NATO’S Islamic States and Thier Terrorist Fighters.A war to create Sharia Lybia and Sharia Syria

NATO Obama and Cameron are determined to spread dictatorship and centralised authority globally ,and to stamp out freedom democracy and human rights where ever they appear.They have already turned the USA and the UK into prison colonies, where every word and action is monitored!
THE FOREIGN POLICY IS TO SPREAD SHARIA LAW AND CREATE THEOCRATIC ISLAMIC STATES NOT DEMOCRATIC SECULAR STATES THEY DO THIS USING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AS FIGHTERS
…IN EUROPE IN THE 70’S AND 80’S THEY USED THE CIA AND MI5 AND BLAMED THE SOCIALISTS
BUT THE WAR IS NOT GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN
FREEDOM IS NOT THAT EASY TO STAMP OUT
IN LYBIA THE COUNTER REVOLUTION IS WELL UNDER WAY
IN SYRIA THE WAR IS ALL BUT LOST

The Secret War in Libya

The battles currently raging in the South of Libya are no mere tribal clashes.  Instead, they represent a possible burgeoning alliance between black Libyan ethnic groups and pro-Gaddafi forces intent upon liberating their country of a neocolonial NATO-installed government.  
On Saturday January 18th, a group of heavily armed fighters stormed an air force base outside the city ofSabha in southern Libya, expelling forces loyal to the “government” of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan, and occupying the base.  At the same time, reports from inside the country began to trickle in that the green flag of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was flying over a number of cities throughout the country. 
Despite the dearth of verifiable information – the government inTripoli has provided only vague details and corroboration – one thing is certain: the war for Libya continues. On the Ground Libya’s Prime Minister Ali Zeidan called an emergency session of the General National Congress to declare a state of alert for the country after news of the storming of the air base broke.  The Prime Minister announced that he had ordered troops south to quell the rebellion, telling reporters that, “This confrontation is continuing but in a few hours it will be solved.”  A spokesman for the Defense Ministry later claimed that the central government had reclaimed control of the air base, stating that “A force was readied, then aircraft moved and took off and dealt with the targets…The situation in the south opened a chance for some criminals…loyal to the Gaddafi regime to exploit this and to attack the Tamahind air force base…We will protect the revolution and the Libyan people.”
In addition to the assault on the airbase, there have been other attacks on individual members of the government in Tripoli.  The highest profile incident was the recent assassination of the Deputy Industry Minister Hassan al-Droui in the city of Sirte.  Although it is still unclear whether he was killed by Islamist forces or Green resistance fighters, the unmistakable fact is that the central government is under assault and is unable to exercise true authority or provide security in the country.
Many have begun speculating that his killing, rather than being an isolated, targeted assassination, is part of a growing trend of resistance in which pro-Gaddafi Green fighters figure prominently.
The rise of the Green resistance forces in Sabha and elsewhere is merely one part of larger and more complex political and military calculus in the South where a number of tribes and various ethnic groups have risen against what they correctly perceive to be their political, economic, and social marginalization. 
Groups such as the Tawergha and Tobou ethnic minorities, both of which are black African groups, have endured vicious attacks at the hands of Arab militias with no support from the central government.  Not only have these and other groups been the victims of ethnic cleansing, but they have been systematically shut out of participation in Libyan political and economic life. The tensions came to a head earlier this month when a rebel chief from the Arab Awled Sleiman tribe was killed. 
Rather than an official investigation or legal process, the Awled tribesmen attacked their black Toubou neighbors, accusing them of involvement in the murder.  The resulting clashes have since killed dozens, once again demonstrating that the dominant Arab groups still view their dark skinned neighbors as something other than countrymen. 
Undoubtedly, this has led to a reorganization of the alliances in the region, with the Toubou, Tuareg and other black minority groups that inhabit southern Libya, northern Chad and Niger moving closer to the pro-Gaddafi forces.  Whether or not these alliances are formal or not still remains unclear, however it is apparent that many groups in Libya have come to the realization that the government installed by NATO has not lived up to its promises, and that something must be done. The Politics of Race in Libya Despite the high-minded rhetoric from Western interventionists regarding “democracy” and “freedom” in Libya, the reality is far from it, especially for dark skinned Libyans who have seen their socioeconomic and political status diminished with the end of the Jamahiriya government of Muammar Gaddafi. 
While these peoples enjoyed a large measure of political equality and protection under the law in Gaddafi’s Libya, the post-Gaddafi era has seen their rights all but stripped from them.  Rather than being integrated into a new democratic state, the black Libyan groups have been systematically excluded. In fact, even Human Rights Watch – an organization which in no small measure helped to justify the NATO war by falsely claiming that Gaddafi forces used rape as a weapon and were preparing “imminent genocide” – has reported that, “A crime against humanity of mass forced displacement continues unabated, as militias mainly from Misrata prevented 40,000 people from the town of Tawergha from returning to their homes from where they had been expelled in 2011.”  This fact, coupled with the horrific stories and images of lynchings, rapes, and other crimes against humanity, paints a very bleak picture of life in Libya for these groups. In its 2011 report, Amnesty International documented a number of flagrant war crimes carried out by the so called “freedom fighters” of Libya who, despite being hailed in the Western media as “liberators”, used the opportunity of the war to carry out mass executions of black Libyans as well as rival clans and ethnic groups. 
This is of course in stark contrast to the treatment of black Libyans under the Jamahiriya government of Gaddafi which was praised up and down by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in their 2011 report which noted that Gaddafi had gone to great lengths to ensure economic and social development, as well as specifically providing economic opportunities and political protections to black Libyans and migrant workers from neighboring African countries. 
With this in mind, is it any wonder that Al Jazeera quoted a pro-Gaddafi Tuareg fighter in September 2011 as saying, “fighting for Gaddafi is like a son fighting for his father…[We will be] ready to fight for him until the last drop of blood.” As the Toubou and other black ethnic groups clash with Arab militias, their struggle should be understood in the context of a continued struggle for peace and equality.  Moreover, the fact that they must engage in this form of armed struggle again illustrates the point that many international observers made from the very beginning of the war: NATO’s aggression was never about protecting civilians or human rights, but rather regime change for economic and geopolitical interests. 
That the majority of the population, including black ethnic minorities, is worse off today than they ever were under Gaddafi is a fact that is actively suppressed. Black, Green, and the Struggle for Libya It would be presumptuous to assume that the military victories made by the pro-Gaddafi Green resistance in recent days will be long-lasting, or that they represent an irreversible shift in the political and military landscape of the country. 
Though decidedly unstable, the neocolonial puppet government in Tripoli is supported economically and militarily by some of the most powerful interests in the world, making it difficult to simply overthrow it with minor victories.  However, these developments do signal an interesting shift in the calculus on the ground.  Undoubtedly there is a confluence between the black ethnic minorities and the Green fighters as both recognize their enemy as being the tribal militias who participated in the overthrow of Gaddafi as well as the central government in Tripoli. 
Whether a formal alliance emerges from this remains to be seen. Were such an alliance to develop however, it would be a watershed moment in the continued war for Libya.  As Green resistance fighters have shown in Sabha, they are able to organize themselves in the south of the country where they enjoy a large degree of popular support. 
One could imagine an alliance in the south that would be able to hold territory and possibly consolidate power throughout the southern part of Libya, creating a de facto independent state.  Naturally, the cry from NATO and its apologists would be that this is anti-democratic and counter-revolution.  
This would be understandable as their goal of a unified Libya subservient to international finance capital and oil interests would become unattainable. One should be careful not to make too many assumptions about the situation in Libya today, as reliable details are hard to come by. 
More to the point, Western media has attempted to completely suppress the fact that the Green resistance even exists, let alone is active and winning victories. 
All this simply further illustrates that the war for Libya rages on, whether the world wants to admit it or not.
By Eric Draitser  
Global Research, January 22, 2014
Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com.  He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. 
You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.
MEANWHILE IN SYRIA….
THE NATO SUPPORTTED ISLAMIC WAR AGAINST SECULAR SOCIALISM FAILS
NATO AFTER SUPPLYING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND TRAINING TO ISLAMIC FIGHTERS FAILS TO BRING SHARIA LAW TO SECULAR DEMOCRATIC SYRIA
A WAR COUNCIL IS HELD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT?
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS DETERMINED TO BRING SHARIA LAW TO SYRIA…ITS HUMANITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC…APPARENTLY,ACCORDING TO OBAMA AND CAMERON
THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU WORRIED WHAT DO OBAMA AND CAMERON THINK HUMANITARIANISM AND DEMOCRACY IS?
..OF COURSE THEY COULD JUST BE BARE FACED LIARS!!!
AND KNOW THAT THEY ARE BRINGING A CENTRALISED RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY TO A SECULAR DIRECT DEMOCRAY
AS DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS A MORE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY(UK SYSTEM)AKA ELECTED DICTATORSHIP
HOW CAN A REPRESENTATION OF A DEMOCRACY(UK) BRING DEMOCRACY TO A TRUE DEMOCRACY(DIRECT DEMOCRACY) LIKE LYBIA FOR EXAMPLE?
THE TRUTH IS
IT CANNOT , IT CAN ONLY DESTROY THE TRUE DEMOCRACY
…AND BRINGING ISLAM TO A SECULAR NATION IS THE JOB OF ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS AND DAVID CAMERON AND BARAK OBAMA!!
