Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Thursday, August 25, 2011

NATO powers have long history of massacres in Africa

Massacres: Do the NATO powers really object to them?
Hundreds of years of slavery and ripping the heart out of Africa gives a clue to the answer to that question, as does the government role in massacres of slave rebellions in the U.S.
But we don’t have to go back that far. Everyone here probably knows this history but I think it bears repeating because putting it together helps to expose this lie about imperialist concern about massacres:
  • After the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference that divided Africa among the European powers, Belgium imposed its rule on the Congo through indiscriminate killings and forced labor, killing 10 million people—half of the population—in 20 years time.

  • On September 2, 1889, Britain killed 11,000 and wounded 16,000 Sudanese in one day as it tried to force its rule on the people of the Sudan.

  • In 1904, Germany sent troops to Namibia to put down a revolt – killing 65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama people- 80% of the population. It wasn’t until 2004 that Germany even acknowledged this genocide.

  • From 1905 to 1907, German troops killed 300,000 in Tanzania in order to crush an uprising called the Maji-Maji revolt against colonial rule.

  • In October 1911, Italy bombed Tripoli and landed troops to occupy it and take it as a colony. On October 26 the press reported that Italy massacred of all people in one quarter of Tripoli Libya due to uprising against imperialist occupation, and shipped 1000 others to a remote island to break the resistance.

  • In March 1919, Britain arrested the leaders of the Egyptian nationalist movement and exiled them to Malta, but this only enflamed the struggle against imperialism. British troops killed 800 in that revolt that saw massive demonstrations by workers and students. The next month, in India British troops killed 400 and wounded 1200 to stop a rally of 10,000 of Gandhi’s followers.

  • In 1920 and 1921, there was a rebellion in Iraq against British colonialism. The British crushed it by killing 10,000 Iraqis.

  • In 1929, British troops killed 30 Igbo women in Nigeria in a battle over colonial taxation.

  • In 1930, Italy built a 200 mile long barbed wire fence along the Egyptian border to block guerilla supplies to freedom forces in Libya. Any contact with rebels was a crime with the penalty of death. In the same year Italy moved the entire population of Gebel, 100,000 people, to concentration camps on the coast.

  • In 1931, Italy executed an 80-year-old Libyan resistance leader. They did it in the largest concentration camp – forcing 20,000 to watch in order to terrorize the population. By one estimate, Italy killed 12,000 people every year in this period to enforce colonial rule.

  • In 1936, Italy invaded Ethiopia and claimed it as part of Italy—killing 8,000 and taking 4,000 prisoners in first part of their campaign.

  • In 1945, French troops massacred Algerians–bombing villages, shooting people and then tried to hide their crimes in a crematorium. 50,000 were killed.

  • In 1949, there was a strike in the mines in Nigeria. British troops crushed it by killing 29 and wounding 51. The strike was an important part of a growing nationalist movement.

  • In 1953 in São Tomé, Portuguese landowners unleashed a wave of violence—killing 1,000 who refused forced labor on the big estates (the Batepa massacre). This was the beginning of the nationalist movement and is today commemorated as a holiday.

  • From 1952-1958 the British killed 11,000 Mau Mau freedom fighters–1,000 by hanging. Between 70,000 and 1 million were put concentration camps.

  • In 1960 in South Africa, 69 were killed, 200 injured and 18,000 were arrested during protests against apartheid passes.

  • In the same year Portuguese troops killed 600 during a peaceful march for freedom in Mozambique. In 1961, a revolt against forced labor broke out in Angola; Portuguese troops killed 50,000.

  • In 1964, President Johnson provided the four C-130 military transport planes that dropped Belgian paratroopers—thousands were killed killed in Operation that overthrew Peoples Republic of the Congo.

  • In 1975, Cuban troops stopped U.S.-supported South African massacres in Angola.

Read more...


