T.H.E.M.
¨We believe in the judgment; we believe this first judgment will take place as God revealed, in America...¨
T.H.E.M.
¨We believe in justice for all, whether in God or not; we believe as others, that we are due equal justice as human beings.¨
Western World Confused Over Libya
Submitted By Ahmed K. El-Shabazz
Notice who it is that has started a war with Muslim Libya and her Pro-Black Leader ,the Black Nation’s age old open enemies , which are England , France , and America. We are seeing once again Jubela (England ) , Jubelo ( France ) and Jubelum ( America ) trying to re-colonize North Africa. It was these same 3 Juews ( Freemasonic ) Nations who are the reason for the down fall of the Black Nation of America and the World. Just as their forefathers did to the Black Muslims some 400 years ago , these 3 Zionist lead nations are up to their old tricks. In Arabic Jubal means mountain , and in theology a mountain is a symbol of a Government. Now these same evil devil govenments of the White Race are trying to re-enslave the Black Man , which will bring the War between ALLAH IN PERSON and the White Devils to a head , and soon. It was England, France and America that brought down the Black Muslim World , but today ALLAH has awakened the Black World and has Claimed the Black Nation Of America and the world as His. Soon the powers of this world will be brought down for trying to fight ALLAH through His people here in America and elsewhere.
The following are a few examples of how confused the 3 Juews and their 12 other brothers ( the Other European Nations) have become when it comes to Libya , because of the Time , for they know their time is up.
First Example comes from the The Australian :
West’s vain Libyan venture must end
- Brendan O’Neill
- From: The Australian
- March 24, 2011 12:00AM
THE grotesque competition between Britain, France and the US to see who can fire the most missiles at Libya confirms the emergence of a new form of Western militarism.
This is not the return of the politics of empire or a re-flourishing of Western colonialism in north Africa, as some have claimed. Rather it is the barbarism of buffoons. This is an act of violence driven not by clear geopolitical interests but by the utter failure of modern Western governments to work out what their geopolitical interests are, and to act accordingly. In the rubble of various compounds and airfields in Libya, we can spy the incoherence of the Western political elites, and their elevation of the reckless, narcissistic politics of short-term gain over anything resembling a strategy or aim.
The Libya venture shines a light on one of the key characteristics of global politics today: the dissociation of geopolitical interests from diplomatic behaviour and international actions. It confirms that what is in Western governments’ interests and what Western governments do on the international stage are now two very different things, injecting globalpolitics with an increasingly arbitrary, dangerous and unpredictable dynamic.
The idea that the attack on Libya is a unified assertion of Western authority – more akin to the massive, US-led attack on Iraq in 1991 than to the shaky “coalition” invasion of Iraq in 2003 – is shot to pieces by reports of how this overnight anti-Libya initiative was formed. Far from being a US-led crusade, insiders report that Washington was initially distanced from the proposed military action in Libya as “part of the process of building support for the UN resolution” – that is, with “the shadow of Iraq ever present”, it was decided that governments would be more likely to support action if it didn’t appear US-led. Moreover, British Prime Minister David Cameron and others considered it important to get Arab nations on side, so that “this did not look like a Western initiative”. The formation of this anti-Libya mission-of-sorts reveals a shamefacedness about Western action today, and that US authority is far more problematic now than it was during the Cold War and in that last flash of American leadership in the first Gulf War of the early 1990s. Likewise, the idea that the attack on Libya signals a Western desire to recolonise north Africa is exploded by what seems to be the overriding concern of the assault: the question of how to minimise risks and costs to Western governments.
The newness and arbitrariness of the attack on Libya is also exposed in the fact that it is being spearheaded not by seasoned foreign policy hawks or serious diplomats but by a new breed of rank amateur who knows next to nothing about geopolitical reality. Cameron has made himself spokesman for the military mission, yet this is a politician who has an utterly dysfunctional relationship with international diplomacy. In less than a year as Britain’s leader, he has isolated Islamabad and irritated the Israelis through his clueless, emotionally incontinent style of international politicking, which seems unanchored by anything so old-fashioned as a carefully worked-out geopolitical plan. He has also overseen a bizarre and hapless SAS venture in the very country – Libya – that he now claims to be saving. In France, two-bob philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy apparently played a key role in coaxing President Nicolas Sarkozy to take action in Libya, while in the US former author of turgid tomes on genocide turned national security adviser Samantha Power was a key agitator for an attack. Never in the history of mankind has such a collection of know-nothings and narcissists led a military excursion into a sovereign state’s affairs.
The almost overnight formation of a Western “coalition” reveals the incoherence and self-doubt at the heart of the West, to the extent that Western governments will go to extraordinary lengths to give the impression their attack is not a Western initiative.
It shows that foreign offices across the West are now staffed by people with little or no grasp of geopolitical reality. It has exposed the inability of the West to drum up serious support or international consensus even for a small-scale military operation: the Arab League, so keenly held up by Cameron as a moral fig leaf for the attack, expressed its concerns after just one night of bombings, while much of the Western media is warning about the possibility of “mission creep” and getting bogged down, once again, in the unpredictable terrains of Africa. Most of all, it speaks to the now almost complete rupture between Western political interests and Western political behaviour. We now have Western governments so incoherent, so shaken by crises of authority, so incapable of working out what their geopolitical aims should be and how they might pursue them that they take military action that potentially runs counter to their long-term political interests.
