Subject: To You
A Must watch 5 min
Subject: To You
A Must watch 5 min
Of statesmanship and political pandering….
By Dr Franklin Lamb
For westerners, and particularly Americans who have watched Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad up fairly close as he delivers speeches in the US and elsewhere including during last year’s visit to Lebanon, his charisma and populist connection with the public are evident and often powerful.
And President Barack Obama is normally no slough either on the stump when he woes voters and inspires them to support his point of view. But last week’s UN appearance by the two leaders left a Matthew 13:24-30 type image of the wheat being separated from the chaff. Both countries are juxtaposed menacingly in the Middle East, one pressuring the region in an all-out sustained NATO utilized effort to maintain its hegemony and the other actively trying to lead the region in a very different direction. Consequently the public was presented with an interesting contrast in styles and substance.
The two appearances could be handicapped along the lines that Obama’s tough job was to try to shore up Israel whose days as a dominate force in the Levant rapidly grow fewer as history corrects the nearly incalculable injustice that
resulted from the West’s implantation of the racist state and as history inexorably deconstructs the world’s last 19th Century colonial enterprise.
From the UN podium, Ahmadinejad knew in advance that approximately 15 minutes into his speech began AIPAC would signal the launch of its churlish and infantile 30 country walkout and most of the delegations in the audience knew that the White House had given its ok. The Iranian President also knew that there would be the pro-Zionist tabloid media blitz against him complete with the now expected degrading and offensive cartoons and the Persian visitor being labeled in the US media, what else, but an “anti-Semite”, “a clown”, “weirdo”, “crackpot”. “the new Hitler” and the usual moronic libels. It is hard to imagine that the New York Times editors actually read his speech since they not only failed it analyze it but simply dismissed it as a “tirade” the same description they applied last year.
But this year, the AIPAC/White House walk-out backfired and it was roundly condemned not only among the American public but among the publics of each of the countries
that agreed to rudely interrupt the proceedings. The Zionist controlled US government failed to realize that the international public, like most Americans, by and large retain respect for the values of open dialogue, common hospitality and respect for leaders from other countries. Moreover, they understand that the raison d’etre of the United Nations is to provide its members with an open forum. This includes Iran and each of the 192 other UN Member States. When Obama spoke the Iranian delegation listened respectfully.
OBAMA the compleat politician?
President Obama, embarrassingly for the American public proved once more his habit of assuming the role of the groveling US politician for the pariah Israeli UN Member. This latest speech was no exception and once more Obama made plain that he will support Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine as a quid pro quo for the Israeli lobby funding and supporting his 2012 Presidential re-election bid.
Birzeit University Professor Hanan Ashrawi, spoke for many in the audience and across America after Obama finished: “I did not believe what I heard. It sounded as if the
Palestinians were occupying Israel. There was no empathy for the Palestinians; he only spoke of the Israeli problems. He told us that it isn’t easy to achieve peace, thanks, we know this. He spoke about universal rights, Good; those same rights apply to Palestinians. The White House is applying
enormous pressure on everybody at the UN and they are using threats and coercion. I wish they would invest the same energy in an attempt to promote peace, not threats.”
Has Iran have produced a Statesman or a sycophant?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is at his best when he is engaged in dialogue and debate according to people in Lebanon and Iran who know him well. But he gets to the point quickly and it sometimes catches his interlocutors off-guard if they aren’t prepared.
Devoutly religious, Iran’s President is unerringly polite and respectful, and never fails to mention the positive and the necessity of dialogue and seeking common ground.
But he speaks frankly and also noted that President Obama never made good on a pledge to try to improve US-Iranian relations and to open a dialogue with Iran, and said he still hopes for a face-to-face meeting. “I don’t believe that this is a chance that has been completely lost,” Ahmadinejad said.
He told Iran’s fellow UN Members “You all know that the nuclear issue has been turned and manipulated into a political issue,” and he added that Iran remains ready to negotiate over its disputed nuclear program, and repeated the country’s position that the program is for the peaceful production of energy
Following the 2009 disputed Iranian elections, he stated “We were very much in support of change. I sent a personal message to President Obama, but we never received a response.
His UN speech theme was that most nations of the world are unhappy with the current international circumstances. “And despite the general longing and aspiration to promote peace, progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable damage worldwide.” He continued, “Approximately, three billion people of the world live on less than 2.5 dollars a day, and over a billion people live without having even one sufficient meal on a daily basis. Forty-percent of the poorest world populations only share five percent of the global income, while twenty percent of the richest people share seventy-five percent of the total global income. More than twenty thousand innocent and destitute children die every day in the world because of poverty.”
He challenged the United Nations to reform itself and he urged honest debate on the vital issues confronting the world community. He asked
the UN to bear in mind who imposed colonialism for over four centuries, who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?
He asked the UN members to join in solutions to the World’s problems but asked that we not hide the facts of:
· Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?
· Who imposed through Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?
· Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations?
· Who used nuclear bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?
· Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?
· Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people?
· Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle East and its oil resources?
· Who nullified the Breton Woods system by printing trillions of dollars without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations?
· Which country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?
· Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?
· Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing the consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?
· Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly responsible for safeguarding the international security?
This month’s Iran-U.S Presidential addresses at the United Nations have given its members a clear choice for the challenges quickly engulfing the Middle East. Ultimately, as the popular awakenings in this region teach us, it is the citizens of each country who have the power to decide how to deal with these crises.
Iran’s President demonstrated at Turtle Bay this month that he understands the problems, offers rational solutions and is ready for constructive dialogue. The next move is up to President Obama to extricate him and his country from the jaws of Zionism and to join with Iran and the community of nations with constructive proposals to help alleviate the challenges Iran’s President enumerated.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
According to the official Iranian state media agency (IRNA) the head of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, has threatened to send military ships off the Atlantic Coast of the United States, representing a marked increase in tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Sayyari reportedly said, “Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders”.
Interestingly, this came in the wake of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization announcing that they will triple the size of an air base near the Iranian border in Afghanistan.
There are many factors that likely influenced the decision to make this statement publicly, so let’s look at a few possibilities.http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7811593327276272802&postID=2360636806276191743
Late last month I published an article about Israel urging Western nations to present Iran with a credible military threat, which in fact the United States is doing right now.
Furthermore, Turkey just recently announced that they would host the NATO radar system which will, with the help of a plethora of anti-missile defense systems, allegedly be used to spot and disable missile threats from outside Europe from nations like Iran and North Korea.
This system has not only irked Iran but also raised considerable tensions with Russia as they have legitimate concerns over how it will actually be utilized.
Russia has requested that the United States and NATO enter a legally binding agreement saying the system will not be used against Russia but they have been met with stern refusal.
Reuters also points out that if diplomacy fails in getting Iran to stop getting nuclear weapons; America and Israel have not taken the prospect of a military strike off the table.
However, Iran says that their nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes and despite plenty of fearmongering from Israel and the US, there is zero evidence that conflicts with Tehran’s repeated assurances.
According to Reuters, Iran dismissed Israeli and American threats by saying that if such a strike were to occur they will respond by attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf as well as Israel, which has been claiming that Iran is planning to attack them for years.
Reuters also cites unnamed “analysts” who claim that Iran could carry out hit-and-run attacks in the Persian Gulf and by closing off the Strait of Hormuz.
American interests in the Persian Gulf are plentiful and roughly 40% of all traded oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so if Tehran were able to successfully carry out such an operation US national interests could be severely impacted.
Then again, we must realize there are plentiful American allies in the region and we have plenty of launching points in areas surrounding Iran from which we could easily attack.
The Iranian Navy official, Sayyari, did not give any more insight into how many vessels could be deployed or what type of vessels they would be. He also did not give any details on when this mobilization could occur.
One important thing worth noting is that if Sayyari is serious and this actually occurs, this could easily justify a massive preemptive strike against Iran. This would be not only against Iranian ships but against their domestic military facilities and nuclear facilities as well.
Just think of how the Bush regime justified invading Iraq based on false intelligence of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Can you imagine how swift Washington would be to strike Iran if they actually positioned ships off of one of our coasts?
What do you think? Is Iran just flexing in an attempt to fight back against the constant real or imagined threat from Israel and the United States? Or is Iran actually announcing a plan to mobilize off of the US’s East Coast?
Libya: Rebels Create Humanitarian Disaster, Then Blame it on Qaddafi
Sat Sep 24 08:24
share this story
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Corporate media complicit in covering for rebel war crimes.
Despite desperate attempts by Wall Street and London to proclaim their intervention in Libya a success, even going as far as sending their political proxies Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of the United Kingdom for a quick photo opportunity at the rebel held airport in contested Tripoli, vast swaths of the nation are still fiercely resisting NATO and their proxy rebel forces. This includes entire cities still standing in defiance against rebel attempts to “starve them out” and dozens of daily NATO airstrikes (NATO report for September 22) aimed at breaking the population’s will to fight on.
Weeks ago, the rebel forces, led by US State Department and UK Home Office listed terrorists from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a subsidiary of Al Qaeda, boldly announced plans to starve out cities resisting their unelected, foreign backed seizure of the North African nation. The London Telegraph reported in an article aptly titled, “Libya crisis: Rebel leaders hoping to starve Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte into submission,” that under the cover of heavy NATO bombing rebel leaders hoped “to starve Col Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte into submission, laying siege to his last remaining stronghold in an attempt to avoid mass bloodshed, according to the man spearheading efforts for a peaceful takeover.”
Fox News would relay an AP report on September 2, 2011, that rebel commanders declared, “we want to save our fighters and not lose a single one in battles with Qaddafi’s forces. In the end, we will get Sirte, even if we have to cut water and electricity and let NATO pound it with airstrikes.” AP cited Mohammed al-Rajali, a spokesman for the rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi. Ironically, the article was titled, “UN Warns Libya is Short of Water, Fuel, Medicine,” a crisis admittedly being caused by the premeditated denial for entire cities of critical supplies for their civilian populations, enabled by NATO bombing and under the cover of UN recognition of the terrorist rebels – a move that has soundly resigned the UN’s legitimacy and stated purpose to the scrapheap of history.
This is also a verifiable war crime. As reported earlier, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the denial of humanitarian assistance is a crime under international law. The Red Cross adds that “a massacre is not necessarily committed only with knives.” While many will attempt to portray the premeditated creation of a humanitarian disaster as “more humane” than taking the Libya’s cities by force – rebels have in fact already tried force, for now over a month, and have been soundly repelled.
Now, after weeks of attempting to encircle and starve into submission cities rejecting NATO-backed, UN sanctioned rebel control of Libya, including the southern city of Bani Walid, the “National Transitional Council” is claiming the resulting humanitarian disaster is of Libyan leader Qaddafi’s own creation. CNN, in a bout of selective amnesia after reporting earlier that “anti-Gadhafi forces on the outskirts of Sirte and Bani Walid have cut off supplies into the cities and amassed weaponry for heavy battle,” has now reported in another article titled, “NTC claims humanitarian disaster in Gadhafi stronghold,” that “that Gadhafi forces are robbing food stores, leaving civilian residents to starve.” This is just the latest in a long litany of conflicting stories and verified lies spread by the now notoriously deceptive rebels, their equally duplicitous “international” backers, and shamelessly relayed without hesitation by the complicit and clearly compromised mainstream media.
