Sunday, 20 March 2011
Very very dangerous situation/Lawless UN :
I dont know who that bitch of a woman representing the US is who makes the announcement but its obviously some Globalist POS from the Obama administration who has been placed there through affirmative action but pointing out that she is more than likely to be a Lesbian with an axe to grind like Kagan or Sutermeyer is totally unneccessary.Her eyes look kind of dead and i dont like the look of her with her severe looking pulled back hair.
"Colonel Gadaffi and those who still stand by him..."
"and those who still stand by him"
In their own words the UN has declared war on anyone in Libya who supports Gadaffi which by default means civilians/non-combatants] so this is the first time UN/Nato/US have declared war against civilians/non-combatants that i know of.
Where is the line drawn ?
The lack of distinction is deliberate.
So how does this figure in terms of International Law ??
If i say that i stand by Gadaffi then i could be bombed or classed as an enemy of the international community.
It actually doesnt matter as these MFs will do what they like anyway but claims that this action is "legal" instead of "illegal"[incorrect terms anyway as it should be Lawful/Unlawful] are totally wrong since civilians/non combatants who still support Gadaffi as is their right to do so are now in a new category since the distinction has been made by the UN between supporters of Gadaffi and "civilians" who presumably are either politically neutral or are anti-Gadaffi/Pro-West or whatever.
The UN has deliberately not made the distinction between those who are in the Libyan military and Govt etc and civilians/non-combatants who support Gadaffi.
This is very very very dangerous but i dont see anyone else pointing this out anywhere.
Of course there will be armed civilians who support Gadaffi but this resolution declares open season on the Libyan people who are citizens of a sovereign nation and who have the right to defend themselves from foreign occupiers/aggressors.
So what is going on here is the UN are pre-empting the potentially massive civilian casualties and that civilians who are defending themselves will be classed as "insurgents" so that eliminating them is justified under this resolution.
The ultimatum issued by the UN is simply surrender or be wiped out.Not that it will be very easy to tell the difference between anti-Gadaffi/pro-Gadaffi Libyans when it comes to non-military personel.
Its that simple.
Watch how quickly a "Humanitarian" operation will evolve into an anti-terrorism operation as it is now inevitable.It gets more and more ridiculous as the anti-Gadaffi protestors/freedom fighters have now evolved into members of AlCIAda all of a sudden when AlQaeda is a codename for CIA/western intelligence operatives and their followers.
Of course now announcing that it was Alqaeda is a way for the CIA and the UK and the US to distance themselves from the revolutionaries that they were arming and funding and controlling so now the claim that AlCIAda are now present in Libya thats a whole new spin on things.
The NWO arent going to install an Al CIAda regime in Libya as has been suggested.It just isnt going to happen but the fact they are allegedly active in Libya is something that will be capitalised on particularly if an NWO selected political leader is placed in power as this will create more internal conflict within Libya which will create the pretext for an ongoing occupation by the NWO and will in turn provide the pretext for more AlCIAda attacks on the US which in turn will inject fresh blood into the ongoing fake WarOnTerror.
Thats the way i see it.
The fact there are now AlCIAda operatives in Libya creates the pretext for a ground based occupation.
Gadaffi did warn a short while ago that AlCIAda operatives were stirring up a revolution but it fell on deaf ears which is no surprise since it was AlCIAda who were preparing the ground for Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Oddysey Dawn must mean the beginning of a long and convoluted military operation.
This is not good which ever way you look at it.
Whatever happened to the Barak H Obama policy of negotiations before the use of force was used as a last resort ??
Its gone along with all of the other pre-elction pledges which is a great shame because this was one aspect of Obama that i supported as it was a positive direction and it would have improved the image of the US no end if the US had negotiated with Gadaffi but instead the US [figuratively speaking] chose to stir things up and go straight in using military force.
The fact is though i could bash Obama day and night over this but the fact is the buck stops a LOT higher up than Barak H Obama and even though i am guilty of it myself Obama is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat and scapegoating isnt something i go along with which is why i constantly namecheck who is really responsible and who calls the shots and in reality Obama is powerless but he could still do the right thing and no go along with it but thats not what i expect from Obama unfortunately so its not quite scapegoating as a certain amount of criticism is deserved.
Posted by Peter Wolf at 09:57