During the siege of Tripoli, the journalist Thierry Meyssan forward a figure of 1,300 dead and 5,000 wounded, all civilians. Do you have specific information about this?
Here I have nothing more to say about the numbers. As you know, the numbers, it's always something very difficult to estimate and I do not have jurisdiction to give a figure. There is a study that was done recently and argued that NATO would have dropped 30,000 bombs. If we make an estimate not very high, which is two deaths per bomb, we arrive at a figure of 60,000 dead.
This misinformation has had an impact in Europe or on the contrary, the opinion is it enough informed about the reality of events, including through alternative media?
Unfortunately, yes. Disinformation was an absolutely devastating impact on European public opinion. There was virtually no protest, except very small. Unfortunately, even the antiwar movement, progressives in Europe think that this time, Obama and Sarkozy have led a good war. And I would add that, unfortunately, a very large proportion of people from Arab and Muslim living in Europe feel the same way because of the role of Al Jazeera as I just said. So yes, in terms of information battle, now the situation is pretty disastrous, lying largely prevailed.
In Iraq, the war was started on false grounds (weapons of mass destruction, Saddam-Al Qaeda connection ...). Later, the truth has emerged into the open and public opinion realized that she had been deceived. About Libya, how NATO will she handle the media situation in the post-Qadhafi?
Indeed, it was a repeat of the media lies about Iraq and, as I have said is that European opinion was, at least after a while, very skeptical and very knowledgeable about the media lie about weapons of mass destruction, and here it must be said that it worked. If you go down the street and you ask anybody, you have nine out of ten people will tell you: yes, it bombed its population. Now, how NATO will she handle the media situation in the post-Qadhafi? The problem is that we must first impose a debate where the public has a right to know, to check the quality of information given to it. And there, the group task as Investig'Action behind our site. We released a lot of articles and we will continue. We just left the little book I mentioned Libya, NATO and media lies and to be released in a week. It is very important that public opinion realizes that it was handled and because of this there are tens of thousands of Libyans who died and the country will experience the same hell as Iraq. So this is the first battle to be taken. I hope some honest journalists of the mainstream media will realize, though, that every war they are trapped and there is a duty to tell the public: yes, it was handled. It is a duty, because NATO clearly announces that they will go after Syria, Iran, Venezuela, I also think that Algeria is also in the sights. So the media lies, it has terrible consequences and it is our duty to force a debate on that. Of course, NATO has an interest in that there is no debate and what is happening in the following cases, and the whole question. Is it going to happen to force a debate and that the public know that she was deceived?
In March 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark said in an interview that memo, which was shown at the Pentagon in 2001, explained how the U.S. administration was planning to take control of seven countries in five years: Iraq , Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. What are the issues and objectives of such a campaign?
General Wesley Clark, it must be remembered, not anyone. It is man who bombed very brutally by the way, Yugoslavia in 1999. So it's not a leftist or a conspiracy theorist. He is a man of the device that knows what he's talking about. So when he said that seven more countries from Afghanistan would be invaded or controlled by the United States, this confirms the analysis we did in 2000-2001 of the policy of the United States and the people around Bush, the famous Project for the New American Century, which actually was a policy of control of the Middle East and the Muslim world, as explained elsewhere in the book that we published in a month and that s 'entitled Understanding the Muslim world with interview with Mohamed Hassan analyzes the strategic relationship between the United States, Europe and the Arab and Muslim world, the Middle East, Africa and also Asia. In fact, the takeover of these countries, it's part of a campaign to re-colonization of the world. The United States, is an economy in crisis, the international capitalist system is in crisis with a generally declining rate of profit, with, for the United States, the relocation of their factories, their industry and the fact that it is less and less value is created in the United States themselves, so it's an economic parasite that lives on the backs of the South. The United States has a big problem: Their economic power is steadily declining, economy in crisis, they failed state, their dollar is worth nothing, and the only way to halt this decline and remain number one, it is the military advantage is to take control of countries just to colonize as was done in time to loot their wealth. This is what will happen with Libya for oil, water, and very large financial reserves, in addition, there have been destroyed as much as possible in order to reconstruct as much as possible as you can see already now all the construction companies and others who rush like vultures to take greater profits from anything they have destroyed. So I think that the campaign to control all these countries, which will not stop after Libya, and it must be stressed, is a campaign of re-colonization of the world.
The intervention of France in Libya is an "investment in the future," said recently the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppe in an interview with the daily Le Parisien. This implies that after the fall of Gaddafi, many contenders are vying for capture Libyan wealth. Who do you lead this new concert, Europeans or Americans?
When I spoke of battle between vultures, it is indeed an economic battle for contracts and, just Tripoli she was invaded, that already in the French press, Italian and others, there was information that they fought like rag about who would take the largest share of the spoils. So we share as Libya colonial powers divided the African Conference of Berlin in 1884-1885. That is to say that the strong take the chunks, the weaker the small pieces and those who chose the wrong horse, or arrived too late to receive nothing. France says: we we were in a point, we take 35%. It thus confirms that it was an economic war, a war for money.
The attack on Libya has several issues (political, economic, strategic), this does he not a first step to control of Africa since the first American concern is first to install the famous Africom?
As I indicated in the text "Understanding the war in Libya" at the beginning of the book I mentioned above. The war against Libya actually several issues, like all wars waged by the United States, because a war is a big investment, risk, and it does not conduct a war this size for a single small goal. The objectives of the war against Libya are oil, financial reserves and very important, in fact, it is to break the role of Libya as a financial alternative for Africa. Libya, Algeria, as elsewhere, from what we explained, acts as a financial alternative for a variety of African countries that are subject to blackmail by the multinationals of Europe and the United States who take the raw materials to the lowest price, refusing to invest in a real economy of transformation and service is growing in Africa, and in fact, alternative financing helped Africa regaining its independence, to stand on its own. It is clear that this is a war against Africa and, in fact since the economic battle for global resources is raging, the United States interested in military control. Considering that all belongs to them, the United States divided the world into a series of zones, they organize their forces and operations in all these areas. There 'was no basis for Africa because it was considered less interesting than others, but in recent years, the United States know that we are trying to find more oil in Africa, which is now fighting for raw materials and minerals and other of Africa, it is to prevent China to have normal economic relations with African countries, will provide raw material and energy, so they decided to militarize the problem and install a military force to prevent these countries have a self-development and prevent China to have trade relations with African countries. Africom is thus the major project, and what it should be noted is that five countries in Africa have, to my knowledge, refused to integrate into NATO and to work with her, and they are all already attacked or threatened by the United States. They are Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Ivory Coast. All under sanction, attacked or assaulted soon.
?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Tell that to the people butchered by the mad-dog and the people who died freeing Libya, crack-pot. Honestly, the stuff some of these cunts come up with, it's The Protocols of the Elders of Zion level shit
I'm Happy for you and all the Libyans.