What the world has to look forward to if NATO and the UN gets its way in Syria.
Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
While Qatari government propaganda outlet Al Jazeera is busy whitewashing the NATO-led terrorist take-over of Libya with “documentaries” like “Gaddafi: The Endgame – State of Denial,” depicting the evisceration of one of Africa’s most developed nation-states as a pro-democracy revolution yielding a promising tomorrow – Libya in reality has been plunged into perpetual violence, destabilization, and division. And as militants battle each other while carving the once unified Libya into a myriad of fiefdoms, genocidal death squads continue a campaign of extermination nationwide.
One group of Libyans hit hardest are the people of Tawargha – who were either exterminated or exiled from their city of 10,000-30,000 during the NATO-led destruction of Libya last year. Since then, their refugee camps have been raided, and survivors who have not yet fled Libya are being systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.
Now, the very network of corporate-funded and directed NGOs charged with “human rights advocacy,” who assisted the Libyan rebels in willfully lying to the world over violations of “human rights” in the lead up to NATO’s military intervention, are finally reporting the widespread atrocities being carried out by the rebels themselves. In fact, organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, both funded by convicted criminal and Wall Street speculator, George Soros, began reporting such atrocities back in 2011, but only long after NATO bombs were already falling on Libya and the process of “regime change” was already irreversible. And, at critical junctures, such as the sieges of Bani Walid and Sirte, where NATO itself was committing systematic war crimes by air in tandem with terrorist forces on the ground – organizations like HRW and Amnesty International were altogether mute.
Image: The desolate Libyan city of Sirte after NATO’s months-long siege – the tragic aftermath of a UN-sanctioned “humanitarian war.” Not a word regarding NATO’s blockade and bombardment of these cities has been mentioned by either HRW or Amnesty International in any terms resembling the rhetoric they used to justify NATO’s intervention in March of 2011.
Now though, with Syria next on the chopping block, many around the world are looking at the “progress” made in Libya to see if the UN and NATO’s proposal for military intervention is justified, warranted, or feasible. What they see is a patchwork of terrorist regimes butchering people systematically, infighting, making duplicitous, self-serving deals with foreign firms and otherwise running the nation into the ground.
Amnesty International, a full-year too late, has published a report titled, “Libya: NTC must investigate death of another Tawargha man under torture,” in regards to the latest case in the NTC’s systematic genocide of the people of Tawargha – a city now rendered a “ghost town.” HRW had published a report last week titled, “Libya: Wake-Up Call to Misrata’s Leaders,” also regarding the systematic genocide of the people of Tawargha. Ironically, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are giving all inquiring minds a look behind the curtain as to how exactly they are distorting other conflicts – including Syria today.
From the Beginning, Libyan Rebels were Known War Criminals
Long before the first NATO bombs dropped on Libya, genuine geopolitical analysts including Dr. Webster Tarpley of Tarpley.net, noted that the Libyan “rebels” were in fact notoriously brutal racists and led by militias belonging to a listed international terrorist organization responsible for violence not only in Libya, but in Afghanistan and Iraq. On March 1, 2011 Dr. Tarpley spoke on the Alex Jones show warning that Libyan rebels were lynching black Libyans, hailed from Al Qaeda, and that the overall agenda of destabilizing and possibly intervening militarily across the Arab World was to implement “chaos, civil war, and the division of countries,” along with the installation of weak puppet-regimes.
Just days after NATO began its military operations against Libya in mid-March of 2011, Dr. Tarpley confirmed that the Libyan rebels were led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), claimed by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) to have been involved in fighting Western troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq before returning to Libya to then be armed, trained, and led by Western forces in the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi.
During the initial phases of NATO’s intervention, HRW and Amnesty International were complicit in covering these facts up and instead focused on lending legitimacy to the now confirmed lies of the NTC regarding human rights abuses perpetrated against them by the Libyan government.
It wasn’t until July of 2011 that HRW would admit that Libyan rebels were carrying out systematic abuses of their own, and even then they were whitewashed and excused. And while Human Rights Watch now admits that what the Libyan NTC is doing to the Tawargha people amounts to “crimes against humanity,” they could have just as easily drawn such conclusions backed with ample evidence before NATO intervened militarily and rendered moot the entire “humanitarian” “responsibility to protect” doctrine the entire war was disingenuously based on.
In retrospect, we are meant to believe these organizations simply made a mistake and could not have possibly known the rebels would turn out to be worse human rights violators than those they sought to replace.
HRW & Amnesty Repeating “Mistakes” in Syria, No Mistake
That HRW and Amnesty International appear to be making the exact same mistakes in Syria, even as they finally admit the crimes of the “pro-democracy” rebels in Libya a year later and tens of thousands of lives too late, is certainly no mistake. This is exactly the purpose both organizations are meant to serve along with a myriad of other faux-NGOs – to lend legitimacy to both the Syrian terrorists and the governments of the West arming and directing them as they carry out what is essentially a campaign of foreign military conquest.
The first admissions of Syrian rebels committing atrocities have likewise come a full-year after unrest was triggered in 2011. Human Rights Watch admitted in their report, “Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses,” that Syrian rebels are kidnapping, torturing, and executing people, many of whom have been confirmed to be civilians. Again, geopolitical analysts have stated since the unrest began in 2011 that Syria’s opposition likewise represented not genuine “pro-democratic” forces, but rather proxies for foreign interests, many linked to extremist groups including Al Qaeda, and with Libya’s LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj literally pledging cash, weapons, and men to the Syrian rebels’ and NATO’s cause.
Indeed, Syria is destined not for a stable democratic-tomorrow, but rather the same division, destruction, chaos, and genocide now rampant across Libya, where self-serving traitors simultaneously sell their nation out from under its people while eliminating their competition through violence and terrorism. As NATO and the UN attempt to court Syria’s ruling business and government cliques, it would be wise for Syrians to look at Libya as an example of just how much worse it can get and the necessity to remain unified against what has been planned from the very beginning to be the end of Syria.
That the West’s war machine extends not only around the world in the form of vast military assets, but with an immense media infrastructure to propagate their agenda, and a gargantuan network of NGOs funded and directed to subvert every form of national institution should be a big enough clue for stake-holders within besieged nation-states that the West has neither the need nor the desire to “share” once they prevail.
Stand United, or Fall Divided: Basic Game Theory
Strategists in the West approach each targeted nation, including Libya and now Syria, employing a form of game theory assuming that those they interact with, friend and foe alike, “play” using the dominant strategy – meaning, each “player” picks the best strategy resulting in the maximum benefit for themselves only, regardless of how other “players” play. This means that the West approaches two opposition factions in any given nation, makes their intentions of moving in known, and offers each the chance to defect. Defectors are given calculated benefits and losses, while their opposition will be eliminated entirely. While in reality, both factions stand the most to gain if they thwart the vastly superior West from plundering their nation, neither considers this an option because of a combination of intellectual flaws, thus both will lose more, even under the most favorable outcomes.
The West specifically targets and favors those faction with the most flaws in character, intellect, motivation etc., as in any conflict, those ruled by emotions and irrational methodology are infinitely easier to manipulate.
In Libya, had the rebels of Cyrenaica worked with Qaddafi to expel foreign encroachment and worked to divide an intact and unified Libya’s wealth amongst themselves, they would have both vastly benefited more than even the sole victors are now. Instead, the West was able to prey on the arrogance, ideology, animosity, ignorance, and prejudices of both factions, wearing both down, dividing the remaining victor, and will, in time, eventually even eliminate them altogether. The same can be seen playing out in the perpetually divided Iraq and the same will certainly happen in Syria.
The age old axiom of standing united, or falling divided, is just as relevant today as ever. Understanding the true fault-lines running through humanity, between the global corporate-financier oligarchy and everyone else, and disallowing artificial fault-lines to be imposed upon us allows us to stand united against our true enemies and prevail. The moment we begin fighting amongst ourselves, regardless of who prevails, we all ultimately lose.