Libya, where NATO loses its way

Libya, where NATO loses its way. 45009.jpegIt is by now patently obvious that in Libya, NATO has violated every rule in the book, has violated international law, has broken the Geneva Conventions, has breached diplomatic conventions, has insulted the United Nations Organization and fundamentally, has even violated its own charter. Why? In three letters, oil.

NATO is the most despicable type of syphilitic whore that ever appeared on the international stage, a mutation of the worst kind which sprang out of the defensive agreement among nations quaking in their boots at the military supremacy of the Soviet Union, a mutation which turned what was supposed to be a defensive alliance into a supra-national monster. NATO is not a defensive military alliance, it is not only offensive in nature but is also fundamentally criminal in character.

To begin with, we have to disassociate NATO from politics, if we want to give an iota of credibility to the politicians that people elect in NATO member states. If we do not disassociate NATO from the political class in countries whose foreign policy NATO controls, the harder you look, the more sinister it gets.

For a start, NATO was supposed to be a defensive military alliance protecting its member states from attack from the Soviet Union. Those of us on the other side of the curtain always had a good laugh at this because not only were the military forces of the Soviet Union essentially defensive in nature but also, in each and every war games exercise, the USSR thrashed the crap out of NATO, as indeed the Russian Federation would today. The aperitif was the Georgia campaign in 2008. Who started it and who ran screaming with its tail between its legs? Whose military advisors were on the ground, whose mercenaries came back home in body bags?

When the countries composing the USSR decided to go their separate ways, NATO lied and said it would not encroach to the East if the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. Several times. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved and what did NATO do? It encroached to the East. The first round of lies belongs to NATO.

NATO, we saw then, was obviously not a defensive organization, which was already more than apparent given the millions of dollars it spent in terrorist operations and in supporting terrorist factions and fascist dictatorships around the world. So since 1990 we have seen more and more where NATO was going and what NATO is. It morphed into the armed whore of the lobbies which control the capitalist system across the globe: the banking lobby, the weapons lobby, the drugs lobby, the energy lobby.

Within a decade of the voluntary dissolution of the USSR (catered for in its Constitution) and the ensuing dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (in good will), NATO had already started the foundation of the European base of the international heroin trade: Kosovo. Between 80 and 90 per cent of the European heroin trade comes through Kosovo, from Turkey, from Afghanistan. The common link in all these theatres of activity is - you got it - NATO!

In Afghanistan, the production of heroin has risen by forty (40) times, since NATO started fighting the forces it created back in the 1980s (Mujaheddin) to fight the socially progressive government, destroying the society which guaranteed children's rights, women's rights and the freedoms people do not have today.

So we see now where NATO stands: alongside terrorists (the KLA was a terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin became the Taleban) and overseeing the heroin trade which by the way is worth billions of dollars a year.

It does not matter to NATO how many families it destroys in the process. It never did. Through the manipulation of fear (creating successive "thems" to justify the "us") NATO managed to control public opinion and maintain itself on the political agenda of its member states, without ever having been elected yet controlling their foreign policy (how Constitutional is that?).

Until Iraq, NATO managed to mastermind a certain image of credibility for those who bought the Soviet Threat bullshit story. After Iraq, it didn't. The mass murder of Iraqi civilians, the torture, the illegal detention of persons, rape, disrespect for human life, the deployment of military hardware against civilian structures... you name it, NATO did it.

And now, Libya. It was patently obvious from the start that this was yet another NATO operation, this time not for drugs but for oil and much more: Muammar al-Qathafi's stance on forging African unity through the African Union so that African nations could stand on their own feet and not be systematically raped by ex- and neo-colonialist powers meant that the banking lobby missed out, the energy lobby missed out, the weapons lobby missed out.

The name of the game is to destroy the African Union and substitute it with AFRICOM. The many humanitarian projects and programmes sponsored and financed by Muammar al-Qathafi do not matter to NATO because NATO is not interested in the welfare of Africans, it simply wants to control Africa's resources.

And the sinister way in which NATO implements policy makes it the most hated organization on the planet. And here we see whether the politicians of the NATO member states have anything to say to save their necks. Whether or not they will ever answer these questions (as yet sent but not replied to) is a measure of their arrogance and an indicator as to who not to elect next time around.

Under which international laws was the Libyan water pipeline a target?

Under which laws was it legitimate to target a factory supplying water pipes to repair the system?

Under which laws was it legitimate to target a house with precision weaponry - and we are speaking of laser technology and telecommunications systems responding from ten kilometres in the sky, so it was no accident - in which Muammar al-Qathafi was outside feeding the animals and his son and three grandchildren were murdered?

Under which laws is it legitimate to support and arm terrorists in an internal conflict?

Under which laws is it permitted to strafe hospitals?

Under which laws is it allowed to strike civilian structures such as the electricity grid?

Under NATO's laws, yes. Because NATO does not answer to any international legal organism, indeed it has already stated there is no organism controlling its actions. Under the laws of the member states of NATO, no. And under international law, no.

But then again NATO does not operate under international law. It is a criminal organization run by criminals. So we repeat the question: where do the politicians come into this? If they support NATO, they are criminals. If not, then why are they members?

In which case ladies and gentlemen, in your wonderful western democracies, you have two alternatives: vote for your political representatives who support NATO and become guilty by association or else vet who is running for office by asking them their opinion on foreign policy and by doing the right thing and setting the appropriate legal measures into force punishing those involved in this criminal act of murder and holding them responsible for their crimes.

Do you support the terrorists in Libya? Yes? Then you are supporting child murderers and vote. No action = guilt by association, meaning the citizens of these NATO states sit in silence while their armed forces commit acts of murder daily, in support of thousands of armed terrorists. Is THAT what your countries stand for? Apparently, it is.


Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey