Libya: Tell it like it is

Two weeks ago, western journalists swept into Tripoli on a wave of euphoria as the city welcomed the NATO/TNC with open arms. Not a shot was fired as the city where just a few weeks previously, millions of people had turned out to support Muammar al-Qathafi, came out to celebrate. Then why is the NATO/TNC leadership still holed up in Benghazi?

Did Tripoli "fall" two weeks ago, or were we fed a classic piece of disinformation during NATO's blackout? If the images we were receiving were true, then why were all telecommunications hacked in a classic case of cyber terrorism by NATO? Why did NATO continue to carry out terrorist attacks on Government forces in Tripoli after it "fell"? Why did NATO cut the electricity and water supply to the civilian population to "break" them, if the city had fallen into the hands of the NATO/TNC terrorist forces? Did NATO special forces enter the arena? If so, this was a violation of the UNSC resolutions covering the case.

The answer to these questions is perfectly simple. There are two Libyan conflicts going on - the real one on the ground being followed on social networks, and networking with friends and acquaintances who have contacts in Libya and the pink cloud cuckoo land broadcast by the western media, NATO's lackey.

The mainstay of this conflict from the beginning is the psyops factor - information and disinformation, or in plain English, NATO's blatant and barefaced lies. Remember Saddam Hussein's WMD anyone? OK then, where are they?

3,000 days have gone by since the NATO-led invasion of Iraq, the casus belli being the Iraqi WMD programme which posed "an immediate threat" to the USA and its allies. Bullshit! Those of us covering the case at the time exposed the lies from the very beginning - the "yellowcake uranium" story from "Nigeria" (in fact it was supposed to be "Niger"), the "wonderful evidence" which Colin Powell presented to the UNO in what must have been the best performance ever not to have been nominated for an Oscar, namely a doctoral thesis from a decade earlier copied and pasted from the Net. Do they think we are stupid or what?

And now, Libya. There was no casus belli. The supposed massacres of civilians by the Libyan Armed Forces have been proven through documented evidence to be nonsense - they were false flag events staged by the terrorists NATO armed and equipped before the conflict started. How come all those crisp flags appeared on day 1? Where were they made? OK probably in China like everything else but who ordered them?

The Libyan Armed Forces have been very careful from the beginning to reduce civilian casualties by negotiating with the terrorist elements before defending a settlement threatened by this scourge - the only threat to civilians is NATO and the terrorists it supports. And let nobody call me out for calling them terrorists. Those who perpetrate acts of terrorism, I call terrorists. And in this case, NATO is supporting not only terrorists but also racists, because an underlying element of hatred in their discourse is against people with dark skin.

How evil does it get?

I will give you two analogies and then conclude.

A farmer found a barren field in the village and through his own hard work, and intelligence and vision, turned it into a fertile one, and soon acquired all the fields in the village, employing its workers, giving them all they wanted and asked for through their Citizens' Councils (Jamahiriya). If they wanted to study, he sent them to study where they wanted, for free. If they needed health care, it was provided for free. They had a free house, they had a guaranteed job, even in many cases, a car.

Outside the village a different system was in force, controlled by a terrorist organization which had already launched wars to steal the resources of other villages through a military alliance of over 40 heavily-armed militants, who controlled the political systems of their members. They also worked for an invisible clique of corporate elitists who became fat and rich from controlling the resources which they claimed were theirs.

Worried that the Jamahiriya system might take on, due to the immense interest in it among the citizens of other villages, worried about the fact that the farmer (Muammar) would spread his system of governance elsewhere and deprive the elitists of their winnings, this terrorist organization, which cleverly labelled itself "Not A Terrorist Organization (NATO)" spread lies about Muammar saying he treated his workers badly, armed a group of them and told them if they spread mayhem, they would be guaranteed paradise...the same process used in convincing a person with Down's Syndrome to become a suicide bomber.

NATO indeed bombed a Downs' Syndrome facility in Muammar's lands, along with hospitals, schools, libraries, cultural heritage and as it aided the rebel workers (called "terrorists" by everyone who knew how to read), bombed Muammar's forces from the air, despite the fact that there were very clear laws in the land that villages should not take sides in internal conflicts in other villages.

NATO used its town criers to spread lies far and wide, said nothing of the fact that Muammar had such a good humanitarian record that he was to be given an award for it, saying nothing of his projects which freed his villagers from the yolk of horrific taxes and tithes and feudal payments to foreign masters.

Moral. Who is the hero in this story, whatever the outcome?

Analogy two is far shorter. Muammar is a boxer. He is a member of the international boxing federation, which has its rules. He was lined up against an opponent in a ring. Fair Play, the referee said. At a heavy disadvantage, because his opponent was from three categories higher, being taller and heavier, Muammar however fought bravely and with dignity, he tried to defend himself and he started beating his opponent.

The original match of 12 rounds was extended to 48. Still Muammar won so the referee (bribed by NATO) allowed his opponent to tag with another. Muammar won. Then he allowed both opponents to fight Muammar. Muammar won. Then he allowed three adversaries, then four, then five, then eight.

They cut Muammar's water supply so he could not drink, they did not allow him to go to his corner to rest. Meanwhile they informed him they had slit the throats of his children and grandchildren. Muammar still fought back. 48 rounds, 100 rounds, 480 rounds. Then they cut the transmission.

Hundreds of boxers entered the ring, the referee looked the other way.

My conclusion: Whatever happens, and as we read Muammar is still fighting, does NATO come through this with any dignity at all? (Violins) But the people wanted freedom (stop violins). OK if they wanted freedom, then why did they only make progress when NATO bombed everything that moved? If they wanted freedom, then why did they slit people's throats in the streets?

If they wanted freedom then why are they racists? Those who back them are backing racists and terrorists. Not all of those who support them have committed war crimes. Some have. And they have been documented.

And one last comment. About the news that is about to break in the bought NATO/terrorist supporting media...How many times have you killed Khamis and resurrected him?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru