..And here we have "Le Petits Hypocrite" Sarkozy....

 

Libya: Sarkozy and Gadaffi before they fell out

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, met world leaders in Paris at exactly the same place he had welcomed Colonel Gaddafi more than three years ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...y-fell-out.html

 

What a difference the passing of time can make.

 

Just over three years ago, in December 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy was welcoming Gadaffi to Paris and insisting to a French newspaper: “Gaddafi is not perceived as a dictator in the Arab world.”

 

“He is the longest serving head of state in the region,” Mr Sarkozy explained as he rolled out the red carpet.

 

“And in the Arab world, that counts,”

 

As Gadaffi was allowed to pitch his Bedouin tent in the elegant gardens of an official guest residence near the Elysee Palace, Mr Sarkozy denounced “those who excessively and irresponsibly criticised the Libyan leader’s visit”.

Related Articles

 

“If we don’t welcome those who take the road to respectability, then what do we say to those who take the opposite road?”

 

True, the French president conceded “he has his personality, his temperament”.

 

Sarkozy’s closest aide, the Elysee Palace secretary-general Claude Gueant, said the six-day visit had produced sales of fighter jets and Airbuses worth 10 billion euros, “which means 30,000 jobs in France”.

 

The figure was later revised to 3 billion euros and officials admitted that it was mainly “memorandums of intent to negotiate” that had been signed.

 

Perhaps fortunately for the French planes flying over Libya this weekend, a fresh delivery of fighter jets was not delivered, or even ordered.

 

In August 2007 Mr Sarkozy had to deny there was any link between France brokering the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor from Libya, and the Gadaffi regime’s subsequent decision to buy £200 million of anti-tank missiles and radio systems from a largely French owned company.

 

A French-Libyan agreement over a civil nuclear energy programme also had “absolutely nothing to do” with the prisoner affair.

 

“The contract was not linked to the release of the nurses,” insisted the French President. “What do they criticise me for? Getting contracts? Creating jobs for French workers?’’

 

A nuclear reaction in Libya would help deal with “terrorism and fanaticism” because it would help economic development, he said, pouring scorn on critics who said it would simply let the Libyan dictator gain nuclear weapons.

 

He is hardly the only world leader with embarrassing pictures linking him to Gaddafi.

 

Tony Blair was pictured embracing the dictator in his tent in the so-called “deal in the desert” which brought the regime in from the cold.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-_- WOW, isn't the stench of hypocrisy just utterly over-powering..... Like f**king mustard gas....

 

I hope for Karma, and to see the lifeless, bloodied corpses of Sarkozy, Blair, Obama, Bush Jr and Cameron dragged through the streets some day..... -_-

 

Oh, almost forgot. Hillary Clinton too, because of her statement to the NTC while in Tripoli - "we hope he can be captured or killed soon".... Because, of course, a foreign dignitary should be going to other peoples' countries and making statements which appear to commission the murder of a former head of state.....

It wasn't Iran that was originally accused of Lockerbie, it was Syria. By an amazing coincidence that changed immediately after Assad backed the US in turfing Iraq out of Kuwait.

 

Guys - I hate these people as much as you do.

 

But, they haven't finished yet - The Americans plan to use excuses

to invade Syria, The Lebanon, Iran, & even Venezuela - as they hate

the President there.

 

We British follow wherever the USA leads.

 

It is all hypocrisy. The West is friendly with a lot of these places - until

the USA & NATO decide their Leaders 'have to go' - and then they come up

with every excuse they can think of, why that Country has to be attacked.

 

And - as usual - a lot of sheep-like people - with either short memories,

or no knowledge of the World - fall for it all, & cheer on the attacks & invasions.

 

The evil people, who orchestrate these Wars, will not rest until we have World War III.....

 

We are treated like mindless Puppets, by these people. Unfortunately, a large percentage

of Humanity, are quite happy to be Puppets - as they think that their Leaders can never be

bad, manipulative, wrong, or just plain evil.....Sad really.....

 

 

 

It wasn't Iran that was originally accused of Lockerbie, it was Syria. By an amazing coincidence that changed immediately after Assad backed the US in turfing Iraq out of Kuwait.

 

Syria..?? Did we shoot down one of their passenger jets too...?? :unsure:

 

Guys - I hate these people as much as you do.

