assertion of control over Iran’s foreign policy became clear. By attempting to dismiss Moslehi, some analysts believe that Ahmadinejad is entering a new phase of extending his control over key positions in the run-up to the March 2012 parliamentary election. Ahmadinejad enjoyed the full support of the supreme leader when Khamenei backed him in the disputed presidential elections in 2009. Independent commentators believe that Khamenei has realised “his mistake” by supporting a president who is seeking to surpass him.
Since the first signs of split emerged, several members of the Iranian parliament have called on Ahmadinejad to publicly support Khamenei’s decision over Moslehi, a request he has so far declined. Some prominent figures in the powerful revolutionary guards have also asked the president to comply with the supreme leader.
On Tuesday, Parliament News, a website run by Iranian MPs reported that “the plan to impeach Ahmadinejad has begun” in the parliament, with 12 MPs asking for him to be summoned before them.
Conservatives believe that the increasing tension between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei stems from the growing influence of Mashaei, who is being groomed by Ahmadinejad as his possible successor. Mashaei, whose daughter married Ahmadinejad’s son, has become the most controversial figure in Iran, provoking harsh criticism from conservatives by favouring a greater cultural openness and opposing greater clerical involvement in the regime.
Mashaei, who champions a nationalist narrative of Iran’s history, was himself forced to step down as Iran’s first vice-president in July 2009 when Khamenei intervened in an unprecedented move and said in a letter that “the regime’s expediency” required Mashaei to go. Ahmadinejad, to the surprise of many, then appointed Mashaei as his chief-of-staff instead.
Khamenei has tried to play down his confrontation with Ahmadinejad in recent days. In an official visit to the southern province of Fars last Saturday, he praised the achievements made by Ahmadinejad’s government and told the crowd he only intervenes in the government’s affairs when he feels that “the expediency is ignored”. He added:
“I won’t allow as long as I’m alive, an iota of deviation of this massive movement of the nation.”

Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about to resign?

After the snub of having a minister he fired reinstated by the Ayatollah the Iranian president may sulk himself into resignation

Sulking … ‘If Ahmadinejad doesn’t get his way he may be left with no option but to resign.’ Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images
“This year will be a difficult year. Fasten your seatbelt and put on your iron-clad boots. Soon commotions will be heard.” According to the Tehran-based Javan Online – a publication close to the Revolutionary Guards – this statement was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s senior adviser and confidant, Esfandiyar Rahim Meshai, days before the forced resignation  of Iran’s intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, on 17 April.Moslehi resigned after a major dispute  with Meshai and Ahmadinejad over who should head the intelligence ministry’s bureau of planning and budget.
Until now, there is nothing extraordinary about this story, because when it comes to firing ministers, no president can beat Ahmadinejad’s record in post-revolution Iran. Ministers have been fired before, such as former intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei. Others, such as the former foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, were not only fired but humiliated by being dismissed while visiting a foreign country.
In fact, Mottaki heard the news of his dismissal from his Senegalese hosts who were informed before he was.  When it comes to saying “You’re fired”, Ahmadinejad would make Donald Trump and Alan Sugar, the hosts of The Apprentice, look like novices.But what sets the dismissal of the current intelligence minister apart is the reaction of Iran’s most powerful man, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. Much to the shock and surprise of many Iran observers, and quite possibly the president himself, after staying quiet for seven years and not mentioning a word about Ahmadinejad’s dismissals in public, Khamenei has suddenly and publicly put his foot down, like never before.
He did this not only by reinstating Moslehi to his job but by coming out and chastising Ahmadinejad’s decision because he felt “expediency is being ignored“. Even more surprisingly, Khamenei also stated that: “I won’t allow, as long as I’m alive, an iota of deviation of this massive movement of the nation.”But why now? Where has Khamenei been all these years? What is so special about Moslehi that has brought him to utter such a strong condemnation?
How come he didn’t say anything when Ali Larijani was forced to resignin November 2007? Larijani is infinitely closer to Khamenei than Moslehi.”Loose lips sink ships” was the famous British sloganduring the second world war. UK citizens were told to be careful about what they said, because the enemy might be listening.Ayatollah Khamenei has the same concern. He did not reinstate Moslehi only because he was becoming concerned about his and Ahmadinejad’s growing power – which, as far as some people in Iran’s leadership are concerned, is getting out of hand.What seems to have concerned Iran’s leader is the manipulation of intelligence material by Meshai and Ahmadinejad and his rivals for their own political benefit.
Although this has probably happened before, Khamenei seems to have realised that it is going too far.And he has a point. There is much political scoring going on in Iran with the use of what different sides claim to be intelligence-related material. One recent example is when a text message was sent to thousands of recipientsfrom the treasury. According to the government, this happened because the system was hacked.However, according to the Persian-language Rooz online publication, which is based in Belgium, the text message stated that Meshai had installed listening devices in the office of the supreme leader.
It also had stated that Meshai had travelled to Dubai the previous month as part of a trade delegation, where he met US officials. These are serious allegations.It is not only those who are against Ahmadinejad and Meshai who have used such methods in their favour. Ahmadinejad has done the same. During the 2009 presidential debates with Mir Hossein Mousavi, live on air, and in front of millions of Iranians, he threatened to show evidence against him. These were believed to be photos taken secretly of Mousavi’s wife without her hijab. This infuriated Mousavi.
In fact it is believed to be one of the reasons why he has dug in his heels against Ahmadinejad ever since.By reinstating Moslehi, the Iranian supreme leader has now declared that the ministry of intelligence is out of bounds, both for the president and those who oppose him. This sounds logical, especially because Ahmadinejad is such a controversial figure and has many enemies inside the regime.Ahmadinejad has taken the reprimand very badly.
On Wednesday he cancelled a tripto the city of Qom. He also refused to attend a government meeting where the newly reinstated Moslehi was present.
In my opinion, for the first time since becoming president, the prospect of Ahmadinejad’s resignation must be considered. Although at this point it’s a small possibility, nevertheless it is one that never existed until now, and cannot be ignored.The reason is related to Ahmadinejad’s own personality. He is not good at taking “no” for an answer. He is now sulking, and according to reports has set three conditionsfor his return: the removal of Moslehi, the removal of Saeed Jalili as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and the reinstatement of Meshai as Ahmadinejad’s first deputy.
The Iranian president has sulked before. But this time it is very serious. If he doesn’t get his way he will either be left with no option but to resign, or to continue with the knowledge that this affair will have put an end to Meshai’s chances of running for president.  And without Meshai, once Ahmadinejad leaves office, if he lasts that long, it will be the end of his political career. Ahmadinejad will only have himself to blame because of his constant attacks, which have made him many enemies. Loose lips sink ships, in more ways than one.

  • Ahmadinejad grooms chief-of-staff to take over as Iran’s president

    Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei is controversial figure at odds with religious leaders, according to leaked embassy cable

    Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei.

    Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, consults his chief-of-staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. Photograph: Alireza Sotakbar/ISNA
    A close ally of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who favours cultural openness and opposes greater clerical involvement in politics, is being groomed as a possible successor to the Iranian president when he steps down in two years time. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s chief-of-staff, is positioning himself as a candidate who will champion a nationalist rather than a theological narrative of Iran.
    Mashaei, whose daughter married Ahmadinejad’s son, has become the most controversial political figure in Iran, provoking harsh criticism from the conservative establishment, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Hardliners close to Khamenei have accused Mashaei of compromising the Islamic Revolution and the principles of Islam by focusing on Persian history. Mashaei infuriated conservatives in 2008 when he said that Iranians are “friends of all people in the world – even Israelis”. He was also criticised for applauding at a ceremony in Turkey in which women performed a traditional dance.
    Women are not allowed to dance in Iran. Mashaei used to head Iran’s cultural heritage organisation. He was appointed first vice-president in 2009 when Ahmadinejad resumed office following disputed elections that generated mass protests. But he was forced to step down when Khamenei intervened and said in a letter to the president that “the regime’s expediency” required Mashaei to leave his post. Ahmadinejad appointed Mashaei as chief-of-staff instead, a move seen by many as a blow to Khamenei and the first sign of split emerging between the president and the supreme leader. A confidential US diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks said the incident underlined Mashaei’s significance in Ahmadinejad’s team.”
    “Ahmadinejad’s stubborn defence of Mashaei bespeaks his importance as a key adviser for the increasingly isolated president; he also has emerged as a spokesman for the Ahmadinejad administration. Ahmadinejad has even told press that he would gladly serve as vice-president in a Mashaei administration, prompting many to speculate that Ahmadinejad seeks to have Mashaei replace him in 2013,” the cable reads. Some analysts believe that a regime which has crushed the green opposition movement and is short of internal opposition, is merely creating one in order to create a show of legitimacy come the next election.
    Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council who knows Mashaei, told the Guardian: “The reformist movement in Iran did not succeed for various reasons. I think Mashaei has become another alternative and the regime is using this opportunity to heat up the next election in Iran. Mashaei is saying that Iranians are at first Iranians and Islam comes afterward. “He is reviving a source of national pride of Iranians, something that has been neglected not only since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 but in the past two centuries.”
    Amirahmadi said: “After the revolution, an extensive obsession with Islam made the authorities neglect Iran’s history and Mashaei is now seeking to promote this sort of nationalistic narrative. I think Ahmadinejad himself is also in favour of Iran’s history and has sought to revive Iran’s ancient glory and power.” Iranians are proud of their history and still largely celebrate many ancient traditions that goes back as far as the country’s Zoroastrian era, such as the Persian new year, Nowruz. Mashaei is also believed to have played a crucial role in securing the loan from the British Museum of the Cyrus Cylinder.
    The artefact, considered the first human rights charter, was seen by a million visitors in Tehran during its six-month exhibition, although hardliners and clerics largely boycotted the event. The relic was returned to the UK last week. “Obviously Mashaei’s nationalistic views are a threat to clerics. They are afraid that their power might wane if people begin to respect their pre-Islamic history,” Amirahmadi said.
    Mashaei, whose name has been touted among political activists as a possible 2013 candidate, has not ruled out the possibility of running for president, recently telling reporters he would make a definitive decision six months from the election. Kayhan, a newspaper aligned with Khamenei, predicted that Iran’s powerful Guardian Council would block Mashaei’s candidacy if he decides to run.
    The Guardian Council vets all candidates before any elections in Iran. Mashaei, who is launching a newspaper next month, is also believed to have tried to secure the release of three Americans detained in Iran, a move that resulted in the release of one of the prisoners, Sarah Shourd. Her friends, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, remain in Tehran after their release was believed to have been blocked by hardliners.

    US embassy cables: Mashaei groomed as possible successor to Ahmadinejad in Iran

    Cable dated:2010-01-28T14:32:00 C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 RPO DUBAI 000023 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/01/28 TAGS: PGOV, IR, PREL SUBJECT: IRAN: Ahmadinejad Ally Mashaei Lightning Rod for Criticism CLASSIFIED BY: Charles Pennypacker, Consular Officer, DOS, IRPO; REASON: 1.4(B), (D)
    1. (C) SUMMARY: President Ahmadinejad’s relationship with his Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei has become a source of aggravation for Ahmadinejad’s hardline supporters and an easy target for his political opponents. Mashaei has a long history of missteps and provocative comments, most recently a January 10 speech that critics blasted for contravening Islamic principles.
    In response to this latest affront, critics from across the political spectrum have derided Mashaei’s intrusion into religious matters, and hardliners in particular beseeched the president to dump his oft-beleaguered sidekick – to no avail. Ahmadinejad has defended Mashaei through several contentious episodes dating to his first term, and his refusal to remove Mashaei has inspired confusion and derision. As an IRPO contact recently observed, Ahmadinejad’s attachment to Mashaei may reflect that the president has a very limited number of trusted lieutenants, Mashaei among them.
    END SUMMARY.
    Background
    2. (SBU) Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei first became embroiled in controversy during Ahmadinejad’s first term, when he served as Vice President for Cultural Heritage and Tourism and also headed Iran’s Tourism Organization. As part of a 2005 economic conference in Turkey he attended a cultural ceremony featuring female dancers. A video of Mashaei at the ceremony surfaced a year later and was broadcast on state media, sparking criticism that Mashaei violated Islamic principles by watching women dance. Subsequently, in July 2008 Mashaei elicited broad criticism by deeming Iran a friend of the Israeli people. In the face of fierce criticism, Mashaei reiterated his remarks, prompting a campaign to remove him. Ahmadinejad, however, publically backed Mashaei.
    3. (SBU) Instead, after his 2009 reelection, Ahmadinejad elevated Mashaei to First Vice President. A mix of Ahmadinejad’s conservative detractors and supporters collectively denounced the promotion, citing Mashaei’s abovementioned transgressions as well as concerns about his unorthodox religious beliefs. Many in Ahmadinejad’s base of support demanded that he retract the order. The opposition to Mashaei, and Ahmadinejad’s refusal to acquiesce, eventually compelled Supreme Leader Khamenei to send a letter to Ahmadinejad demanding Mashaei’s removal. Incredibly, Ahmadinejad relented only after state media publicized the letter several days later amid warnings that Ahmadinejad must heed Khamenei’s wishes. In the face of the Supreme Leader’s opposition to Mashaei, Ahmadinejad made Mashaei his Chief of Staff, prompting official IRGC media organs to castiage Ahmadinejad for ignoring the spirit if not the letter of Khamenei’s guidance.
    Biography
    4. (SBU) Mashaei was born in 1960 in Ramsar and attended Esfahan Industrial University, where he studied electrical engineering. The origins of his relationship with Ahmadinejad are unclear, though a Fars News Agency account says they met when Ahmadinejad was governor of the city of Khoi in the late 1980s and Mashaei was serving in the Intelligence Ministry.
    (NOTE: Mashaei’s daughter married Ahmadinejad’s son in 2008. END NOTE.)
    In addition to his past work in the Intelligence Ministry, Mashaei’s website lists several other official jobs: – General Manager for Social Affairs, Interior Ministry – Manager, Payam Radio Station – Manager, Tehran Radio Station – Deputy for Social Affairs and Culture, Tehran Municipality DUBAI 00000023 002 OF 003 – Director, Iran Tourism
    Organization
    5. (SBU) Mashaei’s website also lists the various posts he currently holds in the Ahmadinejad government beyond his role as chief of staff: – Director, Center for Study of Globalization – President’s Deputy, Supreme Council for Iranians Abroad – Member, Government Cultural Committee – President’s Representative, Council Overseeing IRIB – Member, Government Economic and Cultural Committee
    6. (SBU) Ahmadinejad’s stubborn defense of Mashaei bespeaks his importance as a key advisor for the increasingly isolated president; he also has emerged as a spokesman for the Ahmadinejad administration. Ahmadinejad has even told press that he would gladly serve as Vice-President in a Mashaei administration, prompting many to speculate that Ahmadinejad seeks to have Mashaei replace him in 2013.A Political Punching Bag
    7. (C) Since his installation as Chief of Staff, Mashaei has attracted far more attention for his ‘unofficial’ comments about religion, bearing out the earlier whispers that the opposition to Mashaei stemmed from his unorthodox religious views. An IRPO contact last summer said many clerics were concerned by Mashaei’s belief in the imminent return of the Twelfth Imam and by the intrusion of a layman into religious matters. During Ahmadinejad’s second term Mashaei has repeatedly stoked withering criticism by airing his religious views – and, in doing so, provided great fodder too for the president’s political foes.
    8. (C) The criticism of Mashaei, and Ahmadinejad by association, is both real and opportunistic. Ahmadinejad’s hardline backers bristle at Mashaei’s presence in his government and time again beseech him to dump him. Kayhan Newspaper in November responded to a Mashaei assertion that ‘God is not the axis of unity among men’ by arguing that his comments contravene Islam and other religions and suggesting to Ahmadinejad that the government, the people of Iran, and the president himself would all be better off without Mashaie. The IRGC newspaper Sobh-e Sadegh a week later sent Ahmadinejad the same message-that he should abandon Mashaei.
    9. (C) On January 10 during a university speech Mashaei invited derision by denigrating past prophets’ management ability. According to BBC Farsi, Mashaei pointed out that the prophet Noah (there are many prophets in Islam) lived for 950 years and even in that time was not able to establish ‘justice,’ thus creating the need for more prophets. A clerical supporter responded by complaining that Mashaei’s presence on the Ahmadinejad government causes much pain for the president’s supporters. Kayhan followed suit and carried an article mocking Mashaei and asking that he stay out of such matters. Ahmadinejad’s brother Davud, the former head of the president’s office of inspection, accused Mashaei of saying “absurd” things to keep the system busy and to prevent progress towards Khomeini’s goals. He mockingly implied that Mashaei’s only ‘accomplishment’ is his friendship with Hooshang Amir Ahmadi.
    (COMMENT: Davud Ahmadinejad, who resigned his position as in August 2008, reportedly did so due to disagreements with his brother regarding Mashaei. END COMMENT.)
    DUBAI 00000023 003 OF 003
    10. (SBU) Ahmadinejad’s opponents use the president’s relationship with Mashaei for mockery and to score political points. Numerous IRPO contacts have related well known anecdotes about Mashaei’s religious views and firm belief in the imminent return of the Twelfth Imam. Among them is the political ‘urban myth’ in Tehran that Ahmadinejad’s devotion to Mashaei is said to stem from his belief that Mashaei is in fact in direct contact with the Twelfth Imam. According to these rumors, Mashaei allegedly occasionally enters a trance-like state to communicate with the Twelfth Imam or will sometimes randomly say ‘hello’ to no one at all and then explain that the Twelfth Imam just passed by.
    11. (SBU) On January 17 the moderate website ‘Ayande News’ carried an article about a meeting between Ahmadinejad and his supporters in which he defended Mashaei and referred to him as ‘Ohleeah ollah’, a title reserved for Islam’s most revered. Afterwards, the meeting’s organizer compared the relationship of Ahmadinejad and Mashaei to that of a ‘disciple and a mystic master.’ The oppositionist website ‘Rah-e Sabz’ has carried innumerable derogatory stories about Mashaei, among them allegations that Mashaei has assisted in the sale of Iranian antiquities outside of the country and that Mashaei’s family members have received jobs at the state-owned carmaker Saipa.
    12. (SBU) The recent attacks on Mashaei seemingly culminated with reports of Mashaei’s resignation. On January 20, for example, the website ‘Khabar Online’ (affiliated with Majlis Speaker Larijani) published rumors that Mashaei would soon resign his position. The report cited a Majlis member who said that he regarded Mashaei as a “spent force.” However, Mashaei that day denied the reports of his resignation and the protests continued. BBC Farsi on January 27 reported that a Majlis faction aligned with traditional conservatives, the ‘Front of the Followers of the Line of the Imam and the Supreme Leader,’ sent Ahmadinejad a letter asking him to remove Mashaei.
    13. (C) COMMENT: Mashaei’s presence in the Ahmadinejad government and the criticism he elicits illustrates some of the ongoing factional divisions in Tehran. That Larijani and other more moderate principlists use Mashaei to badger Ahmadinejad is not surpising; these camps have been jockeying for position since the 2005 presidential election campaign. More interesting is the criticism from Ahmadinejad’s hardline supporters. These hardliners still rely on the traditional clergy for a patina of Islamic legitimacy, and the clerical class’ near universal distaste for Mashaei’s version of Islam contributes to the hardline animosity to Ahmadinejad.
    To date, the criticism of Mashaei has stopped short of attacking Ahmadinejad directly, but his backers seem increasingly weary of Mashaei’s antics and Ahmadinejad’s patience for them. Ahmadinejad, who reportedly believes Mashaei is merely misunderstood, seems doggedly determined to retain his chief of staff even in the face of protests from his base. It was only with Khamenei’s direct intervention that Ahmadinejad grudgingly retracted Mashaei’s elevation to first vice president; it seems that to depose Mashaei, his critics may need to enlist the Supreme Leader once again.
    END COMMMENT. EYRE

    Did President Ahamdinejad ever threaten to “wipe Israel off the map”?

    Posted: 2011/11/16 From: Source    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629371?rss
    Iranian President actually only said: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
    By Kurt Templin Did President Ahamdinejad ever threaten to “wipe Israel off the map”? According to the Jews, that’s what the Iranian President said in a speech in October 2005. So what did he actually say? The full quote translated directly to English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. To quote his exact words in farsi: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem ). The full quote translated directly to English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. A word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods ( Jerusalem ) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). So this raises the question… what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.
  • Vulture caught with a tracking device raises many questions

    Saudi expert Mohammed Shobrak up close and personal with the vultures. He has devoted much of his life to studying. (AN photo)

    By ROGER HARRISON | ARAB NEWS Published: Jan 7, 2011 23:24 Updated: Jan 7, 2011 23:24 JEDDAH: Earlier this week, a griffon vulture was captured in the Hail area and brought to the local authorities for examination. Attached to it were two rings (one metal and the other plastic), a small device with a 10cm antenna and a wing tag originating from Israel.

    The black wing tag (identity code X63) indicated that the bird had been previously caught, tagged and released. But what caught investigators’ attention was the small device that the vulture wore as a backpack with a harness. Investigators first thought that the blue device was most likely a tracking device of some sort. Its shape, with a stubby aerial, was unlike any they knew. Most devices are simple rectangular boxes designed to minimize chafing. The blue plastic Hail device, however, had two integral but protruding battery pods, which suggest that it was designed for extended use over long periods of time. Enquiries to the Israeli source of the ring tag received the reply that the device was a standard piece of microwave telemetry.
    The evidence in front of the authorities suggested that the device was nothing of the sort, increasing their interest. There are four types of telemetry commonly used for tracking wildlife: GPS data loggers, satellite transmitters, GSM units that work over telephone networks and VHF transmitters. The device is almost certainly not a GSM unit or a VHF transmitter. The former would need to be connected to the Saudi telephone system and the latter requires its trackers to be very close — a matter of a few hundred meters. It could, however, possibly be a GPS data logger. The device is now under investigation.
    There is no suggestion from the authorities that it is a spying device, or that there is any connection with Mossad. Those rumors developed from Internet chat rooms and were picked up by mainstream news carriers. An online newspaper carried the story saying that the bird was an eagle labeled X65; this story was strangely illustrated with a roost of vultures. The Jewish Chronicle Online in Friday’s edition reported it as R65. However, the Hail vulture was, according to our sources, labeled X63.
    The griffon vulture was removed to Thumama wildlife reserve outside Riyadh where, far from being arrested, it is being well cared for and, according to Dr. Mohammed Shobrak who has been in close contact with the vet tending the bird, will be released when it has recovered from the trauma of capture and multiple handling. Shobrak is a world expert on the lappet vulture and vultures in general, and has spent much of his life studying and tracking the birds. He is also the former director of the National Wildlife Research Center near Taif, working head of the Biology Department at Taif University and bird adviser to the Saudi Wildlife Commission.
    “The antenna was not configured for GSM or VHF transmission,” he said, adding that the device had no markings on it and that he felt this was unusual if it were a commercial wildlife tracker. Another characteristic that has raised his interest is the bird’s behavior. “It is quite tame, clearly used to being approached by humans. While it is in our care, it has been fed by hand,” he said. Animals have been used in covert and overt warfare for millennia. It is not impossible to imagine that, with the miniaturization of telemetry, a device for monitoring radar or microwave emissions could not be carried by a bird weighing 6 kg. Tracking devices on birds are usually a maximum of three percent of their body weight making the limit for the griffon about 180 grams, the weight of a medium size mobile phone or a device capable of monitoring and transmission tasks.
    The vulture, a common sight in the Middle East, would make an ideal stealth airborne platform as one carrying a device would be invisible in a group of a dozen or so riding thermals. The griffon vulture is a gregarious bird often roosting in flocks. It is not known for its amicability toward humans. Shobrak is deeply concerned by the find and the possible effect it will have on wildlife and vultures in the Kingdom in particular. “The publicity surrounding the bird and the device, I fear, will encourage some people to attempt catching birds of prey to try to find another device and achieve a moment of celebrity,” he said. “This would seriously interfere with long-term local and international research in a delicately balanced desert ecosystem.”

    ____________________________________________________________________

    THE MORALITY OF MOSSAD???? …a CIA type of Israeli Malfia/STERN GANG

    Israel’s Shadowy War on Iran

    Mossad Zeros in on Tehran’s Nuclear Program

    By Dieter Bednarz and Ronen Bergman 

    DPA

    An unexplained fire, disappearing scientists and attacks on prominent Iranian nuclear experts: The Israeli secret service Mossad seems to be waging a shadowy war on Tehran’s nuclear program. Will it be enough to stop Iran’s alleged drive to develop atomic weapons?

    The young man in the spotlight appeared earnest and friendly, wearing a blue sweater and a freshly ironed shirt, his hair carefully combed. He seemed to want to project an air of credibility.

    IRIB TV / AFP
    Majid Jamali Fash was arrested in the killing. Last week, he confessed to his role in the attack on Iranian television and claimed that he was trained by Israeli agents.

    He sat in a brown leather swivel chair and steepled his fingertips in a manner often favored by politicians, before starting to speak. “My name is Majid Jamali Fash,” he introduced himself to viewers of Iran’s state-run television last Monday. “My first contact with the Israeli intelligence agency was in Istanbul three years ago. A man named Radfur approached me and suggested I visit the Israeli consulate.” These words opened the most spectacular confession ever shown on Iranian TV. Such self-incriminations, whether uttered by arrested members of the opposition or by foreign journalists, are far from a rare occurrence here. But Jamali’s statements are unique in that this is the first time an Iranian has publically admitted to committing murder in the country’s capital on orders from Iran’s archenemy, Israel. Jamali says he killed nuclear physicist Massoud Ali Mohammadi using a remote-controlled bomb on Jan. 12 last year, following precise planning and intensive training by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad. Some aspects of this confession may be mere propaganda. But it nonetheless indicates that those who may have blackmailed or fabricated Jamali’s statements felt compelled to admit that Iran’s enemies have the capability of setting off bombs right in the heart of the country. The alleged perpetrator’s dubious confession is simultaneously an admission on the part of the regime that a shadowy war over its nuclear program has begun. Existential Significance Strategists at international security policy think tanks are debating with increasing intensity when the time might come that Israel, with or without American help, will launch a military strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon production facilities. But the real question is now a different one: Has political pressure from the international community combined with clandestine activities on the part of Israel and the US managed to delay such a strike?

    Have Mossad’s attacks damaged the theocracy’s nuclear program to such a degree that it would now be impossible for Iran to build a nuclear bomb earlier than 2015? For Israel, the question of whether Iran possesses nuclear weapons is a matter of existential significance. Such a bomb would constitute a threat to the Jewish state — as well as to Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. One wonders if Israel’s shadow war should be celebrated for reducing the chances of such an Armageddon. Israel certainly has extensive experience in the world of covert war. Mossad, the country’s foreign intelligence agency, abides by a line from the Talmud: “If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

    Meir Dagan, the much-honored former head of Mossad, retired late last year after eight years in office. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon named Dagan Israel’s highest commander in the covert war against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Dagan concentrated his attention on precisely this mission. The effectiveness of his covert operations can be seen in the accidents and setbacks that have repeatedly stalled Iran’s nuclear program since then. Important scientists have disappeared without a trace, an unexplained fire broke out in a laboratory and an airplane belonging to the nuclear program crashed. In recent months, a computer worm called Stuxnet wreaked havoc on central control systems for the centrifuges at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

    The full scope of the damage from the worm is not yet known. A Spotlight on the Shadows Before leaving his post, Dagan spoke privately about his view of the situation. Unlike other Israelis, he doesn’t believe Iran will be able to build a nuclear bomb before 2015 — and it could even be later than that. Dagan’s message is clear — he opposes war with Iran, which he fears could escalate into all-out conflagration consuming the entire Middle East. He recommends continued covert operations instead, with which he implies Mossad could continue to delay Iran’s creation of a bomb indefinitely. Mossad’s attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists right in the center of Tehran has cast a spotlight on Israel’s shadowy war. Majid Jamali’s confession — assuming it isn’t fabricated — is a particular indication that the assassinations were the result of long-term planning and careful preparation.

    Jamali is said to have received his first instructions at the Israeli consulate in Istanbul. “I talked to men there, who sat behind darkened windows. They questioned me and wanted me to obtain information on certain parts of Tehran for them,” he says. Jamali says he returned to Iran before delivering 30 handwritten pages full of details on his second visit to Turkey. “My contacts were very pleased with my work,” he adds. Then, he says, his real training began. After various meetings in Europe and Thailand, he allegedly received the first installment of his payment for the assassination — $30,000 (€22,500).

    A further sum of $20,000 was to be paid after the attack. A Motorcycle at the Ready Jamali says he received the crucial parts of his training in Israel, where Israeli agents simulated the Iranian physicist’s house and street in a military camp near the highway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Mossad also provided a Honda 125 motorcycle, a small and easily maneuverable vehicle common in Tehran. The plan was for Jamali to later outfit a motorcycle of the same model with a bomb, to be detonated in front of Mohammadi’s house. According to his confession, Jamali also received shooting lessons and a makeup artist taught him how to disguise himself with clothes and makeup. In the last phase of training, they did three run-throughs of his mission. Back in Tehran, he says, other Mossad collaborators provided the necessary equipment.

    The motorcycle was standing ready, as was the bomb, and he received gloves and motorcycle clothing in two cardboard boxes. His equipment also included two satellite phones — on one of those phones he received orders on the early morning of Jan. 12 to carry out the attack. Jamali placed the motorcycle, outfitted with the bomb, on the driver’s side of the physicist’s driveway and detonated it as Mohammadi left his home that morning. The force of the blast was so powerful that it caused heavy flagstones to fall from the front of a four-story apartment building across the way and all the windows to burst. Mohammadi’s car was completely destroyed and he died instantly.

    Dagan’s secret assistants in Tehran appear to have carried out an operation that was similarly logistically intricate late last year, with a simultaneous double attack on two nuclear scientists, Majid Shahriari and Fereydoon Abbasi Davani. Like Mohammadi, both men belonged to Iran’s nuclear research elite. Officially, Shahriari worked as a professor of nuclear physics at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran. His specialty was neutron transport, a process that plays a central role in chain reactions within reactors, but also in the construction of nuclear bombs. Abbasi taught in the same department and was one of the country’s very few experts on isotope separation. On November 29, Shahriari and Abbasi were both making their way to the university, as they did nearly every day.

    Shortly after 8 a.m., Shahriari was in his Peugeot sedan together with his wife, battling his way through the usual traffic on the Artesh Highway in the northern part of the city. He didn’t pay particular attention when a motorcycle drove up close to the driver’s side of his car — such chaos is simply part of life on Tehran’s overcrowded streets. By the time the motorcyclist attached something to Shahriari’s door and sped away, it was too late.

    The bomb, affixed to the car with a magnet, exploded a few seconds later. Shahriari died instantly, but his wife survived the attack. His colleague Abbasi was more attentive and reacted more quickly, which saved his life. The professor, also traveling with his wife, had just driven away from his home when he noticed a motorcyclist squeeze in close to his vehicle and stick something to the driver’s side door. Abbasi, a long-time member of the Revolutionary Guards, braked immediately and launched himself out of the car, dragging his wife from the passenger seat and taking cover with her on the roadside, just fractions of a second before the device exploded. Explosive Koran Photographs of the scientists’ destroyed cars made headline news the next day, and not just in Iran. News of the attacks caused a commotion around the world, including in Israel. The same day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to allow Mossad head Meir Dagan to retire. The mass-circulation Israeli daily Israel HaYom ran pictures of the attack in Tehran headlined with the question, “Dagan’s last strike?”

    Targeted killings outside of its borders have been used as a military weapon more often by Israel than by any other country. In its 63 years of existence, Israel has acquired a high degree of craftsmanship when it comes to snuffing out its opponents, and was the first country to develop the technology for targeted killings from the air. In 1978 Israeli agents used poisoned toothpaste to kill Wadih Haddad, the leader of a faction of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

    Seven years later they packed a copy of the Koran with explosives and sent it to Ali-Akbar Mohtashamipur, Iran’s ambassador to Syria. In 1997 they attempted, but ultimately failed, to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Mashal with the neurotoxin botulin in the Jordanian capital, Amman. And exactly a year ago, they appeared unconcerned that surveillance cameras captured each stage of their murder of Hamas activist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh — allowing the world to examine the anatomy of that Dubai attack. Underground militias plotting to undermine the British Mandate in Palestine were using targeted assassination even before the 1948 foundation of the state of Israel, often enough against each another.

    The Lehi organization, also known as the Stern Gang, was led by Yitzhak Shamir, who drew his inspiration from revolutionary communist movements and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Russian-born Shamir thought nothing of killing dozens of Jews whom he suspected of collaborating with the British. He was also involved in the murders of a leading British minister and Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish UN diplomat.

    Sword of Damocles Shamir, who was Israeli prime minister in the late 1980s and early 90s, is one of a host of leading Israeli politicians and civil servants who were personally involved in targeted killings on behalf of their country before they moved into politics. They include, among others, Defense Minister Ehud Barak — also a former Israeli prime minister — and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, always rejected assassination because he considered it a breach of the rules of war. Nevertheless he ordered his country’s first targeted killing, the 1956 assassination of Mustafa Hafi, the head of the Egyptian secret service, in the Gaza Strip.

    Five years later the men who took part in this killing were called upon again to carry out Operation “Sword of Damocles” together with veterans of the Stern Gang, who now worked for Mossad. The aim of the mission was to murder or intimidate German scientists who had worked at the Nazis’ rocket facility in Peenemünde during World War II, and were now helping Egypt develop its own arsenal of missiles.

    The operation was doomed, however, after a series of mishaps. Two Mossad agents, for instance, were arrested and taken to court in Switzerland for threatening the daughter of one scientist. Their arrest sparked outrage around the world and led to a diplomatic solution to the crisis: The German government offered the scientists new jobs if they agreed to cease working in Egypt and return home. In the 1960s and 1970s rules were laid out under which the Israeli government could order such killings. The targets of such assassination squads fell into three categories:

    They were either terrorists, the political or military leaders of Israel’s enemies, or people who manufactured weapons of mass destruction or made them available to the country’s foes. Last Man on the List The most infamous of these Mossad-led killing sprees was the ruthless hunt for the people behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. The operation was more than a little revenge-driven, and proved the exception to the rule that killings should primarily serve to defend the state of Israel and its people. After a botched attempt by German authorities to free the hostages at Munich Airport, which led to the killing of all the abducted Israeli athletes, then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir swore that none of those responsible would escape Israel’s wrath.