For the past decade or more, Libya was actually an area of relative stability in Western foreign-policy eyes, which explains Tony Blair’s and other mainstream Western politicians’ and thinkers’ relationship-building with the Gaddafi regime. Yet, in a matter of days, Western observers have decreed that Muammar Gaddafi is evil and destructive and must go.
The changeability of Western governments’ attitude to Libya is not driven by their sudden discovery of political principle or commitment to democracy in the Arab world, as hawkish fantasists in the commentariat claim. President Barack Obama and Cameron’s support for the brutal suppression of the protests in Bahrain should put paid to that myth. Rather the changeability reveals the emergence of an interests-lite, unpredictable foreign policy that increasingly mirrors the flightiness and shallow PR sensibilities of the domestic realm – only with more dire consequences.
What we end up with is a coalition of the confused, a supposed union of Western governments which in reality are competing to see who can most speedily make short-term, self-serving political gains by dropping a few bombs on Libya. The French are desperate to be seen to be making amends for their mistakes in north Africa, including their offering of military aid to the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia when it was challenged by the first Arab uprising in January. Cameron wants to show, in the wake of various blunders, that he is actually statesman material. And Washington is hoping for a swift military win that might divert attention from the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Driven more by short-term desperation than the “long view”, more by a desire for quick and painless political pay-offs than by a careful weighing up of interests and consequences, Western governments have turned Libya into a stage for a politically shallow yet deeply destructive form of moral posturing.
However unpredictable world affairs have become, we can be certain that the attack on Libya will be bad for the Libyan people and for global stability, zapping the democratic initiative from the people’s uprising and warping the dynamic in the unstable Arab world more broadly. This vain military venture must end. Now.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked —————————————————————————————-BELOW IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE WEST’S CONFUSED STATE OF MIND CONCERNING LIBYA FROM WhatDoesItMean.com :
March 25, 2011
Russia Reports France Threat Against Obama Brought US Into Libya War
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A shocking report written by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the meetings held between President Medvedev and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates this past week says that America’s war on Libya was “forced” onto it after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Libyan leader Gaddafi] threatened President Barack Obama with “total exposure” if the US didn’t attack.
Upon hearing Gates shocking admission of why the US began its war on Libya, this report says, Medvedev issued a warning that should too many civilians be killed America could expect Russian forces to move into the region to protect them, a warning that fell on deaf ears as Gates walked out of the meeting saying that he found Russia’s arguments “difficult to comprehend.”
Especially upsetting to Gates, this report continues, was Prime Minister Putin stating that United Nations resolution authorizing military action in Libya resembled the “medieval calls for crusades,”, a statement quickly rebutted by Medvedev as “unacceptable,” and who further warned that comments such as Putin’s could “lead to a clash of civilizations.”
The “total exposure” threatened by Sarkozy unless the US attacked Libya regards the American President’s most senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who, according to this report, is the Iranian born “handler” of Obama for the “Moon Cult” factions of the Islamic World seeking to bring about the return of the prophesied redeemer of Islam known as the Mehdi.
Important to note about Sarkozy’s threatening to expose Jarrett for her extensive ties to the Persian Nation was her stunning revelation a fortnight ago before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs in Washington that she is of Jewish heritage herself, and not a Muslim as those in the US elite power structure had believed.
Though Jarrett’s Jewish background may have taken Washington by surprise, this report says it was long known to Sarkozy, who, according to the French daily Le Figaro, has long been a spy for Israel’s MOSSAD intelligence agency, and as we can, in part, read:
The letter fixed Sarkozy’s alleged spying activities as far back as 1983.”
The reason for Sarkozy wanting the complete and total destruction of Libya lies in the threats made against him last week by the Libyan leader’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who threatened to reveal a “grave secret” that would bring down the embattled French President.
The “grave secret” feared by Sarkozy we can further read about as reported London’s Guardian News Service, and which, in part, says:
Important to note about France’s relationship with Libya is that should it win this war it will have secured its energy security for the rest of this century as this North African Nation holds the largest oil reserves on the continent estimated at over 41 Billion barrels. Even more critical to note about Libya’s oil is that is the lightest, sweetest and easiest-to-extract black gold left on Earth and costs just $1.00 to extract.
Equally critical to note about France’s relationship with Libya was its having signed over $27 Billion in agreements with this North African country this past January, all of which is endangering the collapse of the French economy should they be cancelled.
As we had, also, noted in our March 8th report Global Resource War Warned Has Begun Between East-West, the vast water reserves of Libya (the largest ever discovered on the African continent) make this country a “prize” the West must have, and its military might will seek to ensure it gets.
Most appalling of the West’s war upon Libya is that it is coming at the expense of the African Nation of Ivory Coast where the UN estimates today over 1 million have fled their homes as civil war fears grow.
Most unfortunate for the hundreds of thousands of innocents set to die in the Ivory Coast is that their Nation has no massive oil or water resources for the West to attack them for, and leaving one to wonder if these Westerners have, indeed, lost what little moral conscious they had left.
To the outcome of the battle between the United States and France over the fate of Libya it is not in our knowing, other than to note the obvious that with each passing day this World of ours grows more dangerous by the hour.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 Hiram's 1555 Blog