By: Antonio Cesar Oliveira

How can you call someone a dictator a leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?

Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media – in the service of the U.S. – praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South Africa.

Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.

In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.

After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.

But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.

In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.

The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.

Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.

In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.

So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.

Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people’s money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.

This observation – and a book in publication – certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.

But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.

Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.

This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.

In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like “Egypt’s late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India’s Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy’s Garibaldi and Mazzini.” (Really, I’m a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)

He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.

He also stated in another interview: “I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth.”

——————————————————————————————–
Article Translated into English and appended by: Lisa Karpova of Pravda.Ru
Copyright © 1999-2011, [PRAVDA.Ru]
——————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————–
The curious case of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
——————————————————————————————–

By: Sergei Balmasov

The aggression against Libya that began in the late evening on Saturday continues. NATO forces dominated by the Americans, British and French continue rocket and bomb attacks on Libyan territory under the framework of the operation Odyssey Dawn.

This did not come as a surprise to anyone. The West’s plan to overthrow Gaddafi by the opposition has failed, and the countries of the “golden billion” directly started the aggression. They point out that the operation was sanctioned by the UN. Russia and China have abstained, and now the West is trying to use it in their interests. However, it is important to mention that the Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and did not sanction the bombing of that country.

It is no accident that secretary general of the Arab League Amr Moussa spoke against Operation Odyssey Dawn. According to him, the West’s actions did not match the originally stated goal of a no-fly zone and protection of the civilians.

The question arises as to why the Western powers that talk about peace for the Libyan people allegedly bombed by Gaddafi are destroying this peace themselves? Currently Tripoli has claimed there were 64 victims of the aggression, most of whom are women and children.

Numerous sources, including health care workers from Russia working in Libya, confirm this information. In particular, they point out that one of the cruise missiles struck the building of a hospital in Tripoli. This is not surprising as NATO high-precision weapons have already shown its effectiveness against civilian targets in Yugoslavia and bomb shelters in Iraq.

As in the case of an attack on Iraq and Yugoslavia, Libya faced several opponents. Western powers do not act one by one, which is not surprising, because the golden billion countries have the same goal – prosperity by robbing all the others and, above all, through obtaining cheap raw materials.

Yet, this time the attack had new elements. The French were the first ones to attack Libya. They are the most zealous of all the other participants of the aggression. In his desire to punish the “dictator oppressing his own people” Sarkozy’ has surpassed even the Americans.

What is going on? We can certainly admit that he was angry over the fact that Gaddafi has recently refused to buy his fighter Rafale, opting for the Russian Sukhoi Su-35. According to various sources, the deal amounted to half a billion dollars. However, this is not the only explanation of the unexpected cooling of Sarkozy towards the colonel who was earlier welcomed by Paris as the dearest guest.

Experts Sergey Demidenko and Sergei Fedorov shared their thoughts in an interview with Pravda.ru.

Sergei Fedorov, a senior research fellow with the Institute of Europe, an expert on France: “It is no accident that Sarkozy has turned against al-Gaddafi. In recent years, the French public opinion has been strongly critical of his policies toward North African regimes. This is happening not only in relation to Gaddafi, whom Sarkozy heavily courted for signing of arms and oil deals, but also Tunis Ben Ali and Mubarak of Egypt. Many in France were greatly interested in things like the reasons of his purchasing a luxurious mansion in Egypt, or why Sarkozy until the last moment has supported Ben Ali and how he and his ministers have benefited from this?

The Tunisian affairs of the current French president had cost him dearly. As a result of the scandal concerning relations of his cabinet with Ben Ali a number of ministers, including Minister of Foreign Affairs, had to resign.

After Tunisia and Egypt, the revolt broke out in Libya. It would have looked bad if Sarkozy was reminded of his bowing before Gaddafi. Therefore, for him a small victorious war was a tool to make the public forget about the past. Fortunately, France has more than two centuries of experience as the champion of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” Sarkozy is now appealing to these values, trying to act as a defender of the Libyan population allegedly subjected to genocide by Gaddafi.

Sergey Demidenko, an expert of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis:

“There are a few reasons that made Sarkozy run ahead of the American democratic “locomotive.” First, it is oil and gas. This is not only that the production of Libyan black gold brings huge profits due to low production costs of the types of this resource highly prized in the West. And not only because at this point only a quarter of the geological map of the country has been researched.

The main reason that made the West try to eliminate Gaddafi is the fact that the latter used “oil weapon” for blackmailing purposes. Many European countries are dependent on the Libyan oil and gas, including France.

A year ago, Gaddafi threatened to deny oil to those countries that have been witnessed to disapprove of Islam. Now the policy under the ongoing crisis conditions is not favored by the West.

We must not forget that the Colonel was a difficult negotiator. He signed only the contracts with foreigners that were beneficial for him. However, the West needed the guarantee of uninterrupted supply of oil and gas on more favorable terms than those dictated by Gaddafi.

A rebellion against him was staged. The population generally supported it. That, however, is not surprising: it is enough to say that many preferred to just draw benefits than work. All this prosperity was provided to the people by Gaddafi. For this reason, in some few days his troops have moved the rebels to Benghazi and their protection was the reason for the intervention.

Not by chance, Sarkozy became the main proponent of the intervention. “Democratic society” vigorously criticized his connection with the North African regimes. It appeared as if France, the champion of “liberty, equality and fraternity,” sold out for the money of the African tyrants.

Of particular interest are the former secret backroom dealings between Gaddafi and Sarkozy. The colonel has threatened to make public the facts of him sponsoring his election campaign. For Sarkozy in the present moment it is very, very unpleasant. At any case, so far he was not able to clarify the situation regarding the origin of the $50 million spent additionally. Whatever the case is, he will not forgive Gaddafi certain things.”

For some reason, nobody rushes to strike at Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who are brutally suppressing Shiites riots on their territories and that really documented numerous civilian casualties. Apparently, France, like the U.S., has its own persons who are forgiven everything because the kings of the Persian Gulf have been playing by the rules that suit the West.

——————————————————————————————–
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Copyright © 1999-2011, [PRAVDA.Ru]
——————————————————————————————–

Youtube Playlist: American Empire — Neo Colonialism & Hypocrisy

Youtube Playlist: Western Colonialism & Neo-Colonialism

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

She spent a considerable amount of time talking to one of Iran’s most important Jewish leaders who denied that his people were being persecuted. During a fairly lengthy interview, former Iranian President Khatami took pains to distinguish this point of view from that of President Ahmadinejad whose views on the Judeocide were described as those of a “private citizen”. Little doubt was left during the course of this program that NBC favored the election of Ahmadinejad’s rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a member of Khatami’s party. [ READ MORE ]

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Iran – They May Not Want The Bomb And Other Unexpected Truths

By: Fareed Zakaria

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What’s the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime’s founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were “un-Islamic.” The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that “developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.” Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini’s statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran’s aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn’t need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear “breakout” capacity-the ability to weaponize within a few months-would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren’t suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as “a messianic, apocalyptic cult.” In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran’s ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those-including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu’s advisers said of Iran, “Think Amalek.” The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Iran isn’t a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the “mad mullah” who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahs-which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority. Iran might be ready to deal. We can’t know if a deal is possible since we’ve never tried to negotiate one, not directly. While the regime appears united in its belief that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program-a position with broad popular support-some leaders seem sensitive to the costs of the current approach. It is conceivable that these “moderates” would appreciate the potential benefits of limiting their nuclear program, including trade, technology and recognition by the United States. The Iranians insist they must be able to enrich uranium on their own soil. One proposal is for this to take place in Iran but only under the control of an international consortium. It’s not a perfect solution because the Iranians could-if they were very creative and dedicated-cheat. But neither is it perfect from the Iranian point of view because it would effectively mean a permanent inspections regime in their country. But both sides might get enough of what they consider crucial for it to work. Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.