A real crime against humanity is being committed in Libya, perpetrated by NATO on behalf of Wall Street and London. As reported earlier, NATO’s entire support network and public partners consist of Fortune 500 corporations via the Atlantic Council, which claims to be a preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security. Its sponsors include many of the big oil interests poised to reap a whirlwind of profits over NATO-backed regime change in Libya, namely BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. It also includes defense contractors already enriched by the protracted bloodshed in Northern Africa including Raytheon, BAE, SAAB Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
Additional support comes from the world’s largest banks and equity firms, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, the Blackstone Group, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse Bank, who are set to benefit not from the liberation of the Libyan people, but the “liberation” of Libya’s markets. There is also a tremendous amount of foundation support for the Atlantic Council and thus NATO, each with a nefarious back-story worthy of their own thorough examination, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation, and billionaire bankster George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Photos: (Top) Northrup Grumman’s MQ-8 Fire Scout, which made headlines as it was shot down over Libya. (Below) a Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile, employed during the opening phases of NATO’s military intervention in Libya beginning in March of 2011. Both Northrup Grumman and Raytheon, amongst many other defense contractors are financial sponsors of the Atlantic Council, an epicenter providing political and rhetorical support for NATO’s ongoing operations in Libya – exposing an astronomical conflict of interest.
But perhaps most alarming is NATO’s support via the Atlantic Council by “reputable” news and media agency sponsors, including Thomson Reuters, News Desk Media, Bloomberg (which includes BusinessWeek), and Google. This explains the almost schizophrenic reporting emerging from Libya spinning and obfuscating the truth in a consistently pro-NATO light and goes a long way to explain why rebels are allowed by the “international community” to purposefully starve civilian populations, break Libya’s resistance with NATO airstrikes, and somehow manage to place the blame on the civilian populations by merely labeling them as “pro-Qaddafi” and that such atrocities are self-imposed.
Logically, one should conclude, if they are indeed repulsed by what is transpiring in Libya at the hands of Wall Street and London, that the corporations, banks, and institutions involved should be exposed, boycotted, and promptly replaced.
For other atrocities committed in the wake of NATO’s attempt, now over a month ago, to seize Tripoli and declare their mission a success please see “Libya: V-day + 3 Weeks.”
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report.
Before we forget … we must remember …
By W J Anthony
For the people who live in France, Britain the USA and other countries who supplied troops, bombs and aircraft to destroy Libya and its people, is it about time now to think again what your leaders told you about why they used your sons in your military to attack and invade and kill over a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children during six months of thousands of bombings and shootings in Libya?
Did you elect those leaders that hold public office as presidents and prime ministers and legislators to order your sons to invade and slaughter the people in Libya?
Why did you elect them?
Did they promise your working people and children that they would raise your standard of living to equal what the people in Libya enjoyed?
Did your leaders promise that they would enact free education for all your children through graduate schools of higher learning to become a scientist, engineer, teacher, entrepreneur or a farmer, as was done in Libya?
Did your leaders promise that they would arrange to provide free medical care in modern hospitals for you and all your people, as was done in Libya?
Did your leaders promise to create a people’s banking system to provide interest free loans for you to buy a home or automobile, as was done in Libya?
Did your elected leaders promise that you would have abundant water and modern sewer and waste treatment services and electric energy, as was done in Libya?
Why did you allow your elected leaders to use your sons to attack and invade and murder the innocent people in Libya, who did not attack or injure you?
Did those leaders that you elected, tell you about the magnificent achievements of the people in Libya in building schools, modern hospitals, factories and businesses, streets and roads and apartment and business buildings, and jobs for all their people?
Did your elected leaders tell you about Libya’s wondrous achievement of finding and collecting the vast supply of fresh water that lies below the sands of the Sahara desert and how that system provided fresh water for all the people of Libya and irrigated the desert itself to grow food for the people of Libya?
Do you intend to keep those leaders in office, after what they did to destroy Libya?
Can they be trusted to not someday choose to destroy you and your people?
Ironically, the people in the United States and their Congress did nothing to stop their President Obama and their Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, from leading the NATO aggressor nations of France and Britain to attack and invade and kill the people of Libya.
Who voted Obama and those members of Congress into office?
Will the American people reelect Obama and Clinton, and reelect the members of Congress, who failed to impeach Obama for his violation of the Constitution’s war powers and his violation of International Law and then funded and supported Obama’s war crimes in Libya?
If the members of Congress, who failed to impeach Obama for starting his war in Libya without a Congressional Declaration of War aren’t removed from office, Americans cannot claim to have a Government of the People, by the People and for the People.
Libya was becoming the best and only country in the world that had a Government of the People, by the People and for the People.
Abraham Lincoln warned Americans at Gettysburg, that the form of a People’s Government would perish from the Earth, if people do not oppose leaders who want to rule as tyrants. It was also said in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Impeachment and imprisonment are such guards.
We will soon see in the next American election, if the People will vote to remove those members of Congress who failed to impeach President Obama for his violation of the Constitution and International Law, in conspiring to wage an illegal war against Libya.
People in France and Britain and other NATO countries must determine by their elections, which leaders truly serve a Government of the People, by the People, and for the People; and remove and convict Sarkozy and Cameron for their violations of International Law against Libya.
If our elected leaders permit NATO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reduce the People of Libya under absolute Despotism through war and poverty, then we, the people, need to ask ourselves, “Might those same leaders someday choose to become Despots and tyrannize us, the people that elected them to office?”
The Declaration of Independence warns us and tells us “to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for our future security” and institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness… while we still can …
September 18, 2011
Dear Benjamin Netanyahu
By W J Anthony
You are approaching the most important historical moment in the past sixty-five years. At the United Nations, you will have the opportunity to make a decision to solve the most disturbing dilemma in the Middle East – the conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestine claim for statehood. The UN will host an effort to resolve the claim of Palestinians that the UN should recognize their right to be the independent state of Palestine.
Palestinians and Jews have historic identities as separate nations and people, and they claim cultural and territorial identities as independent nations today.
The bitter consequence of those who call themselves Israeli Jews is that, as members of a tribe of Israel, they have failed to fulfill the vision that was promised by God to Abraham, that the tribes of Israel would be a blessing to the nations of the Earth.
As you know, Abraham obeyed God and had his sons circumcised, including Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and their descendents as a sign that they would receive the promise of God’s blessing to possess the lands that exist from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River. And Jacob was renamed Israel by an angel against whom he wrestled in the dark of night.
The Torah describes the development and history of the twelve tribes of Israel, and the territorial dimensions defined for each of the tribes. It also describes the disputes that occurred among them. The land of Palestine, including Judah, is part of the territory of Israel that was promised by God to be a blessing to all nations. Many of the descendents of Ishmael and the twelve tribes of Israel now dwell in the territorial dimensions of the Promised Land, that God has described in the Torah.
The goal of the Promised Land is that its people would thrive with the blessing of God and be a blessing to other nations. Many descendents maintain the belief that they might yet realize that magnificent satisfaction of God’s promise.
The Twentieth Century outlook of many people in Europe, Eurasia, and Africa is focused on material prosperity and has become the dominant motivation of their cultures.
The desire to witness the reality of the Promised Land is now only an ancient artifact of legend for people, who wage wars for material conquest. As the weaponry of war becomes more sophisticated and available, a justification for invasion and attack is easily rationalized as a natural right by leaders, who seek dominance over other people with new arms of war. Some, who called themselves Jews, claimed a natural right to attack and drive the people of Palestine from their homeland after World War Two.
The successful acceptance of that venture depended on the approval of President Truman of the United States and the planned agreement of the newly born United Nations. The Zionist leaders who initiated the war against Palestinians claimed the right to name their conquest of part of Palestine as the “Jewish State of Israel”. President Truman was bribed to recognize the Zionist conquest as a state, but he refused to accept the word Jewish in the name. Instead, he insisted that the Zionist conquest would be “The State of Israel” with the obligation that it accede to the conditions that were included in its Declaration of Independence, which declared equal rights of all its residents as citizens.
Now is the time when you, Benjamin Netanyahu, can become one of the greatest leaders of the present century. You can begin to achieve that, in your address this coming week.
Consider this note from the Internet:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a news conference on Thursday (September 15, 2011) with Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas that he will address the issue of the Palestinian statehood bid in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 23.
Could Netanyahu emerge from the event as a winner?
The main event to be dealt by this session of the UN General Assembly is the Palestinian independence. If the unusual General Assembly session will take place, what will Netanyahu say?
What would a smart and just Netanyahu say? He could begin by citing the Israeli Declaration of Independence:
Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country…
This right was recognized…
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution calling for the establishment of an independent… (Government that)
…will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State if Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the building of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions – provisional or permanent. We extend our hand of peace and unity to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
A smart and just Netanyahu would begin by remembering these sentences from Israel’s Declaration of Independence, and then would proceed to openly acknowledge (that) the State of Israel has failed to fulfill its purpose, that Palestinians enjoy the same rights. He will acknowledge that Israel failed to fulfill not only the conditions imposed on its independence by the UN, but also its own principles of equality and freedom as declared in its Independence Scroll (as the declaration is known in Hebrew). As such – a smart Netanyahu would continue – “the State of Israel supports the Palestinian Declaration of Independence”. Then, he would emerge as a true hero of freedom, and would be hailed from north to south and from west to east.
Your speech at the UN this week, is an appropriate opportunity for you, Benjamin Netanyahu, to propose to the United Nations, that the time is now right for the people of the Middle East to begin to achieve the promise of the almighty God, that the land – from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River – will be blessed with prosperity in a government by and for the peoples of that land, united in cooperation with each other.
By that proposal, Benjamin, you can choose to be the vehicle by which Israel will become a true blessing to the nations of the Earth!
Please, note: even though this web site deals with purely technical matters and it has absolutely nothing to do with any politics, it might still be considered being “politically incorrect”. So, a possibility exists that this site could be removed one day by authorities and such a prospect can not be ignored. If so happens, you would be able to find a reference to a new source here: www.911thology.cn (note, it is a *.cn domain, not *.com ), or you could search the Internet by ’9/11thology’ keyword and you would always find some related info.
First of all, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the former atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept. During modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion – with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, a thermal radiation and an air-blast wave. It explodes quite deep underground – much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it does produce neither any air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It could cause only relatively minor harm to surroundings by an ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, considered being a negligible factor by designers of such demolition schemes.
What is a basic difference between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion? The basic difference is this. During an initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in a form of a so-called “primary radiation” that in its main part (almost 99%) falls within X-rays spectrum (and remaining part is represented by gamma-rays spectrum that causes radiation injuries and visible spectrum that produces visible flash). So, this almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding air at tens of meters around a hypocenter of such an explosion. It happens because X-rays can not travel too far, being consumed by surrounding air. Heating of this relatively small area around the nuclear explosion hypocenter would result in appearance of so-called “nuclear fireballs” that physically is nothing else than an extremely overheated air. These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion – its thermal radiation and its air-blast wave, since both factors result exclusively from high temperatures of the air around a nuclear explosion. When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different. There is no air around a small “zero-box” a nuclear charge is placed into, so an entire amount of energy instantly released by a nuclear explosion in a form of X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding rock, instead. It would result in overheating, melting and evaporating of this rock. Disappearance of the evaporated rock would result in creation of an underground cavity, size of which directly depends on explosive yield of nuclear munitions used. You can have an idea on how much rock could disappear during an underground nuclear explosion from the below table – where quantities of evaporated and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on “per kiloton of yield” basis:
|Rock type||Specific mass of vaporized material
(in tons per kiloton yield)
|Specific mass of the melted
material (in tons per kiloton yield)
|Dry granite||69||300 (±100)|
|Moist tuff (18-20% of water)||72||500 (± 150)|
|Dry tuff||73||200 – 300|
For example, in particular cases of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, their lowest underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface. While the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned as depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations. Such a thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity with its upper sphere touching the lowest underground foundations of the Twin Tower it intends to demolish. But it would still be short of reaching the Earth surface by 27 meters – so surrounding structures would not to be affected by any destructive factors of this underground nuclear explosion (except by, possibly, only its radioactive contamination). The Tower that is to be demolished supposes to lose its foundations completely, and to be sucked-in into this overheated cavity, temperatures inside of which are deemed enough to melt the entire Tower. Nuclear demolition schemes of the WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the same way.
However, there is one more factor that is to be taken into consideration during calculation of nuclear demolition projects of skyscrapers. This is about the actual evaporated granite rock inside the cavity. Where all that former granite rock now in gaseous state supposes to go from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let’s consider it.
However, we have considered above the physical processes which are true to an “ideally deep” underground nuclear blast. When a nuclear charge is buried not sufficiently deep, a picture will be slightly different. “Damaged” and “crushed” zones will not be exactly round in the latter case. They would be rather elliptic – with their longer ends directed upwards – comparable with an egg facing upwards with its sharper end, or possibly even more ellipsoidal and sharper upwards than a typical egg. It happens because the pressure of the evaporated gases would encounter the least resistance towards the Earth surface (since it is too near), so either “crushed zone” or “damaged zone” would extend upwards farther than to any other direction. But when propagating upwards upper boundaries of the “damaged zone” and “crushed zone” encounter underground foundations of the Tower which is to be demolished, the picture would be even more different. It is because materials the Tower is built of differ from surrounding granite rock in a sense of resistance of materials. Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower, while the remaining granite rock towards the rest of directions (to either sides and downwards) is solid. So, expansion of the upper boundaries of “damaged” and “crushed” zones by the Tower’s structure will be the farthest. In case of the WTC Twin Towers or the Sears Tower the “damaged zone” could likely reach up to 350-370 meters, while “crushed zone” that follows immediately, would likely reach up to 290-310 meters. But in case of the much shorter WTC-7 its entire length will be within the “crushed zone” – so it would be pulverized completely. This ability of nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.
The picture below shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly “concrete dust”. No, it was not. It was “complete” dust – mainly pulverized steel. Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. It was not used anywhere else. The major part of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So this finest dust was in its major part represented by steel dust accordingly. Though, it was not only “steel dust” alone – it was also a “furniture dust”, “wood dust”, “paper dust”, “carpet dust”, “computer parts dust” and even “human dust”, since remaining in the Towers human beings were pulverized in the same manner as steel, concrete and furniture.
Some people might wonder – why the WTC-7 collapsed to its footprint very neatly, in its entirety, while either of the Twin Towers crushed down scattering not only dust, but even some debris to quite large distances. This question is very easy to answer – you have to look at the distribution of “crushed” and “damaged” zones along the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.
The picture below represents an approximate distribution of damages in case of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of a skyscraper. Don’t forget, that demolition charges in this particular case were buried not “ideally deep”, that is why forms of the “crushed” and “damaged” zones were not “ideally round” either – they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards – towards areas of the least resistance.
It should be added also that despite an apparent insufficiency of 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charges to pulverize the tallest skyscrapers in their entirety, charges of higher yields could not be used in nuclear demolition industry due to merely legal reasons. The problem is that in accordance with the USA – Soviet so-called “ Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976” yield of nuclear munitions used for non-military purposes was limited to 150 kiloton /per individual nuclear explosion and to maximum of 1.5 megaton aggregate yield for group explosions. So, the nuclear demolition industry has to fit into these legal frames: in case of the WTC demolition it was possible to use as many charges as necessary, but not in excess of 150 kiloton per charge. That is why the WTC nuclear demolition scheme consisted of three of such charges – with aggregate yield of 450 kiloton. For those people who have difficulty to imagine how powerful 150 kiloton is, it could be reminded that an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was less than 20 kiloton.
As it was mentioned in the beginning, this article does not describe any nuclear demolition scheme of a particular building in any exact detail, but does it rather on a conceptual level. But there is another article that describes a nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center in New York in particular. It is available here: http://www.wtcnucleardemolition.com
The author of this article – Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome.
GOOD NEWS: an interview with Dimitri Khalezov regarding the WTC nuclear demolition and 9/11 in general is now available. It contains detailed technical explanations supported by animated graphics and various contemporary 9/11 video clips. You can find download links for this presentation on the Internet by searching for Dimitri Khalezov video in Google.
Funds are badly needed to keep things
moving and the truth spreading.
Please, consider donating.
|Treaty Between the USA and USSR
on Underground Nuclear Explosions
for Peaceful Purposes
15 ILM 891
|entered into force December 11, 1990
Signed at Washington and Moscow May 28, 1976
The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,
Proceeding from a desire to implement Article III of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, which calls for the earliest possible conclusion of an agreement on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes,
Reaffirming their adherence to the objectives and principles of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, and their determination to observe strictly the provisions of these international agreements,
Desiring to assure that underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes shall not be used for purposes related to nuclear weapons,
Desiring that utilization of nuclear energy be directed only toward peaceful purposes,
Desiring to develop appropriately cooperation in the field of underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes,
Have agreed as follows:
2. This Treaty shall govern all underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes conducted by the Parties after March 31, 1976.
(a) “explosion” means any individual or group underground nuclear explosion for peaceful purposes;
(b) “explosive” means any device, mechanism or system for producing an individual explosion;
(c) “group explosion” means two or more individual explosions for which the time interval between successive individual explosions does not exceed five seconds and for which the emplacement points of all explosives can be interconnected by straight line segments, each of which joins two emplacement points and each of which does not exceed 40 kilometers.
(a) carry out explosions at any place under its jurisdiction or control outside the geographical boundaries of test sites specified under the provisions of the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests; and
(b) carry out, participate or assist in carrying out explosions in the territory of another State at the request of such other State.
2. Each Party undertakes to prohibit, to prevent and not to carry out at any place under its jurisdiction or control, and further undertakes not to carry out, participate or assist in carrying out anywhere:
(a) any individual explosion having a yield exceeding 150 kilotons;
(b) any group explosion:
(1) having an aggregate yield exceeding 150 kilotons except in ways that will permit identification of each individual explosion and determination of the yield of each individual explosion in the group in accordance with the provisions of Article IV of and the Protocol to this Treaty;
(2) having an aggregate yield exceeding one and one-half megatons;
(c) any explosion which does not carry out a peaceful application;
(d) any explosion except in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and other international agreements entered into by that Party.
3. The question of carrying out any individual explosion having a yield exceeding the yield specified in paragraph 2(a) of this article will be considered by the Parties at an appropriate time to be agreed.
(a) use national technical means of verification at its disposal in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of international law; and
(b) provide to the other Party information and access to sites of explosions and furnish assistance in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Protocol to this Treaty.
2. Each Party undertakes not to interfere with the national technical means of verification of the other Party operating in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of this article, or with the implementation of the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of this article.
(a) consult with each other, make inquiries and furnish information in response to such inquiries, to assure confidence in compliance with the obligations assumed;
(b) consider questions concerning compliance with the obligations assumed and related situations which may be considered ambiguous;
(c) consider questions involving unintended interference with the means for assuring compliance with the provisions of this Treaty;
(d) consider changes in technology or other new circumstances which have a bearing on the provisions of this Treaty; and
(e) consider possible amendments to provisions governing underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes.
2. The Parties through consultation shall establish, and may amend as appropriate, Regulations for the Joint Consultative Commission governing procedures, composition and other relevant matters.
2. The Joint Consultative Commission will facilitate this cooperation by considering specific areas and forms of cooperation which shall be determined by agreement between the Parties in accordance with their constitutional procedures.
3. The Parties will appropriately inform the International Atomic Energy Agency of results of their cooperation in the field of underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes.
2. Each Party undertakes not to carry out, participate or assist in the carrying out of any explosion in the territory of another State unless that State agrees to the implementation in its territory of the implementation observation and procedures contemplated by Article V of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the provisions of Article IV of the Protocol to this Treaty, including the provision by that State of the assistance necessary for such implementation and of the privileges and immunities specified in the Protocol.
2. Termination of the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests shall entitle either Party to withdraw from this Treaty at any time.
3. Each Party may propose amendments to this Treaty. Amendments shall enter into force on the day of the exchange of instruments of ratification of such amendments.
2. This Treaty shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
DONE at Washington and Moscow, on May 28,1976, in duplicate, in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
For the United States of America: GERALD R. FORD, The President of the United States of America
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: L.BREZHNEV, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU
“You can’t fool all the people all the time.”
On this coming Sunday, the major video and print media and candidates for public office will again repeat the lies that Bush and Cheney used to deceive the American people, that 19 Arabs hijacked and flew four commercial airliners into two World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon, as an act of terror against the United States.
The real truth is much different, and the complete details of how and why this was done are available for you to see on the Internet. The video and verbal evidence will probably shock you with answers that you did not know and never expected.
Check the evidence at this link: http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911thology_Dimitri_Khalezov_video-DVD_download_links.htm
‘Green Libya’ Fights Against
NATO-Al Qaeda Invaders
From Marek Glogoczowski
|On Sept. 1st, representatives of 60 countries gathered in Paris and decided
that the ‘legal’ government of “Democratic Libya” is the self-appointed
Transitional National Council (TNC), formed half a year ago from former
“Green Libya” bureaucrats in Bengazi. It means that since this moment, for
these 60 NATO (& Al-Kaida) sympathizers, “insurgents” in Libya have
turned into “legitimate rulers” of this very small (considering its population
f only 6 million) country.
At the same time, the still controlling several cities (Syrta, Sabha, etc.) and
immense deserts of Libya sympathizers of “Green Jamahurdyia” have
become “rebels” and ”insurgents” fighting against the NATO-alKaida planned
“New-old Kingdom of Libya”.
So, few new news from anti-NATO “green front” in this African country:
1. Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi Speech on September 8th, 2011
“To our brave Libyan people that are resisting; the land of Libya is your
property and your right from the days of your grandfathers and great
Those that attempt to revoke it from you; are the insiders , foreign backed
mercenaries and stray dogs, those foreigners that have resided in Libya for
a long time that attempt to take the land of your grandfathers away from you.
This is impossible we will never leaver the land of our grandfathers, their families back then where spies for Italy, and nowadays are spies for France and Britain the same sons are following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers; the steps of dishonor.
These rats and armed scum; are examples of their grandfathers. Each one of them is a clone and a mock-up of traitor-ship, they aren’t Libyan, ask about any of those that are backed by NATO; that destroys Libyan infrastructure and kills Libyan children; you’ll find that his grandfather and his dad where traitors. They carry the genes of traitors.
Do you think those who carry the genes of traitors from their grandparents and great grandparents are going to decide the fate of the Libyan people? These people when they realize that the Libyan people have turned up the ratchet and have refused to accept them they revert to the dirty tricks of the villainous Arab TV channels and the gulf donkeys.”
2. The very recent report from Libya that the city of Bani Wald (roughly 50 thousands of inhabitants, 100 km south-east of Tripoli) is not yet ready for surrender to NATO dictate:
3. “Refugie from Tripoli” Thierry Meyssan longer text documenting up to which point “US (‘God’) created al-Kaida” forms the “cheep mercenary army” fighting for NATO colonizers.
4. the message of ELAC sent by my colleague Michel Luc, who insist that the real enemy of “Green Libya”, wishing its disappearance, is not only NATO, the US created Al Kaida but also Iran.
I wondered why Iran is also interested in re-colonization, by members of NATO Pact (+ Israel) of Libya and of Africa. From interesting discussions of Libyan problems at http://www.youtube.com/user/108morris108 , between “Morris” and “Leonor” I learned that Iranian “democratic theocracy” considers Khaddafi’s “socialist Jamahurdyia” to be a heretic regime.
Moreover, from an article of Joseph Stiglitz “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” published in “Vanity Fair” (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 ) I learned that “In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran.”
Hence, I do suspect that this “theocratic heresy” of Muammar Khaddafi regime resides in its attachment to the socialist ideal of a society, where all citizens enjoy relatively equal possibilities of education, of health care, of well paid employment/unemployment and so on. And of course this is the reason why New Russian oligarchic government (which should be called “Zionist democracy”, like this one in USA) in fact has “sold” Libya (and Africa) to its traditional, 19th century colonizers.
Such conclusion suggests that subsequent targets of NATO Global Attacks will be all regimes which retain traces of “godless socialism”, in particular Syria, Venezuela, and in Europe Belarus. As Iran is considered, both “Leonor” and “Morris” agreed that its social organization is more “flexible’ than the one of Libya, which like Carthago of the past delenda est. (See http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/a120324.html in Spanish and http://ekonomiapolityczna.nowyekran.pl/post/25573,libia-delenda-est-dlaczego in Polish.)
So it seems that it will take quite a time to realize this “God’s plan” of purification of the Earth from all godless, non-Abra(ha)mic regimes: as the press of Sept 7th observed, Libyan gold reserves were recently removed from this endangered country, in a convoy of more than 100 armored vehicles, towards friendly Niger Which means that followers of New Cartagina “dictator” still have means to continue their “mission” began 42 years ago
GOOD MORNING LIBYA !
ELAC & ALAC NEWS FROM LIBYAN RESISTANCE # 115 / 2011.09.04 Webmaster : Luc MICHEL (Brussels) Contact email@example.com http://www.elac-committees.org/
# Luc MICHEL / THE LIBYAN LEADERSHIP ORGANIZES THE RESISTANCE AND THE URBAN GUERRILLA IN TRIPOLI: GOOD MORNING LIBYA!
Ibrahim Mussa: “The fight is very, very far from over” Hasni Abidi: “Gaddafi is everywhere and nowhere” Muammar Gaddafi: “We will fight them everywhere and we will burn the earth under their feet”
Luc MICHEL ELAC-RESISTANCE / (2011.09.02)
The war in Libya is also and above all a media war. Everything is done in the media of NATO to believe in the “fall of Gaddafi,” the “end of war” and “the victory of NATO.”
All this recalls the “mission accomplished” (sic) of George W. Bush in Iraq in 2003. Or the victorious NATO communiqués in Afghanistan since ten years. But this year 2011, the power of puppet regimes in Baghdad and Kabul stops on the walls of the government complexes secured by the mercenaries of the Pentagon and special forces of NATO. And at the price of a condominium with the reactionary theocracy in Tehran, more or less shameful in Iraq, even hidden in Afghanistan. The Iraqi National Resistance, led by Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath, is fighting in the country. And NATO is about to leave the Afghan trap shamefully, as once the Soviets.
In Libya, it is the same. NATO is selling the skin of the old Libyan lion before killing him. In the country of Omar Mukhtar, where fought the longest anti-colonial guerrilla warfare against the Italians, that’s forgetting too quickly that Gaddafi, the loyalist army, tribal militias and Libyan patriots are still fighting with determination and rage.
URBAN GUERRILLA IN TRIPOLI !
The choice of Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein in 2003, is the Resistance, the armed struggle and guerrilla warfare. The weapon of resistance in the asymmetric warfare of the West. “No mercy” Gaddafi announces on the occasion of the 42nd anniversary of his revolution of 1969!
Muammar Gaddafi said that he “will not surrender” and “will continue the fighting” in excerpts from an audio message broadcasted on September 1st by the courageous Arrai satellite television (Damascus). “We will not surrender. We are not women and we will continue the fighting,” he said.
“Even if you do not hear my voice, continue the resistance,” said the Libyan colonel, his voice calm and determined in the address to his supporters in this recording broadcast on the anniversary of the Revolution which brought him to power on 1 September 1969.
“Libya will not surrender and will not be colonized,” told the Libyan leader in a second audio message of the day aired on Syrian television Arrai. “We will fight them everywhere and we will burn the earth under their feet (…) you will not find sleep and rest on this earth!” Resistance grew up in Tripoli, which will be freed step by step,” he added .
In Tripoli, the urban guerrilla war is on!
AFP speaks, still in half words when the bad news upset the NATO propaganda, of ” the chaos of recent days” in Tripoli, including shots from the cars towards checkpoints held by rebels , which left two dead and seven injured in forty-eight hours. There are “several sleeper cells of Gaddafi” in Tripoli”. LE TEMPS (Switzerland) wrote today that “The new call to continue the armed struggle launched by” Gaddafi “revives speculation about the existence, in Tripoli, of Gaddafi underground cells.”
THE LIBYAN LEADERSHIP ORGANIZES THE RESISTANCE
Our brother Mussa Ibrahim, spokesman for the Libyan leadership, said by phone that day to Reuters he was for his part in a suburb south of Tripoli. “I travel a lot and I have no internet connection at the moment,” he added, referring the situation.
About Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, he says he was with him yesterday. “I accompanied him on a tour around Tripoli from the south,” he said, citing a series of meetings with tribal leaders and supporters of Muammar Gaddafi.
“The transitional Council and the armed gangs do not control our country. Our army still controls large parts of Libya. We will be able to take back Tripoli and other cities in the near future,” assured Ibrahim Mussa. “The fight is very, very far from over.”
In a audio broadcast statement on Syrian television Al-Rai, Seif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, said he was speaking from the “outskirts of Tripoli” and insisted that his father was fine. . “We are going to die in our land,” he said, claiming he was speaking for loyalist leaders who had met in the Gadhafi bastion of Bani Walid. “No one is going to surrender.”
“We must wage a campaign of attrition day and night until these lands are cleansed from these gangs and traitors,” he said in a statement broadcast on the Syrian-based TV channel. “We assure people that we are standing fast and the commander is in good condition,” Saif said, adding that there were 20,000 loyalist soldiers ready to defend Sirte.
WHAT ARE THE REMAINING CARDS OF THE LIBYAN LEADER?
“Nothing is more complex and costly to conduct than a war of the streets. Given their small numbers (for the whole of Libya, the rebels have only a few tens of thousands of combatants), the troops of the NTC could experience some serious setbacks before they actually impose their control in a city as large as Tripoli ” , analyses The Independent (London).
Moreover, The Independent reports a first loyalist counter-attack on Zlitan. And the Brigades of Khamis al-Gaddafi, whose NATO media tirelessly announced the death, are fighting in Zawiah and Zaruwah, 50 km from the center of Tripoli.
“Gaddafi retains his capacity for harm,” wrote Hasni Abidi, director of the Center for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World, author of the “Manifesto of the Arabs”, and fiercely critical of Gaddafi. For him, “Gaddafi’s supporters have not said their last word (…) Gaddafi has prepared his plan in case of insurrection. One of the Security brigades was formed for a single mission: how to defend Gaddafi in case of insurrection?
That is, Gaddafi was aware of this risk. The man did not think the revolution was going to be as brutal, as determined. But he prepared for the post-Bab al-Azizia (…) his capacity for harm, it is much worse than before when he was in Bab al-Azizia. Today, his capacity for harm is diffuse. And he has no sanctuary to become an easy target. He is everywhere and nowhere. ”
The first offensive of the Guerilla aims of course Tripoli. Gaddafi, wrote Hasni Abidi, “prepared a plan first to make life difficult for the new masters of Tripoli. Creating chaos and panic. He knows that if security does not quickly return to Tripoli the whole process of transition will be postponed. ”
The battle for control of Tripoli is engaged. In a Libya, where loyalist forces are still fighting everywhere. “The green flag (of the Jamahiriya and Direct Democracy, ed) flies everywhere, from the borders with Algeria, Niger and Chad, to the shores of the Mediterranean”, says Gaddafi this September 1. “If they want a long battle, be it long. If Libya burns, who can govern it? Let it burn.” He also said that the rebels could not take control of cities still free. “Who can submit Bani Walid, Sirte or Tarhuna? These cities are home to armed tribes and no one can govern Libya without their consent”.
The pseudo-NTC can parade before the cameras of NATO or Qatari mercenaries made in USA. Its power is even less certain in Tripoli than in Benghazi. A situation that the pro-American (and pro-Iranian) puppets of Baghdad and Kabul are familiar to … Good morning Libya!
Sources: AFP / Le Temps / Slate Africa / The Independent / AFP / PCN-NCP-SPO /Correspondents in Cairo, Algiers and Tripoli
|Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
|ShareThis||Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,
Highest Quality Live Programs