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

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

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

By: Miguel Urbano Rodrigues

Two weeks have elapsed since the first demonstrations in Benghazi and Tripoli. The disinformation campaign about Libya has sown confusion in the world.

First a certainty: the analogies with events in Tunisia and Egypt are misplaced. These rebellions contributed obviously to depoliticize street protests in both neighboring countries, but the peculiar Libyan process has characteristics inseparable from the conspiring strategy of imperialism and what can be defined as the metamorphosis of a leader.

Muammar Gaddafi, unlike Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, took an anti-imperialist position when he seized power in 1969. A puppet monarchy was abolished, and for decades he has practised a policy of independence, beginning with the nationalisation of oil. He has practised a strategy that promoted economic development and reduced egregious social inequality.

Libya joined with countries and movements that fought against imperialism and Zionism. Gaddafi founded universities and industries, a flourishing agriculture emerged from the desert sands, hundreds of thousands of citizens for the first time had a right to decent housing.

The bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in l986 by the U.S. Air Force showed that the Reagan White House identified the Libyan leader as an enemy to beat. Heavy sanctions were applied to the country.

Since the second Gulf War, Gaddafi turned 180 degrees. Libya was subjected to IMF demands, dozens of companies were privatised and the country was opened to major international oil companies.

Washington came to see Gadhafi as a leader to dialogue with. He was received with special honours in Europe; fabulous contracts were signed with the governments of Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.

The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.

The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A “prince” Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.

The solidarity of the major media in the U.S. and the European Union with the rioting of terrorists in Libya was obviously hypocritical. The Wall Street Journal, a publication for big worldwide finance, did not hesitate to suggest in an editorial (February 23) that “the U.S. and Europe should “help ‘Libyans’ overthrow the regime of Gaddafi.”

Obama, in expectation, was silent on Libya for six days. On the seventh, he condemned the violence and called for sanctions. It followed an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and an expected package of sanctions.

Many progressive Latin American leaders admitted there is an imminent military intervention of NATO. This initiative would be dangerous and stupid, and would produce a negative effect in the Arab world, reinforcing the latent anti-imperialist sentiment in the masses.

The marketing campaign underway of major international media expands the organizers of the rebellion as heroes while they present Gaddafi as a killer and paranoid. The coming days and tomorrow are unpredictable in Libya, the third largest oil producer in Africa, a country whose wealth is now largely falling into the hands of imperialism.

However, the air strikes that western corporate media claim took place on February 22 over Benghazi and Tripoli, which were widely reported by the likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera, with hands wringing and crocodile tears flowing…were not registered by the Russian military chiefs examining the images coming in from satellites.

The satellite pictures show that, “nothing of that sort has been going on on the ground.” states Irina Galushko, adding that there is also no evidence from footage shot by television cameras which suggests that any airborne attacks took place. So there you go, lies from beginning to end.

——————————————————————————————–
Translated from the Portuguese version and appended by: Lisa Karpova of Pravda.Ru
——————————————————————————————–

Youtube Playlist: American Empire — Neo Colonialism & Hypocrisy

Youtube Playlist: Western Colonialism & Neo-Colonialism

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

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

   Columnist – John Sammon
Okay, who is it?

Who is it at the Pentagon who picks the titles of U.S. military operations?

Our newest action in Libya is called “Odyssey Dawn.”

Odyssey Dawn?

The dictionary definition for Odyssey is a “long eventful journey.”

Does that mean the new war will be long as Muammar Gaddafi predicted yesterday? Couldn’t the Pentagon author of the title instead have labeled it “Blink-of-an-Eye Dawn,” so at least we could hope it will be a short war?

And what’s with use of the word Dawn? Are we to assume the war will only be held at dawn? I saw pictures of cruise missiles sailing off toward Libya launched at night. Maybe they mean it’s the dawn of a new day. But that happens every day anyway, war or not.

The war in Iraq is called “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” This is freedom imposed by force, so it isn’t really freedom. It killed a million Iraqis. So it set many Iraqis free from life. The war in Afghanistan is titled “Enduring Freedom.” Since we haven’t won the war, the notion of enduring freedom must be seen at this point as a gross exaggeration.

Maybe the Afghan War should have been titled, “Iffy, Possible Freedom Seventy Years from Now if Everything Goes According to Plan.”

Okay. Who at the Pentagon picks the titles for war? I think it’s probably a little bureaucrat who has a nice secure tax-payer-supported salary and who has excellent PERS insurance who sits in a little office and is a frustrated writer who has the dream job of thinking up titles that all-too-often not only do not make sense, but fly in the face of both intelligence and propriety.

Nevertheless, whoever this person is, and I think we have a right to know who it is, he has his two seconds of immortality.

For example, instead of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraq War would have more appropriately and honestly been called “Operation Killing a Million Iraqis Including a Small Smattering of Terrorists to Topple Former Ally Saddam by Using False Weapons of Mass Destruction as Ruse to Fool American People.”

That’s too long, isn’t it? We could use the above as an acronym. It would be OKMIISSTTFASUFWMDRFAP. You know how the military loves to label everything with nonsensical letters including even the peanut butter in the mess hall.

I’ve come up with a few suggested titles for future wars of my own. As taxpayers who have no rights to decide wars, or end them, we should at least have the miniscule right to hold an election to title them.

1.   Operation Love Me, Suck My Gun (this substitution of gun for penis as a power force would be loved by the extreme right wing in this country).

2.   Operation Flying Turbans and Sandals (refers to what happens to Arabs after we drop bombs).

3.   Operation Enduring, Endless, Ecstasy of Excitement in Executing Energizing Enforcement of American Values.

4.   Operation Heads I Win, Tails I Kill You (named after a violent Italian Spaghetti western movie. I like it because our enemies will be unsure of the implied outcome of the coin toss).

5.   Operation Grind Up Your Guts Into Foul Smelling Bits and Then Shove Them Up Your Ass (this one really captures the spirit and intent of a military action).

6.   Operation I Never Saw a War I Didn’t Love (this will appeal to Republicans who never served in the military as well as career officers).

7.   Operation Vaporize Not Nice Sand Nig’ers (this appeals to extremists who blame the Muslim religion for all America’s troubles).

8.   Operation F’ You A-Hole (among the most honest of labels, this will appeal to the great number of minority ethnic American soldiers from low-income inner cities who entered the service to get job training).

9.   Let me know what your suggestions for other titles are.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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

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

SIRTE, Libya – Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Tuesday called Barack Obama a “flicker of hope in the middle of the imperialist darkness”, but said he feared the president could be assassinated.

Gaddafi, known for his controversial statements, did not say who might want to kill Obama but gave the examples of the assassinations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, as well as black rights leader Martin Luther King.

“I fear that they could liquidate this young man or force him to submit to their imperialist policies,” Gaddafi told a university gathering of his supporters in Sirte, without specifying who might put Obama under pressure.

“Obama is a flicker of hope in the middle of the imperialist darkness,” the Libyan leader said, adding: “There is a fear that they would liquidate him as they liquidated Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln.”

Gaddafi, who is the African Union chairman, had offered to work with Obama to sustain security, stability and prosperity in Africa and elsewhere.

Gaddafi praised Obama for breaking with what he said was the previous American foreign policy that dictated to the rest of the world what to do to serve U.S. interests.

“He (Obama) speaks logically. Arrogance no longer exists in the American approach which was previously based on dictating to the rest of the world in order to meet its own conditions,” Gaddafi said in the remarks carried by state media.

Gaddafi, who took power in 1969 in a military coup in his oil- and gas-rich North African state, was shunned for decades by the West, which accused him of supporting terrorism.

His ties with Western countries have improved since Libya announced in 2003 it was scrapping weapons of mass destruction programs and agreed to pay compensation for families of victims of bombings of U.S. and French airliners.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

By Kap Kirwok

Sometime in June, the ever controversial Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said the then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had an ‘inferiority complex‘ because he is black and if elected might ‘behave worse than whites‘.

Now that Obama will be President, it is time to examine this ‘inferiority‘ accusation more closely.

   By Newbreen.com

When a black person projects confidence, he is accused of putting on airs; he is overconfident, too cocky; or they will simply say he is imitating the white man — ‘acting white‘, as they say in the US.

When a black person projects humility, it is said he is acting true to character — subservient, inferior, slavish and lacking in confidence. In short, he is accused of suffering from an inferiority complex.

Will the ascension of a black man to the most powerful office on earth restore some respectability to the black man’s battered image?

I doubt it. The black man has a millennium old image problem. Racial prejudice against black people runs deep, with antecedents that span centuries. The historical and psychological roots of racial prejudice against blacks are many and complex, but you could reduce them to four words: military conquest and enslavement. Throughout history, any people that have been conquered and ruled or enslaved are always treated by the conquerors as inferior.

It is why the British imperialist poet, Rudyard Kipling, in his poem, The White Man’s Burden, uses words such as ‘half-devil and half-child‘ to refer to the conquered people of the Philippine Islands, while exhorting the white empire to act as the almighty lord to all ‘inferior’ races.

Prejudice

While blatant displays of prejudice against black people are less overt today compared to Kipling’s time, they are no less frequent and virulent in their subterranean form. In a recent article in the New York Times, columnist Nicholas D Kristof reports on studies by several scholars, which showed rampant unconscious bias and racism towards black people.

Prejudice against black people is so deeply ingrained and embedded in the psyche that racially discriminatory and prejudicial behaviour often operates subliminally. It is sad and tragic. But the greater tragedy is this: even black people themselves are caught up in unconscious discrimination towards people of their own race.

There is a popular and free test on the Internet that you can take to test the level of your unconscious bias. It is called the Implicit Association Test and is run by a team of psychologists led by Prof Tony Greenwald of the University of Washington.

Choosing the whites

The test is designed to probe unconscious biases in people. It is one thing to lie about one’s true thoughts and feelings; it is entirely another to not even know what is truly in your mind. For example, well-meaning people who say they have no racial prejudices might be surprised to discover they are in fact unconsciously racist.

When such people are faced with a decision that requires making a choice between a black and a white with similar qualifications and experience — such as in a job interview setting — they will always choose the white person.

If you think you know your mind well, you might want to withhold that judgment until you have taken the Implicit Association Test. It has the potential to shock you.

The implication of all these is the black man’s burden is double in weight. On top of the weight of conscious and unconscious white racial prejudice, there is the extra baggage of conscious and unconscious black inferiority complex.

It raises a disturbing question. Will the black race ever rid itself of this double load? Conquering and enslaving another race is out of the question, at least not in this millennium. Becoming the president of the most powerful country on earth will not do it either. For every good an Obama-type does to the black man’s image, there are a million negative images competing to nullify the effect.

Inferiority complex

There is one way to do it and it is not by decolonising the mind through the promotion of native languages, as Ngugi wa Thiong’o suggests in his book Decolonising The Mind. It is not by merely urging Africans to ‘drop the inferiority complex’, as Gambian President Yahya Jammeh recently said.

It is only through a combination of strategic humility and strategic pursuit of self-interest in a determined effort to raise black people’s development — individually and collectively — that our millennium-old image problem will be addressed. It means recognising that we are in a hole (literally and perceptually) and then using any means necessary to climb out.