5 New Messages
Digest #4533
Messages
Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:54 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 29, 2012
Hillary seeking a graceful exit?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
[I]nstead of ending the two wars, Obama and his foreign policy and security team have bogged down in one of them for an unspecified time, and would have done the same in Iraq as well had they not irritated the host country to the extent its leaders could not stand it any longer.
In addition, Obama enthusiastically participated in the aggression his European NATO allies launched against Libya, making Hillary Clinton cry in joy at hearing the news of Muammar Gaddafi's murder.
====
On Friday, the Washington Post published an interview with the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, outlining her plans for the time after Barack Obama's next inauguration (assuming that he wins the November 6 election). According to the Post, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has told President Barack Hussein Obama that she will stay in office until her successor is confirmed, but said in an interview that "this is not an open-ended kind of time frame."
"I’m aiming to leave shortly after the inauguration; that’s my plan. But I haven’t been able to sit down and talk to the president yet because he’s trying to win an election...And then we will talk through how to do the transition," said Ms. Hillary.
It looks like the full stop has been put in an issue which has been discussed for years – ever since Ms. Hillary (before that Barack Obama's competitor in the race for democratic nomination) accepted his offer to join his team as the Secretary of State. Some analysts, though, back in 2009 pointed out that the offer in fact worked the other way round – it was an offer made to Barack Obama which he was unable to turn down.
In any case, foreign policy has been one of the floppiest endeavors of the current administration even against the background of other domestic challenges. Back in 2008, during the election campaign, there were two main promises Obama made – that is to end the war in Iraq and to end the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was ended with about 40,000 US "instructors" remaining there until the Iraqi government kicked them out.
The war in Afghanistan, despite the highly publicized plans of troop withdrawal by the end of 2014, is far from over. It still remains unclear whether the US troops will remain in Afghan thereafter. Or, rather it is clear that they will, but doubts remain as to their number and exact mission.
So, instead of ending the two wars, Obama and his foreign policy and security team have bogged down in one of them for an unspecified time, and would have done the same in Iraq as well had they not irritated the host country to the extent its leaders could not stand it any longer.
In addition, Obama enthusiastically participated in the aggression his European NATO allies launched against Libya, making Hillary Clinton cry in joy at hearing the news of Muammar Gaddafi's murder.
One may add to that the whole business of rattling the saber in regard to Syria and Iran, which is done by President Obama, his State Secretary and the rest of foreign policy and security team.
Then why is Ms. Hillary announcing her retirement after the inauguration?
The answer is simple. In cases of a successful presidency, it is always useful to be a member of the president's team by the end of his second term. It usually gives a boost similar to the one experienced by incumbents who have a natural advantage of up to 20 percent against newcomers.
Ms. Hillary definitely has not abandoned her hopes ruined by Barack Obama in 2008. Formally, a third presidential term is not something which the US constitution encourages. But the nominal president in 1993 – 2001 was not Hillary Rodham, it was the sax player, womanizer and nice guy Bill Clinton. So, legally speaking, nothing prevents Hillary from at least trying once again to return to the White House.
But then again, Barack Obama's presidency is far from successful. His reelection on November 6 which looks imminent should not misguide anyone – in any case it won't be Obama who wins, it will be his contender who loses.
But if in 2016 the GOP comes up with a more attractive candidate, being on the acting president's team, instead of an advantage will become an obvious obstacle. Ms. Hillary is wise enough to realize that, and hence her decision to quit Obama's team beforeit is too late.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
October 29, 2012
Hillary seeking a graceful exit?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
[I]nstead of ending the two wars, Obama and his foreign policy and security team have bogged down in one of them for an unspecified time, and would have done the same in Iraq as well had they not irritated the host country to the extent its leaders could not stand it any longer.
In addition, Obama enthusiastically participated in the aggression his European NATO allies launched against Libya, making Hillary Clinton cry in joy at hearing the news of Muammar Gaddafi's murder.
====
On Friday, the Washington Post published an interview with the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, outlining her plans for the time after Barack Obama's next inauguration (assuming that he wins the November 6 election). According to the Post, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has told President Barack Hussein Obama that she will stay in office until her successor is confirmed, but said in an interview that "this is not an open-ended kind of time frame."
"I’m aiming to leave shortly after the inauguration; that’s my plan. But I haven’t been able to sit down and talk to the president yet because he’s trying to win an election...And then we will talk through how to do the transition," said Ms. Hillary.
It looks like the full stop has been put in an issue which has been discussed for years – ever since Ms. Hillary (before that Barack Obama's competitor in the race for democratic nomination) accepted his offer to join his team as the Secretary of State. Some analysts, though, back in 2009 pointed out that the offer in fact worked the other way round – it was an offer made to Barack Obama which he was unable to turn down.
In any case, foreign policy has been one of the floppiest endeavors of the current administration even against the background of other domestic challenges. Back in 2008, during the election campaign, there were two main promises Obama made – that is to end the war in Iraq and to end the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was ended with about 40,000 US "instructors" remaining there until the Iraqi government kicked them out.
The war in Afghanistan, despite the highly publicized plans of troop withdrawal by the end of 2014, is far from over. It still remains unclear whether the US troops will remain in Afghan thereafter. Or, rather it is clear that they will, but doubts remain as to their number and exact mission.
So, instead of ending the two wars, Obama and his foreign policy and security team have bogged down in one of them for an unspecified time, and would have done the same in Iraq as well had they not irritated the host country to the extent its leaders could not stand it any longer.
In addition, Obama enthusiastically participated in the aggression his European NATO allies launched against Libya, making Hillary Clinton cry in joy at hearing the news of Muammar Gaddafi's murder.
One may add to that the whole business of rattling the saber in regard to Syria and Iran, which is done by President Obama, his State Secretary and the rest of foreign policy and security team.
Then why is Ms. Hillary announcing her retirement after the inauguration?
The answer is simple. In cases of a successful presidency, it is always useful to be a member of the president's team by the end of his second term. It usually gives a boost similar to the one experienced by incumbents who have a natural advantage of up to 20 percent against newcomers.
Ms. Hillary definitely has not abandoned her hopes ruined by Barack Obama in 2008. Formally, a third presidential term is not something which the US constitution encourages. But the nominal president in 1993 – 2001 was not Hillary Rodham, it was the sax player, womanizer and nice guy Bill Clinton. So, legally speaking, nothing prevents Hillary from at least trying once again to return to the White House.
But then again, Barack Obama's presidency is far from successful. His reelection on November 6 which looks imminent should not misguide anyone – in any case it won't be Obama who wins, it will be his contender who loses.
But if in 2016 the GOP comes up with a more attractive candidate, being on the acting president's team, instead of an advantage will become an obvious obstacle. Ms. Hillary is wise enough to realize that, and hence her decision to quit Obama's team beforeit is too late.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:54 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
October 29, 2012
Shadow of war hasn't yet disappeared from East Asia
By Guan Yan
Illustration: Liu Rui
Editor's Note:
As tensions in East Asia grow, driven by conflicts over islands, China's rising power, and the renewed US role in the region, some find the situation disturbingly reminiscent of Europe in the 1910s. Could the region be drawn into a wider war? Or will trade and economic interdependence keep peace in place? The Global Times invited two writers to comment.
History does offer clues to contemporary international relations, but simple comparisons can sometimes lead to misleading, if not dangerous, conclusions.
The surging nationalism in East and Southeast Asia, stirred by territorial disputes, is seen by some scholars as similar to the situation of Europe before World War I. In particular, the rise of China is singled out as the most uncertain element of regional security.
It's true that a new rising power causes apprehension among its neighbors, as happened in history when the previous power structures were broken. In the case of East and Southeast Asia today, the situation is complicated by the US pivot to the region.
Washington is shifting resources to the Asia-Pacific region to maintain its influence in this economically booming area, and to keep China, deemed its biggest potential challenger, in check.
The maneuver puts China in a security dilemma, which makes China feel under pressure to strengthen its defense capabilities. The US move also chills the cooperative atmosphere in the area. Efforts at boosting regional integration on many fronts, from the established ASEAN 10+3 framework to the nascent East Asia Community concept, have been experiencing frustration. Countries in the region are feeling forced into a choice between China and the US.
There are also other explosive factors in the region that may trigger serious clashes. Japan, trapped in protracted economic hibernation, diminishing global influence, and with mixed feelings toward its rising neighbor, is gradually turning to the right.
Frequent political reshuffling hasn't brought a cure for national woes, but only produced more hawkish politicians. Territorial disputes have been provoked not only with China, but also with South Korea and Russia. Japan may find it difficult to position itself correctly in the region any time soon. But politicians in Tokyo are starting to reassess their previous strategy over the Diaoyu conflict, and remedial work is being quietly carried out.
The tensions reflect a much broader strategic competition. Economic interdependence may not be able to solely prevent the occurrence of war, but it provides more opportunities in times of diplomatic bickering.
Almost a century after World War I, while national sentiments can still be intensively aroused by a specific issue, such as territorial disputes or trade conflict, it will be much harder to unite public support behind a war...
That said, the mechanisms in place can't rule out the possibility of war in East Asia. The scars of past invasions haven't been healed, economic deterioration is deepening the sense of crisis in some countries, and irresponsible politicians are manipulating public sentiment for short-term gain. In that sense, the shadow of war hasn't really gone away.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Global Times
October 29, 2012
Shadow of war hasn't yet disappeared from East Asia
By Guan Yan
Illustration: Liu Rui
Editor's Note:
As tensions in East Asia grow, driven by conflicts over islands, China's rising power, and the renewed US role in the region, some find the situation disturbingly reminiscent of Europe in the 1910s. Could the region be drawn into a wider war? Or will trade and economic interdependence keep peace in place? The Global Times invited two writers to comment.
History does offer clues to contemporary international relations, but simple comparisons can sometimes lead to misleading, if not dangerous, conclusions.
The surging nationalism in East and Southeast Asia, stirred by territorial disputes, is seen by some scholars as similar to the situation of Europe before World War I. In particular, the rise of China is singled out as the most uncertain element of regional security.
It's true that a new rising power causes apprehension among its neighbors, as happened in history when the previous power structures were broken. In the case of East and Southeast Asia today, the situation is complicated by the US pivot to the region.
Washington is shifting resources to the Asia-Pacific region to maintain its influence in this economically booming area, and to keep China, deemed its biggest potential challenger, in check.
The maneuver puts China in a security dilemma, which makes China feel under pressure to strengthen its defense capabilities. The US move also chills the cooperative atmosphere in the area. Efforts at boosting regional integration on many fronts, from the established ASEAN 10+3 framework to the nascent East Asia Community concept, have been experiencing frustration. Countries in the region are feeling forced into a choice between China and the US.
There are also other explosive factors in the region that may trigger serious clashes. Japan, trapped in protracted economic hibernation, diminishing global influence, and with mixed feelings toward its rising neighbor, is gradually turning to the right.
Frequent political reshuffling hasn't brought a cure for national woes, but only produced more hawkish politicians. Territorial disputes have been provoked not only with China, but also with South Korea and Russia. Japan may find it difficult to position itself correctly in the region any time soon. But politicians in Tokyo are starting to reassess their previous strategy over the Diaoyu conflict, and remedial work is being quietly carried out.
The tensions reflect a much broader strategic competition. Economic interdependence may not be able to solely prevent the occurrence of war, but it provides more opportunities in times of diplomatic bickering.
Almost a century after World War I, while national sentiments can still be intensively aroused by a specific issue, such as territorial disputes or trade conflict, it will be much harder to unite public support behind a war...
That said, the mechanisms in place can't rule out the possibility of war in East Asia. The scars of past invasions haven't been healed, economic deterioration is deepening the sense of crisis in some countries, and irresponsible politicians are manipulating public sentiment for short-term gain. In that sense, the shadow of war hasn't really gone away.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.frontlin
Frontline
October 20-November 2, 2012
Georgians vote for change
John Cherian
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who thought he was politically indestructible, finally met his nemesis in the form of a reclusive billionaire, Bidzina Ivanishvili. In the parliamentary elections held on October 1, the coalition led by Ivanishvili, “The Georgian Dream”, won 55 per cent of the vote. Saakashvili, despite predictions to the contrary, was quick to accept the result. He has one more year in office as President. Ivanishvili, who will assume the Prime Minster’s post, demanded in his first press conference after the election results the President’s immediate resignation. However, after strong protests from Western capitals, he accepted political cohabitation with his bete noire. Under a new constitution, the Prime Minister will exercise executive authority and the President will be a rubber stamp.
Saakashvili became President in 2003 after staging a “rose revolution” with the support of the West to undemocratically oust the government led by Eduard Shevernadze. The Western-educated Saakashvili promptly became the West’s point man in the region, breaking the country’s traditional links with Russia. Georgia applied to be a full member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and even sent troops to fight alongside the United States/NATO forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. President George W. Bush was given a hero’s welcome when he visited Georgia in 2005. The U.S. had assured Saakashvili that Georgia would eventually be made a full member of NATO, but other member countries did not want to anger Russia and managed to put the issue of Georgia’s membership on hold.
Saakashvili’s political unravelling started after his disastrous attempt to reincorporate South Ossetia. The brief conflict in 2008 led to the death of more than 2,000 people and a crushing military defeat for the Georgian army. Russian troops, which were stationed in South Ossetia, were at the doors of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. The war made Saakashvili unpopular, but he tried to brazen it out by resorting to more authoritarian methods. All the while, the West stood by him. On a recent visit to Georgia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused Ivanishvili’s request for a one-on-one meeting. The U.S. had put all its bets on Saakashvili winning the elections.
The turning point in the election campaign, according to observers, was the secret footage that emerged showing the rampant abuse of prisoners in Georgian jails. The tapes, showing jailers torturing and raping prisoners, became the final proof for Georgians that the rule of law was being wantonly trampled upon in their country since Saakashvili came to power.
Ivanishvili made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since his entry into politics a year ago, he has been calling for improved relations with Moscow. Saakashvili had tried to paint him as an “agent” of Moscow. The economic sanctions that Russia had imposed after the 2008 military confrontation had an adverse impact on Georgia’s economy. Ivanishvili has said that the U.S. will continue to be his country’s “first friend”. At the same time, he emphasised that it was important to “have good relations with everybody”.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Frontline
October 20-November 2, 2012
Georgians vote for change
John Cherian
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who thought he was politically indestructible, finally met his nemesis in the form of a reclusive billionaire, Bidzina Ivanishvili. In the parliamentary elections held on October 1, the coalition led by Ivanishvili, “The Georgian Dream”, won 55 per cent of the vote. Saakashvili, despite predictions to the contrary, was quick to accept the result. He has one more year in office as President. Ivanishvili, who will assume the Prime Minster’s post, demanded in his first press conference after the election results the President’s immediate resignation. However, after strong protests from Western capitals, he accepted political cohabitation with his bete noire. Under a new constitution, the Prime Minister will exercise executive authority and the President will be a rubber stamp.
Saakashvili became President in 2003 after staging a “rose revolution” with the support of the West to undemocratically oust the government led by Eduard Shevernadze. The Western-educated Saakashvili promptly became the West’s point man in the region, breaking the country’s traditional links with Russia. Georgia applied to be a full member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and even sent troops to fight alongside the United States/NATO forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. President George W. Bush was given a hero’s welcome when he visited Georgia in 2005. The U.S. had assured Saakashvili that Georgia would eventually be made a full member of NATO, but other member countries did not want to anger Russia and managed to put the issue of Georgia’s membership on hold.
Saakashvili’s political unravelling started after his disastrous attempt to reincorporate South Ossetia. The brief conflict in 2008 led to the death of more than 2,000 people and a crushing military defeat for the Georgian army. Russian troops, which were stationed in South Ossetia, were at the doors of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. The war made Saakashvili unpopular, but he tried to brazen it out by resorting to more authoritarian methods. All the while, the West stood by him. On a recent visit to Georgia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused Ivanishvili’s request for a one-on-one meeting. The U.S. had put all its bets on Saakashvili winning the elections.
The turning point in the election campaign, according to observers, was the secret footage that emerged showing the rampant abuse of prisoners in Georgian jails. The tapes, showing jailers torturing and raping prisoners, became the final proof for Georgians that the rule of law was being wantonly trampled upon in their country since Saakashvili came to power.
Ivanishvili made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since his entry into politics a year ago, he has been calling for improved relations with Moscow. Saakashvili had tried to paint him as an “agent” of Moscow. The economic sanctions that Russia had imposed after the 2008 military confrontation had an adverse impact on Georgia’s economy. Ivanishvili has said that the U.S. will continue to be his country’s “first friend”. At the same time, he emphasised that it was important to “have good relations with everybody”.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
#yiv595711192 a:hover {color:red;}
#yiv595711192 a {
text-decoration:
#yiv595711192 a.yiv595711192prima
#yiv595711192 a.yiv595711192prima
#yiv595711192
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on Stop NATO
NATO Ruined Libya, Unleashed Genocidal Horrorby richardrozoff
Voice of Russia
October 29, 2012
NATO accused of ruining Libya
In a book that came out in Moscow on Monday, the Russian Middle East expert Dr Anatoli Yegorin accuses NATO of destroying the Libyan economy.
He says the damage from NATO’s air campaign alone was seven times bigger than that suffered by Libya during WWII. He also points out that the West has so far failed to return an estimated $150bln worth of assets that were stashed by the ousted Gaddafi clan in a number of Western countries.
The analyst also calls attention to the fact that Libya is now ungovernable.
------------
RT
October 28, 2012
Siege of Bani Walid: Foreign fighters, phosphorus bombs and nerve gas – RT sources
The besieged Libyan city of Bani Walid has been plunged into chaos. RT sources say that the former Gaddafi regime stronghold is under attack by militias bolstered by foreign mercenaries, and they used banned weapons like white phosphorous.
The sources denied reports of the last few days that Bani Walid was retaken by the Libyan government. Residents said that militia forces have continued their assault, while preventing the refugees who fled from reentering the city.