 

But, they haven't finished yet - The Americans plan to use excuses

to invade Syria, The Lebanon, Iran, & even Venezuela - as they hate

the President there.

We British follow wherever the USA leads.

 

It is all hypocrisy. The West is friendly with a lot of these places - until

the USA & NATO decide their Leaders 'have to go' - and then they come up

with every excuse they can think of, why that Country has to be attacked.

 

And - as usual - a lot of sheep-like people - with either short memories,

or no knowledge of the World - fall for it all, & cheer on the attacks & invasions.

 

The evil people, who orchestrate these Wars, will not rest until we have World War III.....

 

We are treated like mindless Puppets, by these people. Unfortunately, a large percentage

of Humanity, are quite happy to be Puppets - as they think that their Leaders can never be

bad, manipulative, wrong, or just plain evil.....Sad really.....

 

Indeed, and then you get the likes of Nigel Farage and the idiots in UKIP going on about surrendering our sovereignty to Brussels.... Nope, afraid that particular horse left the stable LONG before we even signed up to Maastricht......

 

It's disgraceful if it's indeed true that Gaddafi was captured very much alive. However, I was provided with a little comic relief when a friend sent me this:

 

So the rebels finally got Gaddafi. What did you expect? After finishing off Vader and Palpatine, they should have got there sooner.

Some of the pictures in the media over the past 24 hrs were pretty awful, even on the BBC. I know that conspiracy theories would have become rife had we not have been exposed to them, but I did feel it was a little too much. This is not a pretty justice at all, but at least the Libyan people are now truly free.

Some of the pictures in the media over the past 24 hrs were pretty awful, even on the BBC. I know that conspiracy theories would have become rife had we not have been exposed to them, but I did feel it was a little too much. This is not a pretty justice at all, but at least the Libyan people are now truly free.

 

Sorry, but do you actually believe that...??

 

The "rebels" and the NTC are basically proxies of the West, the deals between the NTC and France, UK and Obama have already been inked. The Libyan people will NOT have control over their own resources, or their own destiny....

 

Islamists have been seen waving the old monarchist flag (you know, from the "good old days" when Libya was basically a vassal for European Imperialist power), shouting 'Allahu Akbar', and firing guns into the air... Freedom...? Puh-leeeeze... They've traded one dictator for another yet to be decided by the Imperialist powers UK, US and France...

Forget all the "Human Rights" stuff, this is looking like the real reason for Libya regime change.....

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0af_1314128143

 

1. Libya is Africa’s largest exporter of oil, 1.7 million tons a day, which quickly was reduced to 300-400,000 tons/day due to US-NATO bombing.

 

Libya exports 80% of its oil: 80% of that to several EU lands (32% Italy, 14% Germany, 10% France); 10% China; 5% USA.

 

2. Gaddafi has been preparing to launch a gold dinar for oil trade with all of Africa’s 200 million people and other countries interested. He has been working with this since 2002 together with Malaysia. As of recently, only South Africa and the head of the League of African States were opposed. Before the invasion of Iraq, Hussein was in agreement as was Sudan, Burney, then Indonesia and United Arab Emirates, also Iran.

 

French President Nickolas Sarkozy called this, “a threat for financial security of mankind”. Much of France’s wealth—more than any other colonial-imperialist power—comes from exploiting Africa.1

 

3. Central Bank of Libya is 100% owned by state (since 1956) and is thus outside of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests). The state can finance its own projects and do so without interest rates, which reduce the costs by half of private banks. Libya’s central bank (with three branches in the east including Benghazi) has 144 tons of gold in its vaults, which it could use to start the gold dinar. (China, Russia, India, Iran are stocking great sums of gold rather than relying only on dollars.)

 

 

4. Gaddafi-Central Bank used $33 billion, without interest rates, to build the Great Man-Made River of 4,000 kilometers with three parallel pipelines running oil, gas and water supplying 70% of the people (4.5 of its 6 million) with clean drinking and irrigation water. This provides adequate crops for the people making it a competitive exporter of vegetables with Israel and Egypt.

 

 

The Central Bank also financed Africa’s first communication satellite with $300 million of the $377 cost. It started up for all Africa, December 26, 2007, thus saving the 45-African nations an annual fee of $500 million pocketed by Europe for use of its satellites and this means much less cost for telephones and other communication systems.

 

 

5. The opposition led by former Gaddafi ministers and some Eastern clan leaders set up a central bank in Benghazi to replace Libya’s central bank even before they have set up a government or an organized army. It was immediately recognized by Paris stock exchange and soon other Westerners. This is the first time in history rebels have set up a bank before victory or before having a government.

 

 

6. There is evidence from Gaddafi defectors (especially Nouri Mesmari), under France protection that France started preparing a Benghazi based rebellion against Gaddafi from November 2010, in order to stop his plans to switch from the dollar to a new gold currency. US politician, Rep. Dennis Kucinich confirms this.2

 

On December 23, 2010, Libyans Ali Ounes Mansour, Farj Charrant and Fathi Boukhris met with Mesrami and French officials in Paris. Those three are now part of the Benghazi-based leadership.

 

US General Wesley Clrak (ret.) told Democracy Now (2007) that ten days after September 11, 2011 another general had told him that the Bush government was planning to invade: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. What they have in common is that they were not members of banks within the BIS, and most of them have lots of oil. Hussein had agreed with France President De Gaulle to switch from dollars to Euros in oil trading six months before Bush invaded.

 

 

7. While Gaddafi had turned much of his oil sales toward the West, inviting in many of the major oil companies for great profits (BP, EXXON Mobil, Shell, Total, etc), he did not join the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq as did most of the oil rich Middle Eastern governments. Nor did he sign on with AFRICOM, a US-inspired pact oriented towards US economic and military benefit in Africa also oriented to isolate China from Africa’s natural resources. In fact, China has 50 major economic projects going in Libya with $18 billion investment. Before the US-NATO invasion, there were 30,000 Chinese workers on these and other projects. Much of China’s investment is destroyed.

 

 

8. Human Rights Watch (which some call an imperialist-oriented NGO) reported that there has been no civilian bloodbath by Gaddafi. In Misurata, for example, with 400,000 population (second largest city), after two months of war only 257 people were killed, including combatants. Of 949 wounded, only 22 (3%) were women.3

 

 

9. As France took the lead, along with UK, to threaten Gaddafi militarily, Gaddafi threatened (March 2) to throw western oil companies out of Libya. With more blustering from the west, Gaddafi invited (March 14) Chinese, Russian and Indian oil companies to take their place. On March 17, the US-France-UK got want they wanted for starters from the UN. Resolution 1973, calling only for a no-fly strategy and not a regime shift or troop landings, was not backed by key big powers: China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. Of the 28 NATO countries, only 14 are involved in the Libyan campaign and only six of those are in the air war.

 

Denmark is one of those six. It spent 70 million kroner ($12 million) in the first two weeks of bombing. By April 30, it had dropped 297 bombs on Libya. Denmark’s 2011 defense-war budget is $4 billion annually (22.4 billion kroner) out of $130 billion (671 billion kroner) budget. It uses more money than ever for wars: $250 million annually in Afghanistan, three times 2008 expenditures–$14 billion total in nine years. It used $½ billion in five active years at war in Iraq and continues there with less.

 

What the US-NATO-EU hopes to achieve is to eliminate the half-reliable partner Gaddafi and replace him with a neo-liberal oriented government that will do their bidding: sign on AFRICOM, kick China out, reverse the government central bank to a BIS private enterprise, continue using dollars of course, and have the lackey leaders join in their permanent war age throughout the Middle East and Africa.

 

New neo-liberal socio-economic policies would eliminate what the Gaddafi government has provided the entire population through state subsidies funded with oil export sales: the highest standard of living in Africa with free, universal health and education care, and the possibility of studying abroad at state expense; $50,000 for each new married couple to get started with; non-interest state loans; subsidized prices of cars much lower than in Europe; the cheapest gasoline and bread prices in the world (similar to Venezuela); no taxes for those working in agriculture.

 

This is not to say that Gaddafi is all that one would want in a leader, but he is definitely not as bad as most of US-NATO allies, such as dictators in the Middle East and some in Africa, Asia, and certainly Israel. Their friendly governments in Saudia Arabia—which sent troops to good neighbor Bahrain to murder hundreds of unarmed protesters condoned by the US—Yemen, Oman, Jordon where the governments murder hundreds of unarmed protestors. In fact, the only armed insurrection occurring in the Arabic countries is in Libya. It seems the US doesn’t like supporting non-violent demonstrators and would rather see them dead. And that is yet another, and one of the most important, reasons for US-NATO taking over Libya: to stop the progressive, dynamic uproar throughout the Arabic world. If these mostly youth-led revolts could actually win, which would mean replacing the imperialist-backed system and not just a dictator here or there, it might lead to an anti-capitalist revolution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The chickens come home to roost..... Yes, Ghadafi was terrorizing his own people WITH FREE HEALTHCARE, FREE EDUCATION, STUDY ABROAD AT STATE EXPENSE, MONEY FOR NEW MARRIED COUPLES, NON-INTEREST STATE LOANS, SUBSIDISED CARS, CHEAP FUEL AND NO TAXES FOR FARMERS...

 

MY GOD, WHAT A CAD...... :rolleyes:

Syria..?? Did we shoot down one of their passenger jets too...?? :unsure:

No, but the Americans had decided that Hafez al-Assad was a baddie.

No, but the Americans had decided that Hafez al-Assad was a baddie.

 

Ahhh, yes, because of course, Assad doesn't like America's satellite state I$rael too much, does he....?

 

Live by the sword die by the sword I say.

 

What happened here is no different to how the Romanians dealt with Ceaucescu or how the Italians dealt with Mussolini. Street justice.

 

A lot of the rebel fighters in the 'lynch mob' probably lost friends or relatives at the hands of the regime so I can understand why he was dealt with the way he was.

 

I did not want to see his bloodied body while eating my cornflakes but no tears shed in my family.

We can all understand why he was killed but that doesn't make it right. They had the opportunity to put him in a cell pending a proper trial but didn't take it.

We can all understand why he was killed but that doesn't make it right. They had the opportunity to put him in a cell pending a proper trial but didn't take it.

 

If they had put him in a cell pending a trial then loyalists to him could easily hijack planes and take hostages in the name of securing his release so at least dead that can't happen.

If they had put him in a cell pending a trial then loyalists to him could easily hijack planes and take hostages in the name of securing his release so at least dead that can't happen.

Easily? I think not. The new regime had an early chance to demonstrate their commitment to democracy and justice and they blew it.

Easily? I think not. The new regime had an early chance to demonstrate their commitment to democracy and justice and they blew it.

 

I would describe this as a vigilante action as opposed to anything ordered by the NTC. I don't believe the NTC told the rebels on the ground to shoot him I think the rebels took matters into their own hands so disagree that it reflects badly on the NTC.

http://www.afriqueavenir.org/en/2011/09/02...il-says-report/

 

Let's not kid ourselves that this "war" is anything other than Imperialism with the "rebels" being backed by foreign powers in return for the Capitalists being given carte blanche to rape Libya's natural resources...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PA-Tripoli (Libya) Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) have promised France 35% of their country's crude oil in exchange for supporting their struggle to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, a French newspaper reports here Thursday.

 

In a letter dated April 3 published by Liberation newspaper, the Popular Front for the liberation of Libya, the frontrunner of the NTC now referred to as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Libya, mentioned the oil deal with France during the London summit in March 2011.

 

The letter stresses that Mahmoud Chemmam, the NTC communication officer, was mandated to sign the deal which “assign 35% of Libya’s crude oil to France in return for its total and permanent support for our Council."

 

According to Liberation, French Foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said he had “no knowledge” of such a letter, though a copy was addressed to the Emir of Qatar and to the former secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

 

At the beginning of the rebellion, the NTC had promised some favours to the countries that supported the rebels’ fight against Gaddafi.

 

Russian President’s special envoy for Africa and chairman of the Senate foreign relations commission, Michael Margilov, however, told Thursday his country’s news agency “Novosti” that the representative of the new Libyan leadership have reaffirmed their commitment to honor all the agreements they signed between Moscow and the former regime of Tripoli.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democracy, my arse.... This is precisely the sort of thing that the Global "Occupy..." movement is fighting against....

...And more proof of the Capitalist vulture's circling...

 

British firms urged to 'pack suitcases' in rush for Libya business

New defence secretary says companies should be ready to cash in on reconstruction contracts in newly liberated Libya

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/2...P=FBCNETTXT9038

 

The starting pistol for British firms to pursue contracts in Libya has been fired by the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond, who urged companies to "pack their suitcases" and head there to secure reconstruction contracts.

As Nato announced that it plans to wind up operations in Libya, Hammond said that great care had been taken during the campaign to avoid destroying critical infrastructure.

 

"Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya," he told the BBC in an interview.

 

"I would expect British companies, even British sales directors, [to be] packing their suitcases and looking to get out to Libya and take part in the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can," said Hammond, who replaced Liam Fox as defence secretary a week ago.

 

He added that after a "hugely successful" British mission in Libya, Britain now needed "to support the Libyans to turn the liberation of their country into a successful stabilisation so that Libya can be a beacon of prosperity and democracy in north Africa going forward."

 

The National Transitional Council has already said that it intends to reward countries who showed support for its fight against the Gaddafi regime, with Britain and France likely to lead the way.

 

The success of British contractors in the country – which could see billions of pounds spent on reconstruction over the next decade – will be seen as a huge victory for prime minister David Cameron, who visited Tripoli and NTC members last month, along with Nicolas Sarkozy.

 

British gains in Libya include business and reconstruction contracts, as well as oil. As Libya's £100bn in frozen assets around the world are released, it is a sizeable pot.

 

Lord Green, a trade minister, has already met with British firms to discuss potential opportunities in Libya, and oil company BP is believed to have already held talks with the NTC.

 

In a press conference in September, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan prime minister, praised the "brave positions" of Cameron and Sarkozy. "They showed us political, economic and military support, which helped the rebels establish a state, and we thank France and the UK for that," he said.

 

But while Guma al-Gamaty, the NTC's UK representative, has said Libya would honour contracts signed under the Gaddafi regime, he has also indicated that British companies might not get "easy business" from Libya.

 

"There will be huge changes in everything – in the oil and gas sectors, in education, and with the creation of new industrial sectors," he said. "But it's not a guaranteed market. Contracts will be awarded not on the basis of political favouritism, but on merit, quality and competitiveness."

 

France has already begun its own campaign to secure business in the country. French foreign minister Alain Juppé has said it was only "fair and logical" for its companies to benefit.

Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative backbencher and chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on Libya, said Britain should come first when it comes to awarding contracts, which would also pay back some of the cost of some £300m spent on military action.

 

"The question that remains is, who should ultimately bear this cost?" he said. "Should the burden fall on those who could be counted on? Or should, in time, Libya repay those who fought with her, and for her?"

 

He added: "In these difficult economic times, it should not be too much to ask a country with Libya's wealth and resources to pay their share of the gold."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Reconstruction"??? ROFLMAO... This is nothing more than Iraq Version 2.0..... Disgusting.. Anyone who encourages or defends this is either themselves a thief and looter, or is just too pig ignorant to realise what's really going on, and forgets what happened in Iraq when Haliburton and others LOOTED hundreds of billions of Iraqi oil weatlh.....

I would describe this as a vigilante action as opposed to anything ordered by the NTC. I don't believe the NTC told the rebels on the ground to shoot him I think the rebels took matters into their own hands so disagree that it reflects badly on the NTC.

 

Rubbish... It clearly indicates that, at BEST, the NTC have no control of their own people, and there is no proper command structure of this rag-tag group of Islamists, Al Qaeda supporters and lunatics, and clearly they lack any form of discipline or self-control...

 

And, sorry, but if you honestly believe an order wasn't given by someone, then you're fooling yourself....

 

Just wait and see the women's rights, for example, be eroded under this new Islamist command....

Rubbish... It clearly indicates that, at BEST, the NTC have no control of their own people, and there is no proper command structure of this rag-tag group of Islamists, Al Qaeda supporters and lunatics...

And, sorry, but if you honestly believe an order wasn't given by someone, then you're fooling yourself....

 

Ultimately that is what they are, nail on head.

 

They were not an organised structured rebel army they were a bunch of local militia's and vigilantes all with a common goal so I maintain that the decision to execute Gadhafi was taken at local level not by the NTC.