Syria Peace Conference:
The Obama Administration’s Orwellian Subterfuge It is difficult to call this week’s gathering in Montreux, Switzerland, a “peace conference” on Syria, since the U.S. and its allies are determined to change the regime by force of arms.
Washington has forged an “unholy alliance with its “Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda,” who act as America’s “boots on the ground.” “The most effective fighters are the al-Qaeda linked jihadists armed by the U.S. and the Saudi government.” There is one thing that the so-called peace conference on Syria is guaranteed to achieve and that is that when the last speech is made and the delegates leave the hall, the grotesque bloodletting and devastation will continue for the people of Syria. Why? Because for the Obama Administration, the diplomatic process was never intended to bring about a peaceful resolution to the war. Its main purpose was always to affect their main strategic objective – the removal of President Bashir al-Assad from power and the disappearance of Syria as an independent state. Fidelity to this goal continues to drive U.S. policy. U.S. strategists care little about the fact that, in their quest to oust the Syrian President, they have created an unholy alliance between the U.S. and its Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda as their “boots on the ground.” It is an alliance that ensures that, should the Al-Assad government fall, the Syrian people will either live under totalitarian fundamentalist Wahhabi rule or see their country disappear as a coherent state and into warring factions.
By juxtaposing U.S. rhetoric that expresses concerns for democracy, pluralism and the human rights of the Syrian people with actual U.S. decisions, we see a dramatic illustration of the astonishing hypocrisy of U.S. policies.
The Obama Administration understood the scale of human suffering it would unleash in Syria by arming, funding, training and providing political support for the opposition—opposition that it moved from a non-violent protest movement to a violent insurgency, as part of its larger geo-strategic plan for the region. That is why commitment to regime change, rather than to a peace based on Syrian realities and the needs of the Syrian people, is the price of admission to this week’s conference in Montreux, Switzerland. It is a conference that it would be more accurate to call a ‘war conference’ rather than a ‘peace conference’ due to U.S. Secretary of State Kerry’s insistence on keeping the scope of the agenda confined to the terms of the Geneva I communique, which calls for a political transition in Syria.
“Is Syrian’s future already written from the Libyan experience?”
The Syrian National Coalition is a mirage. Its “Free Syrian Army” has no standing and the most effective fighters are the al-Qaeda linked jihadists armed by the U.S. and the Saudi government. They are now the real power brokers on the ground. For these fighters, Geneva II is an irrelevant sideshow that has no bearing on them and they have rejected the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition. So who does the Syrian National Coalition represent, when the bulk of the fighters have shifted to al-Qaeda and the other more than 1,000 Islamist rebel groups that between them have 100,000 fighters, all united in their commitment to a post-Assad state in which Sharia, or Islamic Law, will be established throughout Syria?
Yet on January 16, Kerry restated the U.S. position on Geneva 2. “It is about establishing a process essential to the formation of a transition government body — governing body — with full executive powers established by mutual consent,” he told reporters.
The consent of whom? Who assumes power and will a new government represent the aspirations for democracy, civil liberties, workers’ rights, respect for religious and community difference that the “revolution” promised or is Syrian’s future already written from the Libyan experience?
There are now voices inside and outside the Administration saying that the U.S. should abandon the Syrian National Coalition and work instead with the Salafi-Wahhabi fundamentalists who have joined together under the umbrella of the Islamic Front (IF) and are being presented as the “moderate” alternative to the radicalism of al-Qaeda.
However, the Syrian people, who have a history of secularism and respect for different religions, have not signed on to a post-Assad society and government ruled by a group that has publically stated its opposition to democracy and intention to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law.
“In the end the interests of the Syrian people are of little concern to these policymakers who prioritize U.S. imperialist interests above every other consideration.”
But who cares what the Syrian people want? It does not seem to matter to the U.S. that supporting Salafi-Wahhabi fundamentalism is the antithesis of the justification it gave for supporting the “revolution” against al-Assad. It does not matter because in the end the interests of the Syrian people are of little concern to these policymakers who prioritize U.S. imperialist interests above every other consideration.
In the long annuls of crimes by U.S. and Western imperialism, the slow, protracted destruction of the Syrian state, including the tens of thousands of lives sacrificed, is starting to emerge as one of its most significant crimes. It can be listed with crimes like the Christmas season carpet bombing of North Vietnam in 1972 and the millions murdered in Iraq during the period of sanctions and full-blown military attack. In this era in which war is peace and wars are fought for “humanitarian purposes,” it is hard for many to get to the truth. But one thing is certain—the humanitarian disaster in Syria that was supposed to be the justification for intervention by the U.S. and its allies will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and writer.
He is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C. and editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report.
Baraka’s latest publications include contributions to two recently published books “Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA” and “Claim No Easy Victories: The Legacy of Amilcar Cabral.” By Ajamu Baraka Global Research, January 23, 2014 Black Agenda Report

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: