War Is A Crime .org
HumansForPeace.org -- HumanBeingsForPeace.org -- AfterDowningStreet.org
You are herecontent / Video: Thom Hartmann Show with Lucy Kafanov on Libya War
By davidswanson - Posted on 31 March 2011
Re. war on Libya:
Quoting from a post made in the Youtube page, "Expensive and extended war, exacerbated (greatly), if not fueled from early on by the US, et al? Who says expensive, besides taxpayers? War is big profits to plenty of the real top ruling elites in the US and, I guess, NATO; and, yes, I mean MIC elites, BUT no, not only them. Expensive to us is profit to them; expensive to them is something that means that there's surely a lot of good in it for us, that is, MOST people".
And by "most people", I mean "most people". That should be pretty easy to understand.
We don't all "speak the same language". The top ruling elites have theirs, most of the population is brainwashed (and dumbed down) and doesn't understand what the f*ck they say and what position they should take, and the rest of us say, "Man, is all of this hell bad for [everyone]". There's evidently a lack of realists. Many Americans who have come to side against continuing the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan only have made this switch because of the financial costs; not because these have always been and always will be wholly criminal wars that the US has been leader of.
Very good words, David, but I don't know what the real truth is about Gaddafi. Most of what you said rather is simple common sense, but many people apparently don't understand or agree with common sense though.
Gaddafi's been demonized. He unfortunately accepted to have the government of Libya pay out billions of dollars to families of victims of the bombing or accidental explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, but he never admitted to responsibility and it's been strongly proven that neither Libya nor the accused and convicted Libyan were guilty. Gaddafi accepted this to provide this huge payment only for political reasons under US and UK pressure; but he never admitted to responsibility and he had nothing to do with what happened to Pan Am 103 and its passengers. What else is he accused of that he's actually innocent of? We get articles from different people expressing different views, but one thing is for sure and it's that the many articles that I've read on the Lockerbie bombing or accident have helped to expose all of the fraud behind blaming Libya for this event.
If it was an accident, rather than an actual bombing, then the following article and Web site migh hold the answer.
""Attack or a trick?"
by Steven Raeburn, Firm Magazine, Scotland's Independent Law Journal, Aug. 3, 2007
There are some additional articles of the many I've read on the Lockerbie incident linked in my following post, but only a sampling.
Saddam Hussein may've been or was brutally severe in some respects, but he did a lot more good for Iraq than the government of the US has ever done for the US, and he was and often still is accused of having committed genocide against the Kurds of Iraq when no genocide of them ever happened and this came out well enough during his trial. The Shi'ite Iraqi judge could not find that he was wrong and was replaced under US "authority" in order to get a compliant so-called judge. There's no proof whatsoever that the Kurds were genocided in 1988. There's evidently evidence from a couple or few mass graves that were found and which contained Kurds' bodies, but the same evidence shows that these were mostly Kurdish militia and not ordinary Kurds; and the Peshmerga were fighting with Iran in Iraq against Iraq, so there was nothing of genocide of Kurds in this. These Peshmerga, or many of them, were supposedly killed with the use of deadly gas and it was reported by the CIA station chief in Iraq at the time that it wasn't Iraq that was using deadly nerve gas; that, instead, Iranian forces used the deadly gas.
The US, Washington, constantly accuses China of human rights abuses and, yet, there is no greater HR abuser than the US, which is responsible for the HR abuses committed under many despotic so-called leaders who are and/or were allied with Washington and the elites controlling it.
There's a lot of fuzziness in all of this, but one thing that's extremely difficult to cover up is that Washington, the ruling elites controlling it, and other people supporting it are the worst of the human species. There were some diabolically wicked despotic regimes in South or Central American countries and they were trained by the US. It's all disease.
Like George Carlin titled one of his skits, "You Are All Diseased!", and he was speaking to an American audience, even if he surely wasn't speaking only of Americans. It was a fitting audience to present the skit to, that's for sure though.
I don't know what Gaddafi's sins are, but anyone claiming that he's been a brutal dictator needs to provide real evidence. He may be guilty of serious human rights abuses, but he apparently also had qualities for Libya, according to one or two articles I've read anyway. And western media, including plenty in so-called alternative western media, gets a lot wrong and reporting on the DR Congo is clearly a very serious example in which both corporate and many alternative western media are badly f*cked up. Keith Harmon Snow is not someone to ignore about the truth about the DR Congo and what his investigative reporting has provided both makes sense for anyone who has sufficient knowledge of the country, without needing to be expert on it, because it definitely is very rich in mineral resources, and anyone who has a real understanding of western so-called capitalism, which, plainly, is social and environmental cancer.
Saddam Hussein's government dealt out harshness, brutality, but not on a mass scale. He did a lot of good even if his leadership story started out in a very, very sad, tragic way and was responsible for tragic injustices. Around 38% of the ministers in the government were women; women's rights were defended regardless of where the aggressions took place, in or outside of the home; it was a non-theological, secular government and there apparently were more Shi'ites in it than there were Sunnis; et cetera.
There's no beastly s.o.b. on this planet like Washington, the elites that control it, and their so-called allies-in-racket, imperialism, and so on. They've seen to overthrowing or assassinating reasonably good leaderships, destroying democracies, and so on, while pretending to do the very opposite. Their wars are always about racket and they just won't publicly admit it; they hypocritically pretend to be righteous when they are bent for hell.
If people can [prove] that Gaddafi was really bad, then I'll agree, but the real proof has to be provided, rather than hear-say. And once we all agree about him, then it's the hellbent s.o.b. beast that's Washington, et al, that need to be stopped most of all; but we of course won't all agree on that, for it's "un-American".
As evil as Washington et al are, I don't have much time for demonizations of others.
If Gaddafi was responsible for bad things, then what good things was he also responsible for? That's not something most people demonizing him wish to bother to address. Washington? NOTHING good is to be said about it for any significant period of time in its history.
Stop Washington et al and this world might have a chance of recovering, MAYBE. The chances of recovery even if Washington et al were stopped aren't looking particularly good or promising, but Washington et al nevertheless need to be stopped. If that's not done, then there is no real hope to have in this world and it's likely enough that it's what we're going to have. This is not a "world made in Heaven" and God clearly does not reign here; something else does and Washington et al are the leading evil.
The extremely despotic regimes in Rwanda and another country bordering or near DR Congo and which people can learn plenty about with articles by Keith Harmon Snow are only in power because of Washington et al, with Washington again leading, f.e. They're surely worse than Gaddafi, but western corporate and alternative media are extremely omissive about the truth regarding reality in the DR Congo, as well as in other African countries.
Gaddafi might possibly be bad, but he could hardly be worse than the despotic and diabolically sick leaders the US makes sure get to power and stay in power. Washington "needs" such proxies and will do what it can to make sure to have what it "needs". But westerners don't tell half of the truth there is to tell or expose about Washington. We're also not getting more than drips of reporting on the situation in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast states, but the story is certainly far from over there.
A lot that's very important is ignored.
Hi, I wonder whether what David Swanson said about the US dropping DU on Libya is true. If so, it another in a line of obscenities the world has yet to hear about. People in their 40's are still dying like flies in Serbia from DU, just as half a million kids in Iraq. God know how many will die in Afghanistan for this.
It was interesting to see the reporter go on 'instant break' when Swanson started to discuss DU. 'Oops, sorry,
David, thank you for your report, but we need to get onto another story now...bye'..
It really is incredible the hypocrisy of how, on the one hand, we are being bombarded with facts about the danger that Japan right now and into the future will face a radioactive water supply and contaminated food, while the US litters the Middle East with radioactive hardware with abandon...
Jeez...'Hello!? Is any body home?' Do the mainstream media really think they can get away with thinking their audience is that dumb?
Not difficult to believe. The US makes regular use of arms containing DU and the US is not the only country or government to do this; but I only know of the US and countries or governments allied with the US doing this. I've not yet heard or read of countries or governments "unfriendly" to Washington using DU.
"... Do the mainstream media really think they can get away with thinking their audience is that dumb?"
The so-called msm so-called media of so-called informative reporting? Sure. Of course they know that there are very many disbelievers and critics, but they evidently do believe that there still are believers; addicts of corporate and bs so-called msm as well as so-called alternative news media. Many "alternatives" are not real alternatives; except, [superficially]. The fact of the latter is illustrated with so-called "alternative" western media reporting on the DR Congo, f.e.; but it isn't the sole example.
F.e., a lot of western, US anyway, so-called "alternative" media support the official story on 9/11, without performing any real and honest investigative journalism. A lot of the so-called "alternative" western media ridiculed [all] criticism of the official story on 9/11, blindly treating it as faultless, impossibly false; and there's plenty that's very or extremely wrong with the official story on 9/11.
Someone once said to trust no one, except your/one-self, and this clearly was not someone who was an idiotic, blind fan of western so-called "alternative" media.
We must critically question and validate or verify our own assumptions, perceptions, et cetera, but we'd be fools to let others lead us blindly. It's a mistake to not critically question our own assumptions or perceptions, but it's an even greater mistake to allow others to lead us blindly. Let us make our own mistakes, rather than letting others cause us to make mistakes.
What David Swanson said is fine, up to the point that he speaks of Gaddafi having been wicked. That's something that has to be backed up with [evidence] and none was provided and I'm not going to blindly believe westerners or anyone else. If I was called to be on a jury, then it would be my duty to make sure that my judgement is based on proof, facts, instead of hear-say; and that unfortunately is all David provided because while he might be right, he didn't back it up with proof.
Everyone in the world can call me wicked, but I call on them to present the proof.
Mary Antoinette was supposed to have died LONG ago. Today, we're supposed to rule according to, "innocent until proven guilty". So we need proof.
Don't accuse without presenting proof!
I know of only hear-say reporting about Gaddafi being bad and I know that Libya and a Libyan were, deliberately, falsely accused for the bombing or accident with Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. What else is used to demonize Gaddafi and Libya in false ways?
If we're to worry about poverty in Libya and we blame him for this, then what about third-world USA, Canada, and so on? Is that also Gaddafi's fault?
Leave Gaddafi to Libyans to deal with. We have enough of our own problems and have never done this world any good whatsoever anyway. We're the worst s.o.b.'s on this f*cking planet and like to pretend that others are evil or wicked. Stop western SICKNESS! Let others handle their problems. The US can NEVER be counted on for any good causes.
What good are US "alternative" media on Kosovo? NONE!
US "alternative" media is extremely negligent and sometimes lies, including by omission.
Humans are not capable of solving the problems in this world anyway, but we can make real efforts to try to be better informed and far less negligent than we presently are and have long been. But humans are not going to solve the problems caused by humans in this world. We can build housing, et cetera, but we won't solve problems caused by us.
For us to be able to do otherwise would require great and widespread solidarity and we're not going to achieve or get this. Even a lot of Americans who've come to side against continuing the wars have only made this change in position becasue of financial cost; not because the wars are and have always been extremely criminal to begin with. That does not constitute solidarity; it only illustrates culmination of variable consequences, say. If we could afford these wars (of aggression), then all of these so-called converts would still support the continuation of these extreme crimes!
The Constitution, as evil as it was to begin with, is dead. The US is dead; soulless. There's never been anything good about the US as a country. There have been good-willed and actioned Americans, but they don't constitute the country. The country, under invaders' conquest, et cetera, has [never] been good since day 1.
Go to a pub and enjoy a microbrew. Better, however, is to have some "weed", relax, reflect, THINK.
Humans are not going to solve the problems caused by humans. Humans are the cause and those of us who realize this and wish the conditions to be corrected lack the power to be able to make the changes happen.
We don't have that power. We can cry out to all voters as much as we want, but "thick as a brick" surely wasn't a meaningless theme when Jethro Tull et al provided a piece with this title, which applies to the population in general.
Ever try to get light to penetrate brick? Good luck.
Advertise on this site!
Innocence shattered and ultimate redemption are portrayed against the backdrop of the Vietnam War and the turbulent sixties.