A man who claimed his relatives are trapped inside the besieged city spoke with RT, saying, “There is no food; there is nothing to support the life of people. And the militia does not allow anyone to come back to their homes.”
“They are demolishing homes with machinery and tanks. There is no communication or internet so people are not able to connect with each other,” the source said. He is currently in Egypt, and refuses to reveal his identity over fears of personal safety.
He believes the real reason for the inoperable communications is that many people have been killed inside Bani Walid by the forces besieging the city and now they are trying to prevent information about the killings to be leaked outside.
The militia attackers have claimed they are battling ‘pro-Gaddafi’ forces, but the source slammed that motive as a “lie and a dirty game.”
“They use foreign snipers, I think from Qatar or Turkey, with Qatar covering all the costs,” he said. He claimed that a ship with weapons and other equipment recently docked in the port city of Misrata, where the assault on Bani Walid is allegedly being directed.
“There is no government in Libya. Groups of militia control everything. They don’t care about Libya, they don’t care about the nation,” he said, adding allegations that the majority of militia fighters have dual citizenship or passports from other countries.
“We ask the envoy [Special Representative] of the Secretary-General of the United Nations [for Libya] Mr. Tarik Mitri – where is he now?” he said. “Where is the United Nations? Where is the EU? Where is the Human Rights Watch? We ask for an intervention now as soon as possible – please!”
In an October 23 UN session, the US blocked a statement on the violence in Bani Walid drafted by Russia, which condemned the ongoing conflict in the city and calling for a peaceful resolution.
RT Photo from Bani Walid. RT source. The photo could not be independently verified.
Witnesses claim militia used chemical weapons in Bani Walid
“I can confirm that pro-government militias used internationally prohibited weapons. They used phosphorus bombs and nerve gas. We have documented all this in videos, we recorded the missiles they used and the white phosphorus raining down from these missiles,” Bani Walid-based activist and lawyer Afaf Yusef told RT.
“Many people died without being wounded or shot, they died as a result of gases. The whole world needs to see who they are targeting. Are they really Gaddafi's men? Are the children, women and old men killed – Gaddafi's men?” Yusef said.
The forces attacking Bani Walid have been ordered to use “all means necessary” in their assault on the city, RT’s Paula Slier reported.
“To all parasites and leaches, a message to all of them across Libya, wherever they are: Whoever you are, however strong you are, and whoever your back is – the revolution should win,” a militant said in the TV report.
RT Photo from Bani Walid.
‘Militias using planes and chemical weapons in Bani Walid’
People inside Bani Walid are saying that chemical weapons and airplanes were used in the attack on the town, which has left houses burnt and looted as residents fled the city, Libyan activist Ali Altakasih told RT.
“I was sent a report that was issued by the local hospital in Bani Walid in which they also claim that the militia had used chemical weapons,” he said, adding that he believes the militias have “no principles” and the government has no control over them so they will use whatever weapons they have at their disposal without hesitation.
“They also used planes to bomb the city and there was a report yesterday showing a plane over Bani Walid,” he said. “I was told by cousins and friends that planes were also used to bomb the city, chemical weapons were also used on Bani Walid, killing people inside the city.”
RT was unable to verify these claims by Ali Altakasih, spokesman for the Werfallah tribe which supported Gaddafi, of whether chemical weapons have been used or not. But he insists that if a fact-finding mission is sent to Bani Walid it would easily gather evidence and proof of unconventional weapons being used against civilians.
As the West is turning its back on Libyans and letting militias do whatever they want, Altakasih is urging the international community – particularly Russia and China – to interfere to stop these militias.
“I think the West is turning their back on Libyans and letting these militias do whatever they want to the Libyans,” he said. “They either kill them or torture them, no-one in the West is even criticizing these militias, so Libya is left alone at the moment. We urge Russia and we urge China and we urge the rest of the world to interfere and stop these militias because what they did so far is only kill civilians, many civilians, children were killed, and houses are being burnt.”
The people who are trying to return to the city are being stopped by militias, Altakasih confirmed, adding that there is still communication inside the city which makes it hard to verify what is happening on the ground. The images coming from the city now are very gloomy with people afraid to leave their homes and militias burning and looting houses.
“Any house that looks of great importance to the militias is either burnt or robbed,” Altakasih said. “There are people who are trapped inside the city who cannot leave the city, either for fear of the militia or fear of leaving their belongings inside the city.”
The conflict in Bani Walid is not really a political one but rather tribal as Misrata militias are trying to take control of the whole of Libya and exterminate any opposition, especially inside the former Gaddafi stronghold.
“To be honest this conflict is tribal in nature because the militia is mainly from Misrata supported by other militias from other cities nearby Misrata, because of the conflict that took place between two tribes 92 years ago,” Altakasih explained. “In this conflict one of the Misrata tribes or leaders was killed when he attacked Bani Walid.”
Looming humanitarian catastrophe in Bani WalidThe humanitarian situation outside Bani Walid is reportedly nearly as dire as that within the besieged city. Those who managed to flee the violence now find themselves stranded on the desert roads outside the city.
Thousands of Bani Walid residents have reportedly tried to reenter the city, but were stopped at makeshift militia checkpoints composed of pickup trucks armed with mounted machine-guns.
“Look at the people over there, they got a gun and they’re shooting at people with it,” a Bani Walid resident said, pointing in the direction of a checkpoint. He claimed that those who fled the city had been forced to stay in the desert for more than a week.
“Where is the government?” he said.
Photo from Bani Walid. RT source.
Photo from Bani Walid. RT source.
richardrozoff | October 29, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/
Comment
See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://rickrozoff.
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 29, 2012
NATO accused of ruining Libya
In a book that came out in Moscow on Monday, the Russian Middle East expert Dr Anatoli Yegorin accuses NATO of destroying the Libyan economy.
He says the damage from NATO’s air campaign alone was seven times bigger than that suffered by Libya during WWII. He also points out that the West has so far failed to return an estimated $150bln worth of assets that were stashed by the ousted Gaddafi clan in a number of Western countries.
The analyst also calls attention to the fact that Libya is now ungovernable.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
October 28, 2012
Siege of Bani Walid: Foreign fighters, phosphorus bombs and nerve gas – RT sources
The besieged Libyan city of Bani Walid has been plunged into chaos. RT sources say that the former Gaddafi regime stronghold is under attack by militias bolstered by foreign mercenaries, and they used banned weapons like white phosphorous.
The sources denied reports of the last few days that Bani Walid was retaken by the Libyan government. Residents said that militia forces have continued their assault, while preventing the refugees who fled from reentering the city.
A man who claimed his relatives are trapped inside the besieged city spoke with RT, saying, “There is no food; there is nothing to support the life of people. And the militia does not allow anyone to come back to their homes.”
“They are demolishing homes with machinery and tanks. There is no communication or internet so people are not able to connect with each other,” the source said. He is currently in Egypt, and refuses to reveal his identity over fears of personal safety.
He believes the real reason for the inoperable communications is that many people have been killed inside Bani Walid by the forces besieging the city and now they are trying to prevent information about the killings to be leaked outside.
The militia attackers have claimed they are battling ‘pro-Gaddafi’ forces, but the source slammed that motive as a “lie and a dirty game.”
“They use foreign snipers, I think from Qatar or Turkey, with Qatar covering all the costs,” he said. He claimed that a ship with weapons and other equipment recently docked in the port city of Misrata, where the assault on Bani Walid is allegedly being directed.
“There is no government in Libya. Groups of militia control everything. They don’t care about Libya, they don’t care about the nation,” he said, adding allegations that the majority of militia fighters have dual citizenship or passports from other countries.
“We ask the envoy [Special Representative] of the Secretary-General of the United Nations [for Libya] Mr. Tarik Mitri – where is he now?” he said. “Where is the United Nations? Where is the EU? Where is the Human Rights Watch? We ask for an intervention now as soon as possible – please!”
In an October 23 UN session, the US blocked a statement on the violence in Bani Walid drafted by Russia, which condemned the ongoing conflict in the city and calling for a peaceful resolution.
Witnesses claim militia used chemical weapons in Bani Walid
“I can confirm that pro-government militias used internationally prohibited weapons. They used phosphorus bombs and nerve gas. We have documented all this in videos, we recorded the missiles they used and the white phosphorus raining down from these missiles,” Bani Walid-based activist and lawyer Afaf Yusef told RT.
“Many people died without being wounded or shot, they died as a result of gases. The whole world needs to see who they are targeting. Are they really Gaddafi's men? Are the children, women and old men killed – Gaddafi's men?” Yusef said.
The forces attacking Bani Walid have been ordered to use “all means necessary” in their assault on the city, RT’s Paula Slier reported.
“To all parasites and leaches, a message to all of them across Libya, wherever they are: Whoever you are, however strong you are, and whoever your back is – the revolution should win,” a militant said in the TV report.
‘Militias using planes and chemical weapons in Bani Walid’
People inside Bani Walid are saying that chemical weapons and airplanes were used in the attack on the town, which has left houses burnt and looted as residents fled the city, Libyan activist Ali Altakasih told RT.
“I was sent a report that was issued by the local hospital in Bani Walid in which they also claim that the militia had used chemical weapons,” he said, adding that he believes the militias have “no principles” and the government has no control over them so they will use whatever weapons they have at their disposal without hesitation.
“They also used planes to bomb the city and there was a report yesterday showing a plane over Bani Walid,” he said. “I was told by cousins and friends that planes were also used to bomb the city, chemical weapons were also used on Bani Walid, killing people inside the city.”
RT was unable to verify these claims by Ali Altakasih, spokesman for the Werfallah tribe which supported Gaddafi, of whether chemical weapons have been used or not. But he insists that if a fact-finding mission is sent to Bani Walid it would easily gather evidence and proof of unconventional weapons being used against civilians.
As the West is turning its back on Libyans and letting militias do whatever they want, Altakasih is urging the international community – particularly Russia and China – to interfere to stop these militias.
“I think the West is turning their back on Libyans and letting these militias do whatever they want to the Libyans,” he said. “They either kill them or torture them, no-one in the West is even criticizing these militias, so Libya is left alone at the moment. We urge Russia and we urge China and we urge the rest of the world to interfere and stop these militias because what they did so far is only kill civilians, many civilians, children were killed, and houses are being burnt.”
The people who are trying to return to the city are being stopped by militias, Altakasih confirmed, adding that there is still communication inside the city which makes it hard to verify what is happening on the ground. The images coming from the city now are very gloomy with people afraid to leave their homes and militias burning and looting houses.
“Any house that looks of great importance to the militias is either burnt or robbed,” Altakasih said. “There are people who are trapped inside the city who cannot leave the city, either for fear of the militia or fear of leaving their belongings inside the city.”
The conflict in Bani Walid is not really a political one but rather tribal as Misrata militias are trying to take control of the whole of Libya and exterminate any opposition, especially inside the former Gaddafi stronghold.
“To be honest this conflict is tribal in nature because the militia is mainly from Misrata supported by other militias from other cities nearby Misrata, because of the conflict that took place between two tribes 92 years ago,” Altakasih explained. “In this conflict one of the Misrata tribes or leaders was killed when he attacked Bani Walid.”
Looming humanitarian catastrophe in Bani WalidThe humanitarian situation outside Bani Walid is reportedly nearly as dire as that within the besieged city. Those who managed to flee the violence now find themselves stranded on the desert roads outside the city.
Thousands of Bani Walid residents have reportedly tried to reenter the city, but were stopped at makeshift militia checkpoints composed of pickup trucks armed with mounted machine-guns.
“Look at the people over there, they got a gun and they’re shooting at people with it,” a Bani Walid resident said, pointing in the direction of a checkpoint. He claimed that those who fled the city had been forced to stay in the desert for more than a week.
“Where is the government?” he said.
Voice of Russia
October 29, 2012
NATO accused of ruining Libya
In a book that came out in Moscow on Monday, the Russian Middle East expert Dr Anatoli Yegorin accuses NATO of destroying the Libyan economy.
He says the damage from NATO’s air campaign alone was seven times bigger than that suffered by Libya during WWII. He also points out that the West has so far failed to return an estimated $150bln worth of assets that were stashed by the ousted Gaddafi clan in a number of Western countries.
The analyst also calls attention to the fact that Libya is now ungovernable.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
October 28, 2012
Siege of Bani Walid: Foreign fighters, phosphorus bombs and nerve gas – RT sources
The besieged Libyan city of Bani Walid has been plunged into chaos. RT sources say that the former Gaddafi regime stronghold is under attack by militias bolstered by foreign mercenaries, and they used banned weapons like white phosphorous.
The sources denied reports of the last few days that Bani Walid was retaken by the Libyan government. Residents said that militia forces have continued their assault, while preventing the refugees who fled from reentering the city.
A man who claimed his relatives are trapped inside the besieged city spoke with RT, saying, “There is no food; there is nothing to support the life of people. And the militia does not allow anyone to come back to their homes.”
“They are demolishing homes with machinery and tanks. There is no communication or internet so people are not able to connect with each other,” the source said. He is currently in Egypt, and refuses to reveal his identity over fears of personal safety.
He believes the real reason for the inoperable communications is that many people have been killed inside Bani Walid by the forces besieging the city and now they are trying to prevent information about the killings to be leaked outside.
The militia attackers have claimed they are battling ‘pro-Gaddafi’ forces, but the source slammed that motive as a “lie and a dirty game.”