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Venezuela’s Chavez: Libya’s tragedy just beginning with the fall of Gadhafi’s government

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday that Libya’s crisis is just beginning with the fall of Moammar Gadhafi’s government.
Chavez has been a staunch defender of Gadhafi throughout the conflict, and he condemned NATO airstrikes and killings of civilians.  Read more...
Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Stop NATO's gangsterism: US lawmaker

"If members of the Gaddafi regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing," Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich was quoted by AFP as saying on Tuesday.

Kucinich denounced NATO for exceeding the UN Security Council resolution which mandated a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, stating that the real aim of attacks were “regime change.” 
PressTV


Enhanced by Zemanta

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez won't recognize Libya rebels

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (in Dimashq, Syr...                                         Image via Wikipedia
Even after rebels breached Muammar al-Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli on Tuesday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — a friend and ally of Gaddafi's — said that his country only recognizes "one government" in Libya, "the one led by Muammar Gaddafi."

In a televised cabinet meeting, Chavez accused Western powers of violating international law by aiding the rebels, Reuters reports.  Read more...

Related articles:

  • Morales blames US for inciting protest


  • Chavez: Let's pray for Libyan civilians

  • Wednesday, August 3, 2011

    Libya, where NATO loses its way

    It 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.  Mathaba

    Also read:
      Enhanced by Zemanta

      Sunday, June 26, 2011

      Zuma warns against Gaddafi 'assassination'

      Jacob Zuma, former vice president of South Africa.                                          Image via Wikipedia
      President Jacob Zuma has warned Nato against using its military campaign in Libya for the "political assassination" of Muammar Gaddafi.

      President Jacob Zuma on Sunday warned Nato against using its military campaign in Libya for the "political assassination" of Muammar Gaddafi, at the start of talks on the war.

      South Africa voted for the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya, which Nato uses to justify its campaign, but in some of his sharpest language yet, Zuma warned the alliance against overstepping its mandate.  : News24

      Related articles from News24



      Enhanced by Zemanta

      NATO dumping radiation on Libyan civilians

      NATO launched nearly 3,200 attacks with depleted uranium bombs against civilians in Libya. This is the denunciation of the special envoy of Telesur, Rolando Segura. The total number of air strikes launched by the Atlantic Alliance against Libya is over 8,400 already. Almost 40% of these involved use of depleted uranium munitions, revealed the South American television journalist in his Twitter profile.  Read more...

      Tuesday, June 14, 2011

      US shows it's hypocrisy with sponsored, NATO-led assault on Libya while supporting Human Rights violations in Bahrain & Israel

      Iran stands as the biggest threat against "old world order" and the US imperialist domination of the Middle East and all its resources, says an analyst.

      In an interview with Press TV, online columnist Allen Roland says the United States controls NATO and the United Nations, which have embarked on a joint campaign against the Islamic Republic.

      He induces from the conflicts in Bahrain and Libya, and the West's dual approach to the crackdown of civilian revolutionaries in these two countries, that the US seeks to stave Iran's opposition to imperialist tendencies in the region.


      'Iran threatens imperialist interests'

      Also watch:


      Friday, May 27, 2011

      Libya under NATO Attack: Stop Bombing Africa and the Poor of the World

      While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was founded by the United States in response to the Soviet Union's survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.  Read more...
       

      Thursday, March 31, 2011

      Libya: Why Are We There?

      I haven't discussed the military operation (war) in Libya up until now because I was waiting to see whether we would go into Libya or not, then we went into Libya alongside NATO and I wanted to give our President a chance to give an explanation as to why we are in Libya as well as see how the operation was being handled.  

      First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military.  If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission?  To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya.  We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil.  If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.


      President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi.  And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down.  There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels.  Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us?  So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years.  Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone?  I hope not.

      Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war?  That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya.  Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979.  Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed.  There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis.  Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein.  Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions.  The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it.  Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here.  It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons.  Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word.   Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility.  If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?

      And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005?  Shall we say hypocrisy?



      Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations.  For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal.  Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression."  For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration.  Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.

      In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction.  In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges.  Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya?  I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya.  So I ask why are we in Libya?