    Mossad then drew up a hit-list that included prominent members of the PLO and of the Black September terrorist organization — which carried out the attack — living in Europe. The last man on this list, a PLO official called Atef Bseiso, was shot dead in Paris in 1992, two decades after the tragedy in Munich and only a year before the signing of the Oslo Peace Accord between Israel and the Palestinians. Ali Hassan Salameh, the suspected mastermind of the massacre, was assassinated in Beirut in a Mossad operation in 1979.

    Six years earlier, a waiter called Ahmed Bouchiki had been shot dead in the Norwegian town of Lillehammer after he was falsely identified as Salameh. Five Mossad agents were arrested and sent to prison for Bouchiki’s murder. PLO leader Yasser Arafat survived at least 10 Mossad attempts on his life, and countless others were called off at the last minute for various reasons. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who fired Scud missiles at Israel during the Gulf War of 1991, was another political leader on Mossad’s hit-list. His planned assassination in 1992 was aborted at the last minute after five Israeli soldiers died during a dry run of the operation. One murder that changed the course of Middle Eastern history was the assassination of Sheikh Abbas al-Mussawi, the secretary-general of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement.

    Al-Mussawi was killed in a helicopter attack on his motorcade in February 1992. The original plan had been simply to abduct him to use as a bargaining chip for the release of Israeli prisoners. But Ehud Barak, Israeli chief of staff at the time, forced through a last-minute change, convincing Prime Minister Shamir to order the cleric’s assassination instead. It seems clear that nobody gave serious thought to the possible consequences of such a flagrant act. Although the operation was a tactical success, it proved a strategic catastrophe — and the reaction was not long in coming. A month after al-Mussawi’s murder, a bomb exploded at the Israeli embassy in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, killing 29 Israelis as well as local staff. Furthermore, al-Mussawi was replaced as Hezbollah leader by Hassan Nasrallah, who subsequently built the organization into a powerful and well-armed fighting force that controls southern Lebanon and has the power to hold all of northern Israel in check, as it demonstrated in the second Lebanon conflict of 2006.

    Today, Nasrallah is the decisive figure in his nation’s political landscape. Only last week, the resignation of his Hezbollah ministers from the Lebanese cabinet plunged the entire country into disarray.

    Worse still from Tel Aviv’s point of view, the people it assassinated could have become successful negotiators in future peace talks. Take Arafat’s erstwhile deputy, Khalil al-Wazer, better known by his nom-de-guerre, Abu Jihad. Many Israelis still think his execution in 1988 was a tragic mistake. Had Abu Jihad remained alive, he may well have been a more charismatic leader than Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian Authority president, and perhaps been in a position to end the simmering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

    Unintended Consequences Regardless of whether or not such executions are morally justifiable, Mossad murders have had unintended consequences. There’s no better evidence for this than the chain of events which began with the attempt to kill deputy Hamas leader Khalid Mashal in the Jordanian capital in 1997. Mossad agents attacked Mashal in Amman with a neurotoxin, but were caught red-handed by the Jordanian police.

    As part of the agreement for the return of its agents, Israel had to both provide the Jordanian authorities with the antidote for the poison and release Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin from prison. Shortly after his liberation, Sheikh Yassin toured Arab countries collecting donations that he used to launch a wave of murderous assaults on Israel beginning in 2000 and continuing until he was killed by an Israeli helicopter gunship attack in 2004.

    In the meantime, the failed attempt on Mashal gave him so much prestige that he took over the leadership of Hamas in exile soon after Yassin’s death, and was able to forge closer ties to Shiite Iran than the fundamentalist Sunni Yassin would have ever permitted. When Mossad targeted scientists who were assumed to have helped Israel’s enemies make weapons of mass destruction, the operations were often justified in public as countering an existential threat to Israel and its citizens. This line of reasoning often centered on the Holocaust and the persecution of Europe’s Jews.

    When Israel found itself under the greatest threat, Ben-Gurion is said to have told staff that his greatest fear was that he may have brought the survivors of the European Jewry to Israel only to have them suffer a second Holocaust. Whenever the threat to the very existence of Israel is debated, there is always someone who equates Israel’s enemies with Hitler. In the 1950s and 1960s Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was the bogeyman. In the 1970s it was Arafat. In the 1990s it was Saddam Hussein, and today it is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

    AFP
    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has continued to insist that his country is only interested in nuclear power for civilian purposes.

    REUTERS
    There have been several mysterious events that have delayed the Iranian nuclear program. Scientists have disappeared, an unexplained fire broke out in a laboratory and an airplane belonging to the nuclear program crashed. In late 2010, a computer worm infected central control systems for the centrifuges at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. This image is from a separate facility at Isfahan.

    Israel’s leaders have always worried about the possible physical annihilation of their country, and it is this perceived threat that has formed their justification for the policy of assassination, even though it constitutes a breach of international law and the sovereignty of other nations. Sowing Fear The number of such killings increased dramatically under Meir Dagan. Following his appointment as Mossad director in 2002, Dagan took advantage of this policy, primarily with respect to Iran. Dagan sees the regime in Tehran as representing two basic dangers that threaten the current generation of Israelis: terrorism and nuclear warfare.

    Dagan, whom Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once said was particularly skilled at separating Arabs from their heads, has always been surprisingly moderate in his attitude toward military action by the Israeli army. He firmly believes that war should be a weapon of last resort. Dagan only recently spoke out against attacking Iran — in contrast to the more hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak.

    Although Dagan thinks Iran poses a threat to Israel’s existence and that the Iranian regime “would use nuclear weapons against Israel should it ever obtain them”, he is convinced that concerted action can, at the very least, lead to a significant delay in Iran’s nuclear program, if not a scrapping of the project altogether.

    This would require a combination of international diplomatic pressure, tough economic sanctions, the prevention of the sale of nuclear technology and hardware, support for non-Shiite opposition forces in Iran — and, last but not least, secret Mossad operations.

    DPA
    Equipment confiscated from those allegedly behind the assassination of Massoud Ali Mohammadi. A similar attack on a second nuclear scientist was unsuccessful.

    He also presents evidence to back his theory up: He says the death of Iranian nuclear scientists has slowed the development of the nuclear program and sowed fear among their colleagues, many of whom subsequently failed to turn up for work on the following days.

    Getty Images
    Meir Dagan, who retired as head of Israel’s secret service agency, the Mossad, late last year, has launched several successful operations against scientists working on Iran’s nuclear program. His agency was also likely behind the Stuxnet computer worm, which is alleged to have destroyed dozens of centrifuges in Iran, setting back their nuclear program significantly. Here, Dagan is pictured with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    It’s still anyone’s guess whether Prime Minister Netanyahu will be swayed by the optimistic assessment of his former intelligence chief that there’s still plenty of time to continue mounting secret operations against Tehran. And it could well be that Netanyahu still prefers a far more dangerous solution to the Iranian problem. Translated from the German by Jan Liebelt and Ella Ornstein

Mossad’s Miracle Weapon

Stuxnet Virus Opens New Era of Cyber War

By Holger Stark

Photo Gallery: The Future of War

Photos
dpa

The Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, attacked the Iranian nuclear program with a highly sophisticated computer virus called Stuxnet. The first digital weapon of geopolitical importance, it could change the way wars are fought — and it will not be the last attack of its kind.

The complex on a hill near an interchange on the highway from Tel Aviv to Haifa is known in Israel simply as “The Hill.” The site, as big as several soccer fields, is sealed off from the outside world with high walls and barbed wire — a modern fortress that symbolizes Israel’s fight for survival in the Middle East. As the headquarters of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, this fortress is strictly off-limits to politicians and journalists alike. Ordinarily, it is the Mossad that makes house calls, and not the other way around. The agency’s strict no-visitors policy was temporarily relaxed on a Thursday in early January, when a minibus with darkened windows pulled into a parking lot in front of a nearby movie theater. The journalists inside were asked to hand over their mobile phones and audio recorders.

Meïr Dagan, the powerful head of the Mossad, had invited them to the facility. It was his last day in a position he had held for seven years. On that January day, the journalists were there to document his legacy: the Mossad’s fightagainst the Iranian nuclear program. He spoke passionately about the risks of a possible military strike against Iran, saying that he believed that such an attack would lead to a conflagration in the region that would include a war with Hezbollah and Hamas, and possibly with Syria. And anyone who believed that a military strike could stop Tehran’s nuclear program was wrong, said Dagan.

It could slow down the program, he added, but only temporarily. For this reason, the outgoing Mossad chief was against bombs — but in favor of anything that could set back the Iranian nuclear program without starting a conventional war. Delay was the new magic word. And to that end, the Mossad head had created a miracle weapon that everyone in the room on that January day knew about, but which Dagan did not mention by name: Stuxnet. Stuxnet, a computer virus that can infiltrate highly secure computers not connected to the Internet, a feat previously believed to be virtually impossible, entered the global political arena more than a year ago, in June 2010. The virus had attacked computers at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, where scientists are enriching uranium, and manipulated the centrifuges to make them self-destruct. The attack penetrated into the heart of the Iranian nuclear program. Stuxnet is the world’s first cyber-weapon of geopolitical significance.

Frank Rieger of the legendary German hacker organization Chaos Computer Club calls it “a digital bunker buster.” The virus represents a fundamentally new addition to the arsenal of modern warfare. It enables a military attack using a computer program tailored to a specific target. One year later, there is not an Internet security firm or government of a major country that is not addressing Stuxnet and its consequences, as well as taking action as a result. To learn more about Stuxnet and understand what is behind the virus, SPIEGEL traveled to Israel — the country where the cyber-weapon was invented.

Following the Trail

The Israeli branch of the US computer security firm Symantec is housed in a nondescript modern complex in Tel Aviv, a 15-minute drive from Ben Gurion International Airport. Sam Angel, the head of Symantec Israel, meets visitors in the underground garage and takes them to the conference room on the fourth floor. At the beginning of his PowerPoint presentation, Angel says: “Stuxnet is the most sophisticated attack we have ever seen.

This sort of an attack, on a mature, isolated industrial system is completely unusual.” He projects a map onto the wall, showing the countries where such an attack has taken place: Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and Belarus, where a man named Sergey Ulasen discovered Stuxnet. Ulasen, who works in the research and development department at the VirusBlokAda security firm in Minsk, received what seemed to be a relatively mundane email on June 17, 2010. An Iranian firm was complaining that its computers were behaving strangely, shutting themselves down and then rebooting. Ulasen and a colleague spent a week examining the machines.

Then they found Stuxnet. VirusBlokAda notified other companies in the industry, including Symantec. When the engineers at Symantec got to work, they came across two computers that had directed the attacks. One of the servers was in Malaysia and the other was in Denmark, and they were reachable through the addresses http://www.todaysfutbol.com and http://www.mypremierfutbol.com.

They had been registered, under a false name and with a forged credit card, through one of the world’s largest Internet registration companies, a firm based in the US state of Arizona. Symantec rerouted the incoming and outgoing communication at the two servers to its computer center in Dublin, which enabled it to monitor the activity of the virus. Whoever had launched Stuxnet had gotten away, but at least Symantec could follow the trail they had left behind. The rerouting of communication made it possible to obtain an overview of the countries in which the virus was active.

According to that analysis, Stuxnet had infected about 100,000 computers worldwide, including more than 60,000 in Iran, more than 10,000 in Indonesia and more than 5,000 in India. The inventors programmed Stuxnet so that the virus, as a first step, tells the two command-and-control servers if the infected computer is running Step 7, an industrial software program developed by the German engineering company Siemens. Step 7 is used to run the centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz facility. The plant near Natanz, located in the desert 250 kilometers (156 miles) south of Tehran, is protected with military-level security.

The aluminum centrifuges, which are housed in bunkers, are 1.8 meters (5 foot 10 inches) tall and 10 centimeters (four inches) in diameter. Their purpose is to gradually increase the proportion of uranium-235, the fissile isotope of uranium. There is a rotor inside the centrifuges that rotates at a speed of 1,000 times per second. In the process, uranium hexafluoride gas is centrifuged, so that uranium-235 accumulates in the center. The process is controlled by a Siemens system that runs on the Microsoft Windows operating system.

Graphic: How Stuxnet sabotaged Iran's nuclear program

Zoom
DER SPIEGEL

Graphic: How Stuxnet sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program

The Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, attacked the Iranian nuclear...

dpa
The Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, attacked the Iranian nuclear program with a highly sophisticated computer virus called Stuxnet. The first digital weapon of geopolitical importance, it could change the way wars are fought — and it will not be the last attack of its kind. Here, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, which was targeted by Stuxnet (April 2008 photo).

This 2004 satellite image shows the Natanz facility. It is still unclear how...

dpa
This 2004 satellite image shows the Natanz facility. It is still unclear how exactly the Israelis were able to get the virus into Natanz.

With Stuxnet, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan achieved his goal of sabotaging...

REUTERS
With Stuxnet, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan achieved his goal of sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program without triggering a new war in the Middle East.

Part 2: Security Holes and Red Herrings

The ruse that makes the attack possible is as simple as it is ingenious. Stuxnet takes advantage of a security hole in Windows that makes it possible to manipulate the system. As a result of this programming error, the virus can be introduced into the system through a USB flash drive, for example. As soon as the drive is connected to a computer in the system, the installation begins unnoticed. Stuxnet initially searches for anti-virus programs. The code is designed to circumvent them or, if this is not possible, to de-install itself. For a long time, one of the priorities was to leave no traces. In a second step, Stuxnet lodges itself into the part of the operating system that manages USB flash drives, where it establishes a checksum, the exact purpose of which is unclear.

The infection stops when this sum reaches the value 19790509. Symantec speculates that this is some sort of code. When read backward, the number could represent May 9, 1979, the day Habib Elghanian, a Jewish businessman, was executed in Tehran. Is this a coincidence? A provocation? Or a deliberately placed red herring? It is still unclear how exactly the Israelis were able to get the virus into Natanz. In the jargon of computer experts, previously unknown security gaps like the hole in the Windows operating system are called zero-day exploits. Searching for these vulnerabilities is a combination of hacker challenge and business model. Knowledge is valuable, and there is a black market in which a previously unknown vulnerability can be worth $100,000 (€70,000) or more. Stuxnet exploits no fewer than four of these digital jewels. ‘A Blue-and-White Operation’ Symantec manager Sam Angel believes that it is impossible to write a code like Stuxnet without having intimate knowledge of the Siemens system. “There is no black market for exploits involving Siemens software,” he says.

“It’s not used widely enough.” How, then, did the Mossad acquire the information about the technology in use at Natanz? It has been openly speculated that the Americans may have helped the Mossad. There is a US government research institution in Idaho where scientists study the Siemens control technology used in Iran; the basic research for Stuxnet could have taken place there. After that, the virus could have been tested at Israel’s nuclear research center near Dimona in the Negev Desert. Israeli sources familiar with the background to the attack insist, however, that Stuxnet was a “blue-and-white operation,” a reference to Israel’s national colors — in other words, a purely Israeli operation.

They believe that a secret elite unit of the military intelligence agency programmed a portion of the code, leaving the Mossad to do the rest. The Mossad was also apparently responsible for smuggling the virus into Natanz. The same sources claim that the Mossad tried to buy a cascade of centrifuges on the black market, without success. In the end, an Israeli arms manufacturer, with the help of foreign intelligence agencies, supposedly managed to build a model of Natanz where Stuxnet was tested. The operation was ready to begin in the summer of 2009. The attackers unleashed Stuxnet at 4:31 p.m. on June 22, 2009. The attack targeted five Iranian organizations and was launched in three waves. After the first wave, a second strike took place in March 2010, dealing a heavy blow to the Iranians. The third wave followed in April. According to Symantec, the targets were not directly related to Iran’s nuclear program, but some of the target organizations were on United Nations sanctions lists. Some 12,000 computers were infected in the five organizations alone. Stuxnet is programmed to delete itself from the USB flash drive after the third infection, presumably to prevent it from spreading explosively, which would have been noticed immediately.

The goal of the cyber-weapon is to sabotage its targets in a sustainable, rather than spectacular, manner. Another trick, which gives the virus the semblance of legality, shows how complex the design is. It involves digital certificates, which are issued on the Internet by companies that test the activity of a server or a program and certify that it is not malicious. If a program can show that it has such a certificate, then it is allowed access to a system. The Taiwanese firms Realtek Semiconductor and JMicron Technology are among the firms that issue such certificates. In January 2010, a version of Stuxnet turned up that had been signed with a digital certificate from Realtek. This was followed, in July 2010, by a version signed with a JMicron certificate. Both certificates had been stolen. This theft alone is an operation that requires either a physical burglary at the headquarters of both companies, or the kind of hacker attack that very few programmers worldwide are capable of performing, because these certificates are additionally secured and encoded. Only a State Could Produce Stuxnet An analysis by a European intelligence agency classified as “secret,” which SPIEGEL has seen, states that it would have taken a programmer at least three years to develop Stuxnet, at a cost in the double-digit millions.

Symantec, for its part, estimates that the tests in the model facility alone would have occupied five to 10 programmers for half a year. According to the intelligence analysis, “non-governmental actors” can be “virtually ruled out” as the inventors of Stuxnet. Members of Germany’s Federal Security Council, a government committee for defense issues whose meetings are secret, felt the same way when the council met in Berlin on Nov. 25, 2010. Stuxnet shows what can happen when potent attackers are at work, said then Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, who is now German defense minister. Anyone who is willing to invest that much money and resources, Maizière added, knows what he is doing. The council members agreed that a sovereign state had to be behind the virus. De Maizière’s staff noted that 15 vulnerabilities are found in standard computer programs every day, and that tens of thousands of websites are infected worldwide on a daily basis. At the end of the meeting, the council decided to establish a national cyber defense center.“The experiences with the Stuxnet virus show that even key areas of industrial infrastructure are no longer safe against targeted IT attacks,” a government cabinet paper later stated.

The virus has fundamentally changed the way we look at digital attacks. The US government recently issued a new cyber war doctrine that defines a cyber-attack as a conventional act of war. The Stuxnet code, which is now accessible to the public, could inspire copycats, Roberta Stempfley of the US Department of Homeland Security warned last week. Last year the British government adopted a new security strategy, for which it approved funding of 650 million pounds (€565 million or $1,070 million). The cyber world will become “more important in the conflict between nations,” Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor said in a speech in Jerusalem in February. “It is a new battleground, if you like, not with guns but with something else.”

Part 3: Success Comparable to Cracking Enigma

The Mossad views Stuxnet as a great success, comparable to the cracking of Germany’s Enigma cipher machine by the Poles and Britons in World War II. The Israeli military isn’t as euphoric. It argues that the fact that Stuxnet was discovered was a high price to pay, despite the setback it dealt to Iran’s mullah-led regime. And it was a painful setback indeed. An Iranian IR-1 centrifuge normally spins at 1,064 hertz, or cycles per second. When the rotors began going haywire, they increased their frequency to 1,410 hertz for 15 minutes and then returned to their normal frequency. The virus took over control again 27 days later, but this time it slowed down the rotors to a frequency of a few hundred hertz for a full 50 minutes.

The resulting excessive centrifugal force caused the aluminum tubes to expand, increasing the risk of parts coming into contact with one another and thereby destroying the centrifuges. Six cascades containing 164 centrifuges each were reportedly destroyed in this manner. Authorities on the Iranian nuclear program, like David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), believe that Stuxnet destroyed about 1,000 centrifuges. Iran has admitted that its nuclear program was set back. According to Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s civil defense organization, the program suffered “potentially major damage.” Former Mossad chief Dagan achieved his goal of sabotaging the nuclear program without triggering a new war in the Middle East.

But Iran still has 8,000 other centrifuges, and the more modern, second-generation IR-2 centrifuges, which are equipped with carbon fiber rotors, can operate smoothly even at 1,400 hertz. They are not affected by the existing version of the sabotage software. The Mossad could be in need of a new virus soon. Using it would constitute the next round in a clandestine cyber war. ‘People Had Never Seen Anything Like Stuxnet Before’ Two young Israelis who work indirectly for the government are sitting in one of Tel Aviv’s modern cafés. The men run a company that handles jobs for the Mossad and Shin Bet, the domestic intelligence agency. They smile and say that digital attack, not defense, is their discipline. They are part of a global hacker elite. According to rumors circulating in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the men did some of the groundwork for the Mossad in the development of Stuxnet. “People had never seen anything like Stuxnet before, except in movies,” says one of the hackers. “Now they can see that it’s real.” His voice is filled with pride when he says: “In the small community of attackers, none of this was really new.” Almost all of the vulnerabilities had already been used in a past attack, the hacker says, but they had never been used at the same time. He explains that the real challenge in staging an attack with a virus like Stuxnet is to penetrate into a system that is not connected to the Internet. What are the consequences of Stuxnet? The two men are silent for a moment; they see things from the attacker’s perspective. “The discovery of Stuxnet was a serious blow to us,” one of them says. “We find it particularly upsetting, because a successful method was disclosed.” The inventors of Stuxnet apparently had many more plans for their product. Symantec has since discovered another version of the Stuxnet virus, which contains even more complex code and is designed to target modern Siemens control technology, but which had not been activated yet. Stuxnet, say the people at Symantec, “is the type of threat we hope to never see again.” That wish is unlikely to come true.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan  

__________________________

06 NOVEMBER 2011 LATEST THREATS AGAINST IRAN taken from a report of  Madison Ruppert

http://networkedblogs.com/py35T

The Western assault on Iran has begun

Posted: 2011/11/06 From: Source  http://networkedblogs.com/py35T  MATHABA
Iran is already completely surrounded by US military.

… across the pond, Britain and Israel seem to be gearing up for all-out war with Iran. For the first time since 2008, Israel tested the Jericho 3, an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warhead long distances on Wednesday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been reportedly trying to push what little opposition he has within his cabinet into getting behind an attack on Iran with the help of Defense Minister Ehud Barak. In response to the Jericho 3 test, which was a clear instance of antagonizing Iran at an all-too-inopportune time, Barak said it was an “impressive technological achievement”.

In another suspiciously timed event, Israel released the details of an air force exercise done in concert with Italy, using a NATO base, over the Mediterranean Sea which simulated a long-distance strike, much like what would be utilized against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been reportedly trying to push what little opposition he has within his cabinet into getting behind an attack on Iran with the help of Defense Minister Ehud Barak. In response to the Jericho 3 test, which was a clear instance of antagonizing Iran at an all-too-inopportune time, Barak said it was an “impressive technological achievement”.

In another suspiciously timed event, Israel released the details of an air force exercise done in concert with Italy, using a NATO base, over the Mediterranean Sea which simulated a long-distance strike, much like what would be utilized against Iran. American President Barack Obama also said that he had spoken with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and they both had come to the conclusion “that international pressure must be maintained on Iran” according to Israeli news agency Haaretz. Some American politicians are not being as coy as others, sticking to the typical diplomatic language in dealing with Iran.

Rick Perry, a former Bilderberg Group attendee, Republican Presidential hopeful and current Governor of Texas, has openly said he would support attacks on Iran. “Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I’ve said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it’s economic sanctions, whether it’s overt or covert operations, up to and including military action,” Perry said in an interview on CNN.

This kind of blind support for Israel is what plagues American politics today. Even when such a move could result in the death of Americans and/or a significant negative economic impact, politicians like Perry will happily back Israel to the detriment of our own nation. The support within Israel for a strike on Iran is quite considerable as well American President Barack Obama also said that he had spoken with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and they both had come to the conclusion “that international pressure must be maintained on Iran” according to Israeli news agency Haaretz. the support for an attack on Iran amongst the Israeli cabinet does not seem so divided.

Haaretz reports that Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, previously did not support an attack on Iran but was recently persuaded by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak to get behind the move. The Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, reportedly said that he would prefer an American military strike against Iran to an Israeli one. Why would we have any interest in attacking Iran?

In reality, Iran is not a threat to the United States but the Israel Lobby likely easily sway Washington into carrying out the strike for Israel, putting American lives and money on the line instead of their own. Similarly, Dan Meridor, the Israeli Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister said that he supports an American offensive against Iran. The London Guardian has reported that Britain is developing military plans for an attack on Iran in preparation for the IAEA report which has been characterized as “a game changer”.

“The MoD [Ministry of Defense] says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been underway for some time”, according to The Guardian. This dovetails with the reports of Obama planning to increase the American presence in the Persian Gulf, as previously reported. … in Iran, the reaction has been one of marked antagonism with the Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi saying that Iran is “ready for war” with Israel. Salehi told the Turkish news outlet Hürriyet Daily, “We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation…such threats are not new to us”. Salehi also said that any attack would bring retaliation and Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi said that Israel and the U.S. would be harshly punished for an attack in Iran.

“We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them,” Firouzabadi said, adding, “In case of an attack by the Zionist regime, the United States would also be hit”. The head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, will reportedly detail the proof of U.S.-led terrorist plots against Iran at a ceremony marking the anniversary of the 1979 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran. This evidence is allegedly so damning that it could bring the U.S. government down according to an Iranian lawmaker and Deputy Chairman of the Majilis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, Hossein Ebrahimi.

“Once Tehran publicizes the evidence in its possession on the US being a terrorist [state] and [Washington’s] massacres, the American nation would certainly unite to topple their [ruling] regime”, Ebrahimi reportedly said. Furthermore, in late September the head of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari,threatened to send military ships off the Atlantic Coast of the United States.

Attack on Iran: Hitlerian Act of Aggression

Posted: 2011/11/08 From: Source http://mathaba.net/news/?x=629274
By Tony CartalucciAs the rhetoric for war with Iran begins to mount, first with the staged DEA-Saudi bomb plot, and now with an upcoming IAEA report supposedly “exposing” Iran’s nuclear arms ambitions, it is important to re-read through the signed confessions by the corporate-fascist interests behind this drive for war where it is admitted that:

  1. Iran poses no threat to US national security – even if they acquired nuclear arms- rather Iran threatens US interests throughout the Middle East, half-way across the planet.
  2. Iran desperately wants to avoid armed conflict with both Israel and the West and would use nuclear weapons merely as a defensive deterrence.
  3. The US and Israel are actively looking to provoke Iran into war with a combination of covert support for destabilization within Iran, supporting listed terrorist organizations, and limited unilateral military first strikes to provoke an Iranian response needed to justify a wider military confrontation.

All of this is shockingly spelled out in extreme detail within the pages of the corporate-financier funded Brooking Institution report, “Which Path to Perisa?” It is essential that every American, European, and Israeli read just how malicious, callus and eager the globalist elite are to trigger a catastrophic war with the Islamic Republic for the sole purpose of protecting Wall Street and London’s hegemony throughout the Middle East. “Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution 2009 .pdf Below are links to efforts to cover in detail the key aspects of this increasing war mongering, the key players behind it, including the corporations funding this agenda, as well as irrefutable evidence that illustrates these designs, laid out in 2009 have already begun to unfold. 1. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?”: The war has already begun, total war is a possibility. 2. Which Path to Persia?: Redux Syria, Libya, and beyond, Globalists prepare for second phase. 3. US Policy Toward Iran One-Way Ticket to War Policy Wonk Plays Dumb Over Role in Iranian Escalation. 4. Corporate-Fascists Clamor for Iran War Unelected corporate-funded policy makers constitute the greatest threat to US national security. 5. Iran Links US-funded Terrorists to Saudi-DEA Bomb Plot Baseless US accusations countered with more likely Iranian allegations. 6. Withdrawal of US Troops From Iraq Highly Suspect Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table. Upon reading this information, one will realize with horror how patiently persistent the corporate-financier interests on Wall Street and London have pursued this campaign towards war with Iran, and how absolutely deceitful they are willing to be in order to keep it moving forward. It is absolutely imperative that people understand not only just how contrived the treat of Iran is, but that those peddling the lies of such a threat have, behind closed doors, admitted as much. Image: Just some of the corporate-sponsors behind the unelected, warmongering “think-tank” Brookings Institution which produced the treasonous “Which Path to Persia?” report. Please also take particular note of the corporations funding this act of Hitlerian aggression against a nation of 70 million at the potential loss of tens of thousands of American and Israeli (and other proxy soldiers’) lives, not to mention the incalculable cost of the war to an already crippled American tax payer. Also note that these same corporations will not be losing their sons and daughters nor a single penny in the war effort, in fact, many of them stand to gain untold of fortunes and power – the very reason they are pursuing such a course of action. Now would be a good time to contact your representatives, boycott the above mentioned corporations, and begin undermining a system that is parasitically bleeding this planet to death both financially and literally in pursuit of global corporate-fascist hegemony. And remember, it will not end in Iran, the attack and destruction of Iranian sovereignty is just the beginning.

ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Tehran— The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011 4:59AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011 11:19PM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-irans-ahmadinejad-defies-nuclear-pressure/article2230842/?from=2230264

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ahmadinejad-vows-iran-wont-retreat-an-iota-from-its-nuclear-path/article2230264/
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greets supporters during his visit to Shahrekord, about 500 kilometres southwest of Tehran, on Nov. 9, 2011.
President.ir/Reuters
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-irans-ahmadinejad-defies-nuclear-pressure/article2230842/?from=2230264

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Wednesday that Iran won't retreat “one iota” from its nuclear program, denying claims that it seeks atomic weapons. Key ally Russia gave the Islamic Republic a major boost, rejecting tighter sanctions 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Wednesday that Iran won't retreat “one iota” from its nuclear program, denying claims that it seeks atomic weapons. Key ally Russia gave the Islamic Republic a major boost, rejecting tighter sanctions .

In his first reaction to the report, Mr. Ahmadinejad strongly criticized the agency — a day after it claimed Tehran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon — saying the IAEA is discrediting itself by siding with “absurd” U.S. accusations.

The comments, broadcast live on state TV, were a sharp rebuke to Western warnings.
But Russia, which has veto-wielding power on the UN Security Council, said new sanctions would be unacceptable.

“Any additional sanctions against Iran would be perceived by the international community as an instrument for regime change in Tehran,” deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told the Interfax news agency, adding that Russia “does not intend to consider such proposals.”

Mr. Gatilov said Russia believes that dialogue with Iran is the only way forward.

Meanwhile, Iran's other chief ally, China, issued cautious statements calling for diplomacy and dialogue.

“This nation won't retreat one iota from the path it is going,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Shahr-e-Kord in central Iran. “Why are you ruining the prestige of the (UN nuclear) agency for absurd U.S. claims?”

A conservative Iranian lawmaker later threatened that the parliament could force the government to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, as a response to the report by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano.

“In the first stage, we will pull out of NPT if Amano shows incompetence and asks for Obama's permission for every report,” conservative lawmaker Mahmoud Ahmadi Bighash told state TV Wednesday.
Mr. Ahmadinejad repeated Iran's claims that it doesn't make sense to build nuclear weapons in a world already awash with atomic arms.

“The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two bombs against 20,000 (nuclear) bombs you have,” he said in comments apparently directed at the West and others. “But it builds something you can't respond to: Ethics, decency, monotheism and justice.”

...evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for "nuclear-related explosives testing". Iran has dismissed that, saying they were merely metal toilet stalls. 

ran's official IRNA news agency also quoted Mr. Bighash as saying the report shows that IAEA “has no powers and moves in the direction” of the U.S. and allies. Another parliament member, Parviz Sorouri, accused Mr. Amano of tarnishing the agency.

“The report was drawn up by Americans and read by Amano,” the semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.

IAEA report on Iran exposed as a BIG fraud
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/10-11-2011/119583-IAEA_report_on_Iran_BIG_fraud-0/
10.11.2011

Ahmadinejad rejects U.S. allegations on nuclear weapons

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country does not need nuclear weapons to "cut the hands" of the United States, and can achieve their goals by peaceful means, thus repudiating claims about its nuclear program.

"Our nation can achieve success through reflection, its rich culture and prudence," Ahmadinejad said in criticizing Washington and its allies, who use an assembly of unfounded allegations against the Islamic Republic.

The president spoke before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports accusing Tehran of having planned nuclear weapons, something the country's government vehemently denies.

"The U.S. administration looks for prosperity by driving other countries to poverty, plundering their riches," Ahmadinejad accused.

The Persian President warned that Washington "will certainly regret any firm response" to the country if the United States and Israel go ahead further with any type of military action against Tehran, as has been announced recently in the media.

Ahmadinejad also took the occasion to rebuke the IAEA director general, Japanese Yukiya Amano, for being "a puppet" of the White House, challenging him to bring accurate and reliable information about the nuclear activities of Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The report was classified by the government of the Asian country as "ridiculous and contrived," considering it more as a "repetition of unfounded accusations by the United States and the Zionists."

The president also affirmed that the administration of Barack Obama "arrogantly accuses Iran of producing nuclear bombs while it has more than five thousand atomic products, which demonstrates the lack of U.S. commitment to nuclear disarmament," he noted.

"The United States this year earmarked about $81 billion to modernize its nuclear weapons, while the annual budget for nuclear research in Iran is 250 million dollars," said Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian Parliamentary Commission for National Security and Foreign Policy also criticized the threat of military attack by the United States and Israel and speculation about Iran's nuclear program.

Ed. According to reliable sources quoted in Russia, the so-called nuclear weapons scientist cited as helping Iran's weapons program is NOT a nuclear weapons scientist at all. The Ukrainian, Vyacheslav Danilenko, has NEVER worked on nuclear weapons, but is one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds.

Danilenko worked in an Institute that specialized in the synthesis of diamonds. Iran has a program to develop its nanotechnology sector, with one major focus being nanodiamonds.

This is the latest to come out exposing the utter fabrication that the IAEA report is. If they talk about this report a thousand times, are people going to hear all of the evidence pointing to all the holes in this obvious lie or will they believe it because it has been beaten to death by the western corporate media?

So there you go, the stinking warmonger genocidal demons in the west are caught lying again and guess who supplied the false information? That's right, none other than Israel.

With information from Prensa Latina

Translated from the Portuguese version by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda.Ru

Ahmadinejad: Iran, China and Russia are the same block!

27.11.2011. – 00:08
The new sanctions that Western countries have the opportunity to talk impede Iran’s nuclear program of the Islamic Republic, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said.

“Impose a resolution, sanctions, using all the tools against us, and want to come and negotiate?” Said Ahmadinejad in an interview with TV station “is Jami mosque”, on the occasion of the latest sanctions by the United States, Britain and Canada on Monday introduced the Iran . The Iranian president said that such actions undermine efforts P5 +1 group – composed of five permanent members of UN Security Council, United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany – to renew talks with Iran. “They’re always themselves, create restrictions. We have always said that we are ready for talks and cooperation. The talks are better than confrontation, but they seem lost and keep them coming back to confrontation,” said Ahmadinejad, and transferred the AFP. In an interview with the Iranian president said that Iran has the “same block” with Russia and China on the international scene, although each country has its own national interests. “China and Russia have a position closer to us when it comes to international issues, but the U.S. and its allies. We are cooperating with Russia and China, but we can not expect them to sacrifice their national interests – as they can not expect us, “said Ahmadinejad.
Opposition to China and Russia the latest sanctions to prevent these measures come before the UN Security Council, led by the French agency. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, who represents a group of P5 +1, last week called on Iran to return to the talks, which should alleviate the concerns of the West that Tehran’s nuclear program can be iskorišhcen to produce atomic bombs. Iran, which denies any military dimension to its nuclear activities [strictly for medicine, their space program and electricity], said he was ready to return to negotiations, but insisted that they be included in other topics besides the nuclear issue.

Iran threatened with invasion violent response to U.S. aircraft

04th 12th 2011 19:24 | Beta http://www.vaseljenska.com/svet/iran-preti-zestokim-odgovorom-na-upad-letelice-sad/

18 Иран прети жестоким одговором на упад летелице САДTehran – Tehran’s answer to the violation of Iranian airspace, carried out by U.S. unmanned aircraft will be limited to the borders of that country, told Iranian state television, a military source.

“Iranian military response to U.S. spy aircraft and its violation of our airspace will not be limited to our borders,” Iranian television quoted the “Al Alam”.

The Iranian military announced today that the U.S. shot down a pilotless reconnaissance aircraft RK170 which, he claims, to the east of the country without permission entered the Iranian airspace.

This aircraft was manufactured by the company “Lockheed Martin” and reportedly was used for observation of the complex of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan during an operation in which he had been killed by the agencies. Iran is dedicated, for their part, most of its military strategy reconnaissance drone production three years ago says it has produced a UAV with a range of 1,000 kilometers, enough to reach Israel.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “baptized” in 2010. first domestic unmanned aircraft and called it “the ambassador of death” for Iran’s enemies.

The American aircraft was shot down at a time when Tehran in tense relations with Washington and its Western allies because of a dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. The West believes Iran is trying to, under cover of a civilian nuclear program, producing an atomic bomb, while Tehran says the program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes. U.S. and EU countries are considering punitive measures against Iran. ______________

Iran shoots down US drone

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/04/iran-shoots-down-us-drone

Iranian military official quoted as warning of crushing response after unmanned spy plane is shot down

US drone aircraft

Iran’s military said it had shot down the US drone near the country’s eastern border. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Iran‘s armed forces have shot down an unmanned US spy plane that violated Iranian airspace along its eastern border. An unidentified military official quoted by the official Irna news agency on Sunday warned of a crushing response to any violations of Iranian airspace by US drone aircraft. “An advanced RQ170 unmanned American spy plane was shot down by Iran’s armed forces. It suffered minor damage and is now in possession of Iran’s armed forces,” Irna quoted the official as saying. No further details were given. Later a spokesman for Nato’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said a surveillance drone flying over western Afghanistan had gone out of control late last week and may be the one Iran said it had shot down over its own airspace. “The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a US unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status,” an ISAF statement said.
Iran is locked in a dispute with the US and its allies over Tehran’s alleged nuclear programme, which the west believes is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusations, saying the programme is designed to generate electricity and produce isotopes for medical use. Tehran said in January it had shot down two other unmanned spy planes over its airspace which were operated by the US. Iran itself has focused part of its military strategy on producing drones, both for reconnaissance and offensive purposes. It announced three years ago that it had built an unmanned aircraft with a range of more than 600 miles, far enough to reach Israel.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, unveiled Iran’s first domestically built unmanned bomber in August 2010, calling it an “ambassador of death” to Iran’s enemies.

Iranian President Orders Official Start of Lowering Ties with Britain

Posted: 2011/12/09 From: Mathaba   http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629564?rss
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday communicated the law on downgrading political ties with Britain with the country’s Foreign Ministry.
The Iranian president communicated the law with the ministry of foreign affairs on Wednesday requiring the ministry to officially start lowering the relations with London in all economic and political grounds. On November 20, Iranian legislators approved the bill of a law on downgrading relations with Britain with 179 yes votes, 4 oppositions and 11 abstentions. The 4 oppositions demanded a full cut of ties with London. A day later, the Guardian Council endorsed the approval of the parliament which requires the government to downgrade the country’s relations with Britain. Yet, thousands of university students who were angry at Britain’s growing hostilities towards Iran occupied the British embassy for a couple of hours in a show of protest at London’s inimical stances and in demand for a full cut of ties with Britain. The embassy attack was an outpouring of the wrath of the Iranian people who believe Britain is a hostile country seeking to damage and weaken the Islamic Republic. The developments in Tehran came a week after the US and Britain targeted Iranian financial sectors with new punitive measures, including sanctions on the Iran’s Central Bank and petrochemical industry. The sanction against the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and Iran’s petrochemical industry was adopted in a unilateral move by the US, Canada and Britain outside the UN Security Council as other council members, specially Russia and China, had earlier warned against any fresh punitive measure, including sanctions, against Iran. The British government has also embarked on delisting the anti-Iran terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) from its list of terrorist groups. The MKO terrorist group is deemed as the main enemy of the Iranian nation. On February 7, more than 30 Iranian legislators had signed the single-urgency for introducing the bill of the law on cutting political relations with Britain to the parliament and submitted the bill to Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani for a final approval by all their colleagues. The 35 Iranian lawmakers who signed the preliminary bill described London’s direct and indirect interference in Iran’s internal affairs, hostile remarks and stances of the British officials against Tehran, financial support for seditious acts in Iran, media propaganda and spying activities against Iran as their reasons for supporting and introducing the bill. Last December, the National Security and Foreign Policy commission submitted the bill to the parliament’s presiding board for final discussions and approval by all parliament members. The Iranian lawmakers initially started drafting a bill to downgrade ties with London after Britain’s direct involvement in stirring post-election unrests in Iran in 2009, but they intensified and accelerated the move after former British Envoy to Tehran Simon Gass criticized the human rights situation in Iran. “Today, International Human Rights Day is highlighting the cases of those people around the world who stand up for the rights of others – the lawyers, journalists and NGO workers who place themselves at risk to defend their countrymen,” Gass said in a memo published by the British Embassy in Tehran on December 9. “Nowhere are they under greater threat than in Iran. Since last year human rights defenders have been harassed and imprisoned,” Gass added. Other lawmakers, including head of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, had previously blasted the negative role of the British ambassador to Tehran, and asked the country’s foreign ministry to expel him from Iran. Following Britain’s support for a group of wild demonstrators who disrespected Islamic sanctities and damaged private and public amenities and properties in Tehran on December 27, 2009, members of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission drafted bill of a law requiring the country’s Foreign Ministry to cut relations with Britain. The British government’s blatant stance and repeated remarks in support of the last year unrests inside Iran and London’s espionage operations and financial and media support for the opposition groups are among the reasons mentioned in the bill for cutting ties with Britain. Iran has repeatedly accused the West of stoking post-election unrests, singling out Britain and the US for meddling. Tehran expelled two British diplomats and arrested a number of local staffs of the British embassy in Tehran after documents and evidence substantiated London’s interfering role in stirring post-election riots in Iran.

Has the West’s war with Iran already begun? Mystery explosions at nuke sites, ‘assassinated’ scientists and downed drones fuel fears covert conflict is under way Iran moves long-range missiles to prevent them being targeted in an attack Follows mysterious blasts at military base and uranium depot in last month Expert says ‘assassinations, cyber war and sabotage already under way’ Advanced CIA drone crash lands in mountains Think-tank warns efforts to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons could fail UAE vice president insists Iran is not a threat to Israel or the West By DAILY MAIL REPORTER http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070602/Iran-war-Mystery-explosions-nuke-sites-fuel-fears-covert-conflict-way.htmlThe Iranian Revolutionary Guard today went on to a war footing as its commander upped his troops’ readiness for operations. The move by General Mohammed Ali Jaafari, coming after the shooting down of a U.S. drone and the ransacking of the British embassy in Tehran, will raise fears among citizens in the West that the Islamists are escalating towards major conflict. But following on from mysterious explosions at Iranian nuclear sites, the kidnapping and assassination of scientists and possible sabotage of computers using a virus, an increasing number of experts are suggesting that combat has already broken out – a ’21st century war’. Operational status: Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have been put on a war footing by the country’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over fears of an attack by the West on its nuclear facilities Under attack? A satellite image of the Revolutionary Guard base near Bid Kaneh taken in September. A mysterious explosion destroyed many of the buildings last month Sabotage? The same base after the explosion on November 12, which was the work of U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies One retired U.S. official, with up to date intelligence, told the National Journal: ‘It’s safe to say the Israelis are very active.’ He added about U.S. efforts: ‘Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing – tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community – are all of the things we are actually doing.’ On November 12, a huge explosion flattened the Revolutionary Guard base at Bid Kaneh, killing 17 people including a founder of Iran’s ballistic missile programme. A separate blast last week badly damaged the uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan. Two nuclear physicists were killed and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, were wounded by bombs attached to their cars or detonated near them last year. Advanced: Iran claimed yesterday to have shot down a U.S. high-tech RQ-170 drone. There are fears the regime could gain stealth technology information if they have secured the drone Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Germany, said the intensity of the covert war indicated that this is where the U.S. and Israel are putting their energy for now. He said: ‘If the U.S. or Israel were determined to take Iran’s nuclear installations out they wouldn’t be wasting time pinpointing individual scientists like this.’ But, he pointed out, Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor was also preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists.
Hibbs said: ‘Some of the concern in the expert community is that in going down this route we’re unleashing forces we cannot control.’ That is seen as a reference to the Stuxnet computer worm which infected the nuclear facilities in 2010, and was believed to be the work of U.S and Israeli engineers.Abbasi-Davani accused Great Britain, Israel and the U.S. of conducting attacks on him and other Iranian scientists. He told a news conference at the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna: ‘Six years ago the intelligence service of the UK began collecting information and data regarding my past, my family, the number of children.’ It was the IAEA which produced a report detailing how close Iran was to producing the bomb that has racheted up tension between Washington and Tehran in recent weeks.’This is a big prize in terms of technology,’ a senior U.S. military source said after the downing of the RQ-170 drone. Defiant: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he country will not budge from its nuclear programme, which he insists is for peaceful means Defiant: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he country will not budge from its nuclear programme, which he insists is for peaceful means–as they are for medicine, aeronautics and space exploration and electricity. The Iranian news agency said it was show down after illegally crossing the country’s eastern border, although a U.S. military official said it had ‘absolutely no indication’ the drone was shot down. Neither the Air Force nor manufacturer Lockheed Martin has released much information about the plane, which was dubbed The Beast of Kandahar in 2007 when its existence was finally confirmed. Early reports suggested that the plane – which supposedly has a wingspan of about 65ft and can fly at around 50,000ft – would be made almost entirely without metal to help it dodge radar. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, said the build-up of incidents ‘add up to a very worrisome picture’.
This was, he said, in part because ‘the Iranians are absorbing all of these assassinations without seeing the pace of their nuclear program slow down to the extent it would be acceptable to the West.’ But if Iranian retaliations grow serious enough, he said, they could provide ‘the pretext for a much larger war’ in which the Israelis, and possibly the Americans, launch a full attack on Iran. Gen Jaafari responded by ordering Revolutionary Guard units to move long-range Shahab missile to prevent them being targeted.The Iranian air force has also been carrying out exercises to respond to any attack from the air and says it will deal seriously with any further incursions into its airspace. Middle East countries have insisted Iran does not represent a threat to the West. UAE Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum told CNN: ‘I don’t believe that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. Will they hit Israel? How many Palestinians will die? And you think if Iran hits Israel, their cities will be safe? They will be gone the next day.’
Backlash: Sanctions on Iran's nuclear industry were heightened after a report was published last month which revealed the Islamic Republic was likely to be developing nuclear weapons
Israel forms Iran special ops command
Sat. 17 Dec. 2011 10:40AM

Major General Shai Avital (shown in the picture) will head the Depth Corps, which will focus on Israel’s sabotage and assassination operations abroad.
Israel is unifying its special forces under one command amid the persisting rhetoric and speculations that the Israeli regime would launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

“The primary task of the Corps will be to extend joint IDF (Israeli army) operations into the strategic depth,” the Israeli military said on Thursday. The new command, dubbed Depth Corps, will be headed by Major General Shai Avital and will focus on Israel’s long-distance operations. The integration of special operations forces into the Depth Corps, known as Iran Special Operations Command within the Israeli military, means they will also play a role in “commando” operations involving sabotage and assassinations in the Islamic Republic. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have occasionally called for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, several Israeli security and military figures have warned that an attack on Iran over its nuclear activities would lead to a regional war. Former director of Mossad spy agency Meir Dagan said in a television interview on November 29 that Iran, and the Hezbollah and Hamas resistance movements will respond with massive rocket attacks on Israel if the Tel Aviv regime attacks Iranian atomic sites. He noted that Syria would also join Iran in that scenario. Dagan added that such a war would take a heavy toll in terms of lost lives and would paralyze life in Israel.

Earlier in May, Dagan publicly argued against an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. He described the possibility of a future Israeli airstrike on Iran as “the stupidest thing he has ever heard.” The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear work may consist of a covert military agenda. Iran has refuted the allegations, saying that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. While Israel refuses to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities or to join the NPT based on its policy of nuclear ambiguity, Iran has been subjected to snap IAEA inspections due to its policy of nuclear transparency. Israel recently test fired a new long-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The test was carried out at the Palmahim air base in central Israel. This three-stage Jericho-3 missile, which is capable of delivering a 750-kilo warhead to a distance, is estimated to have a range of up to 10,000 kilometers. Paradoxically, Israel’s new nuke-capable missile, which can target many parts of the globe, is not considered a threat in the eyes of the West. MP/MA

Ahmadinejad arrives in Latin America for support

Representative will visit Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba

THE GLOBEWITH INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

Posted:08/01/12 – 12h44
Updated:08/01/12 – 15h47
Hugo Chavez greets the Iranian president during his visit in 2010: Caracas will be the first stop Photo: AP
HUGO CHAVEZ GREETS THE IRANIAN PRESIDENT DURING HIS VISIT IN 2010: CARACAS WILL BE THE FIRST STOPAP

RIO – Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday comes to Latin America for another tour of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.Increasingly isolated because of sanctions imposed by Western powers to the Iranian oil industry, the trustee should request support for Latin American leaders who, like him, are also openly against U.S. policy, as is the case of Hugo Chavez. Apprehensive because of Tehran’s nuclear program, U.S. and European countries have adopted a series of embargoes against the Iranian government in order to pressure him to drop the atomic energy. Washington described the meeting with Ahmadinejad rival the United States as a demonstration that Iran is “desperate to have friends.” – We are making it absolutely clear to countries around the world that is not the time to forge closer ties, or security or economic, with Iran – said American spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Expel U.S. Consul General of Venezuela in Miami Ahmadinejad’s first stop will be in Venezuela, a country traditionally critical of the United States. On Sunday, by the way, the U.S. State Department expelled the Venezuelan Consul General in Miami, Livia Acosta Nogueira.The diplomat has until Tuesday to leave the U.S., which gave no details of the decision. The way the Iranian representative was criticized by the Venezuelan opposition, but Chavez said the president will be “welcome”. The two countries nurture a close relationship. Tehran has even build factories in Venezuela. The Iranian president has, officially, for Latin America to attend the inauguration ceremony for the re-elected president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. This time, Ahmadinejad did not come to Brazil.

Iran announced it would start enriching uranium in bunker

In the “near future”, the Iran began enriching uranium inside a mountain , a local official said. Measure that should further increase the tension between Tehran and Western powers, which suspect Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons. The decision by the Islamic Republic to conduct sensitive nuclear activities in an underground site will give more protection against a possible enemy attack. For months, Iran says it is preparing to take their work in refining high-level uranium enrichment plant at Natanz to Fordow, a facility near Qom, the holy city for Shiite Muslims in central Iran The United States and its allies say Iran is trying to build bombs, but Tehran insists its nuclear program is solely for power generation and has medical purposes.

Leia mais sobre esse assunto em
http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/ahmadinejad-chega-america-latina-em-busca-de-apoio-3595978#ixzz1ith6nDNG © 1996 – 2012. Todos direitos reservados a Infoglobo Comunicação e Participações S.A. Este material não pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast, reescrito ou redistribuído sem autorização.
 
 Each star marks a US military base
in Iran, both supporters and opponents respect President Ahmadinejad as a man of integrity and humility, and are honored by his love for, and unfailing commitment to, the Iranian people@1:42″God is a witness, there is no day I don’t pray for you. All this is the love of God, He has bestowed His love in me. Are you listening to me? Once in your address, I think it was last year, you said ‘I am alone’. I swear by Ali! I could not sleep all night. I said, ‘Am I dead for you to be alone?’this is the sincerity of a mother towards her son, truly only a faithful servant of the people can inspire such love!The Lady who made President Ahmadinejad Cry [HQ]

Great Lady Addressing a Great man
    • David Austin

      the truth of Ahmadinejad’s words burns the ears of the hypocrites, so much so that they have to flee the room. I recommend a full viewing / reading of this excellent speechAhmadinejad UN GA Speech Sept 25, 2007 (4 part playlist) full transcript:

      http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/AhmadinejadUN.pdf

      www.youtube.com

      ‎”Ahmadinejad UN GA Speech Sept 25, 2007″, a playlist created by david1austin

    • David Austin

      this is a man who tenaciously holds on to a vision of justice, despite the misrepresentation and distortion which western propagandists use to distract the world from his indictment of their hypocrisy, and their crimes against humanity”In my opinion, we have several important agendas in front of us. The Secretary General and the UN General Assembly can take the lead by undertaking necessary measures for the fulfillment of our shared goals on the basis of:1 – Restructuring the United Nations in order to transform this world body to an efficient and fully democratic organization, capable of playing an impartial, equitable, and effective role in the international relations; reforming the structure of the Security Council, specially by abolishing the discriminatory privilege of veto right; restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony; putting an end to all types of interferences in the affairs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and in all countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe …2- Reforming the current economic structures and setting up a new international economic order based on human and moral values and obligations. A new course is needed that would help promote justice and progress worldwide by flourishing the potentials and talents of all nations thus bringing well-being for all and for future generations;3- Reforming the international political relations based on the promotion of lasting peace and friendship, eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;4- Reforming cultural structures , respect for diverse customs and traditions of all nations, fostering moral values and spirituality aimed at institution of family as the backbone of all human societies;5- Worldwide efforts to protect the environment and full observance of the international agreements and arrangements to prevent the annihilation of nature’s non-renewable resources.”Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President, Islamic Republic of Iran September 23, 2009, General Debate, UN General Assembly 64th Session

      http://www.un.org/en/ga/64/generaldebate/pdf/IR_en.pdf

    • David Austin

      the shunning, however, diminishes neither the truth nor its recognition by the morally conscious”Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible. The present inequitable and unfavorable conditions run counter to the very nature of human kind and move in a direction which contravenes the truth and the goal behind the creation of the world.”… The era of capitalist thinking and . imposition of one’s thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.”Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.

      “The time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards whilst they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer sit both the judge and the executor and challenge the real democratically- established governments.”The awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow them to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. Because of all these reasons most nations including the people of the Untied States are waiting for real and profound changes. They have welcomed and will continue to welcome changes.”ibid.

    • David Austin

      President Ahmadinejad and I also agree on our unequivocal condemnation of the criminal actions of the Zionist entity, and on our support for the self-determination of Palestinians in the entire region of Palestine, from the “river to the sea””[Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi] said, ‘Palestine is not divisible, and it cannot be divided into two parts as some are saying,’ IRNA reported. ‘Iran’s official stance is that Palestine belongs to all Palestinians,’ he stated, adding, ‘Palestine belonged to Palestinians from the outset, and we do not approve of the breakup of Palestine.'”‘We will never recognize the Zionist regime, and this has been the clear stance that the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution, and it will remain the same,’ the Iranian foreign minister asserted.”Palestine is indivisible: Iranian FM September 20, 2011, Tehran Times

      http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/2698-palestine-is-indivisible-iranian-fm

      thanks Kirsty Umm Amina

      www.tehrantimes.com

      Tehran Times – Iran’s Leading International Daily

      Ahmadinejad and Iran – A Revolution in Motion [Documentary] Ahmadienjad and Iran – A Revolution in Motion http://www.youtube.com  with president Bashir Assad of Syria.    Imam Khamenei & President Ahmadinejad, 2005 … “our relation is more than politics, it comes from my belief, it is such as relation of a son to his father … Vali (Vali-e-Faqih) is as father for society”, President Ahmadinejad    w/CASTRO   INVITE/ADD YOUR FRIENDS IN THIS GROUP    President Ahmadinejad notified to Russia leaders again : Ahmadinejad expressed regret about the Russian leader’s decision to “become the mouthpiece for the plot by the enemies of Iran.” He, however, expressed Iran’s interest to maintain and boost its amicable ties with Russia. 20 SEPT 2011

      Charlie Rose – Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Islamic Republic of Iran | Sept. 20, 2011

      Halomaster7

      S’abonner

      621 vidéos 

      9 919Afficher les statistiques sur la vidéo

      J'aime ce contenuJ’aimeJe n'aime pas ce contenu Ajouter aux favoris ou à une playlistAjouter à Partager Peut offenser

      Ajoutée par  le 26 sept. 2011

      Copyright © 2011 Charlie Rose LLC. All rights reserved | Fair Use Notice

      Follow Us On Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/HaloMaster7 See full playlist of Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad videos:http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE5E9B12654B92860 Contact: emailhalomaster7@gmail.com FAIR USE NOTICE: These Videos may contain copyrighted © material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes.

      • 81 aiment, 35 n’aiment pas

      Plus

       L’ajout de commentaires a été désactivé pour cette vidéo.