“They use foreign snipers, I think from Qatar or Turkey, with Qatar covering all the costs,” he said. He claimed that a ship with weapons and other equipment recently docked in the port city of Misrata, where the assault on Bani Walid is allegedly being directed.
“There is no government in Libya. Groups of militia control everything. They don’t care about Libya, they don’t care about the nation,” he said, adding allegations that the majority of militia fighters have dual citizenship or passports from other countries.
“We ask the envoy [Special Representative] of the Secretary-General of the United Nations [for Libya] Mr. Tarik Mitri – where is he now?” he said. “Where is the United Nations? Where is the EU? Where is the Human Rights Watch? We ask for an intervention now as soon as possible – please!”
In an October 23 UN session, the US blocked a statement on the violence in Bani Walid drafted by Russia, which condemned the ongoing conflict in the city and calling for a peaceful resolution.
Witnesses claim militia used chemical weapons in Bani Walid
“I can confirm that pro-government militias used internationally prohibited weapons. They used phosphorus bombs and nerve gas. We have documented all this in videos, we recorded the missiles they used and the white phosphorus raining down from these missiles,” Bani Walid-based activist and lawyer Afaf Yusef told RT.
“Many people died without being wounded or shot, they died as a result of gases. The whole world needs to see who they are targeting. Are they really Gaddafi's men? Are the children, women and old men killed – Gaddafi's men?” Yusef said.
The forces attacking Bani Walid have been ordered to use “all means necessary” in their assault on the city, RT’s Paula Slier reported.
“To all parasites and leaches, a message to all of them across Libya, wherever they are: Whoever you are, however strong you are, and whoever your back is – the revolution should win,” a militant said in the TV report.
‘Militias using planes and chemical weapons in Bani Walid’
People inside Bani Walid are saying that chemical weapons and airplanes were used in the attack on the town, which has left houses burnt and looted as residents fled the city, Libyan activist Ali Altakasih told RT.
“I was sent a report that was issued by the local hospital in Bani Walid in which they also claim that the militia had used chemical weapons,” he said, adding that he believes the militias have “no principles” and the government has no control over them so they will use whatever weapons they have at their disposal without hesitation.
“They also used planes to bomb the city and there was a report yesterday showing a plane over Bani Walid,” he said. “I was told by cousins and friends that planes were also used to bomb the city, chemical weapons were also used on Bani Walid, killing people inside the city.”
RT was unable to verify these claims by Ali Altakasih, spokesman for the Werfallah tribe which supported Gaddafi, of whether chemical weapons have been used or not. But he insists that if a fact-finding mission is sent to Bani Walid it would easily gather evidence and proof of unconventional weapons being used against civilians.
As the West is turning its back on Libyans and letting militias do whatever they want, Altakasih is urging the international community – particularly Russia and China – to interfere to stop these militias.
“I think the West is turning their back on Libyans and letting these militias do whatever they want to the Libyans,” he said. “They either kill them or torture them, no-one in the West is even criticizing these militias, so Libya is left alone at the moment. We urge Russia and we urge China and we urge the rest of the world to interfere and stop these militias because what they did so far is only kill civilians, many civilians, children were killed, and houses are being burnt.”
The people who are trying to return to the city are being stopped by militias, Altakasih confirmed, adding that there is still communication inside the city which makes it hard to verify what is happening on the ground. The images coming from the city now are very gloomy with people afraid to leave their homes and militias burning and looting houses.
“Any house that looks of great importance to the militias is either burnt or robbed,” Altakasih said. “There are people who are trapped inside the city who cannot leave the city, either for fear of the militia or fear of leaving their belongings inside the city.”
The conflict in Bani Walid is not really a political one but rather tribal as Misrata militias are trying to take control of the whole of Libya and exterminate any opposition, especially inside the former Gaddafi stronghold.
“To be honest this conflict is tribal in nature because the militia is mainly from Misrata supported by other militias from other cities nearby Misrata, because of the conflict that took place between two tribes 92 years ago,” Altakasih explained. “In this conflict one of the Misrata tribes or leaders was killed when he attacked Bani Walid.”
Looming humanitarian catastrophe in Bani WalidThe humanitarian situation outside Bani Walid is reportedly nearly as dire as that within the besieged city. Those who managed to flee the violence now find themselves stranded on the desert roads outside the city.
Thousands of Bani Walid residents have reportedly tried to reenter the city, but were stopped at makeshift militia checkpoints composed of pickup trucks armed with mounted machine-guns.
“Look at the people over there, they got a gun and they’re shooting at people with it,” a Bani Walid resident said, pointing in the direction of a checkpoint. He claimed that those who fled the city had been forced to stay in the desert for more than a week.
“Where is the government?” he said.
