Libya Inc. - Truth behind NATO intervention
"We have done what we did because we thought it was the right thing to do." / Sarkozy
What they did is committing grievous crimes of war and against humanity. It's ongoing serial killing on an industrial scale. 50.000,00 dead and counting. History will tell us whether the world stood idly by watching NATO collectively, and Britain and France in particular (whose collective histories are synonymous with countless massacres across the globe) , launching a murderous assault upon a sovereign nation, while stealing its resources and destroying its achievements with an arrogant hatred yet again based upon lies and false flag events (the terrorists themselves committed the “massacres” and the Libyan Armed Forces did not bomb civilians as proven by Russian military satellites – the one bombing civilians and committing massacre is NATO). It is not about freedom and democracy – why did Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy refuse the Jamahiriya’s offer of further free elections? It is not about protecting civilians – how do you “protect civilians” by bombing them, destroying their water supply “to break their spirit”, strafing their civilian infrastructures with military hardware to guarantee rebuilding contracts in a post-conflict scenario and blockading their cities and shutting off their water, food and medical supplies? It is about assaulting the most wealthy state on the entire continent of Africa, which brought the African Union into being as well as independence from the IMF and World Bank by donating $32 billion to a $42 billion fund for African sovereign wealth. It is about African Monetary Fund and Investment Bank which would free Africans from crippling interest rate repayments to foreign banks. It is about dismantling the African Union, it is about destroying Africa's institutions and handing them back to former colonial powers, it is about channelling Africa's resources outwards for free. Sarkozy had already declared that "Gaddafi's economic plans are a direct threat to the international financial system" by which he meant of course the bankers in the west, who control the world's fake money supply. (1) Gaddafi was planning to introduce a gold dinar – a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth. The idea was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the US dollar. An idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. In Gaddafi's case, as he held some 144 tons of gold against a fairly small population, a gold dinar would prove a most powerful currency. There are many who believe Iraq's Saddam Hussein's overthrow by the US was sealed when he announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not US dollars. Sanctions and then a US invasion followed. Coincidence? Hussein's idea would have strengthened the euro, but Gaddafi's idea would have strengthened all of Africa in the opinion of hard-money economists. A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. Pricing oil in something other than the dollar would attack the basis of US power in the world. The dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with the Saudis back in 1971 in which the Saudis as the world's largest oil producer agreed to accept only dollars for oil. A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs. (2)
We have seen that under the UN so-called international law does not exist. The world community has the obligation to terminate NATO’s adventure, to expose the United Nations Organization as unable and unwilling to resist a clique of corporate elitists. Is this the world we want? One in which terrorist organizations such as NATO have free reign? The United Nations Organization is neither United, nor it is an Organization, but rather, a club for trading interests of the powerful.
sources:
(2) RT
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment