Heartstrings #9

Why Libya?

by

Amitakh Stanford

17th October 2011

NATO bombers have undeniably killed many thousands of civilians in Libya since the NATO war started this year. When Western alliances are determined to “liberate” countries, the civilian casualties become irrelevant. In the name of protecting the civilians and providing humanitarian aid, NATO has hypocritically and deliberately killed and wounded many civilians and destroyed the country's infrastructure. The media is silent as military forces mercilessly pound targets. Propaganda further blinds people to the truth. Civilian deaths are considered “collateral damage” and reasonable costs for “liberation” of a country. This could only be ascribed to if the real goal was to wrest the land from the people, not liberate them.

The fighting in Libya continues towards its seventh month. The battle was to be short and swift. France's Juppe boasted and ranted that it would only take two or three weeks to complete. Juppe insulted and madly challenged NATO members to join David Cameron's war wagon, as had France in their demonic thirst to overthrow the Gaddafi government. Sarkozy, and especially Juppe, screamed that the vast majority of Libyans wanted a new government, and that they just needed some support from Europe to root out the few loyalists whose resistance would crumble within days or a few weeks.

How would Sarkozy, Juppe and the French people feel if a foreign alliance tried to force its will on them, and invaded and destroyed their country, claiming that their way of life was wrong, that the people had been oppressed and abused by their leader, and that they needed to be liberated? What if that alliance were to openly put a price on Sarkozy or Juppe's head as NATO and its rebels did to Gaddafi? How would Cameron and the British people feel if another nation decided that their monarchy was an undemocratic and anachronistic institution, that the British monarch should be toppled and imprisoned to free the people, and then took it upon themselves to bomb London and the palace, in the process killing the civilian population, destroying historical sites, and seizing the riches and financial resources of the monarchy and the country for itself under the guise of using them to rebuild the damage they caused? Juppe's rantings have proven to be groundless. For more than six months, Libyan patriots have persistently fought off the NATO rebels whilst enduring thousands of bombing sorties.

Hillary Clinton, American Secretary of State, has as much as declared that bombing Libya to oblivion will put NATO on the “right side of history”, as if that in itself justifies all manner of war crimes and atrocities or is even relevant. More often than not, history is written by the victors, and slanted accordingly. But, there have been some brave stands by outnumbered armies who, even though they were defeated, ended up on the right side of history because their valiant efforts urged on others who were ultimately victorious. The Libyan loyalists are defending their country against long odds to halt NATO rebels. The loyalists are already guaranteed to be on the right side of history, regardless of the outcome. The Libyan situation is reminiscent of the 300 Spartans who held thousands of Persians at bay, and the 180 Texans who stood against Santa Anna's 4,000 troops at the Alamo. In both of those cases, the few resisted the many, and, today, they are truly on the right side of history.

While Colonel Gaddafi is not totally faultless, compared to what NATO is doing to the Libyans, many would consider him saintly. He has had to deal with many different tribes and societal complexities whilst treating them relatively fairly – something that NATO countries do not appreciate. What NATO is doing to innocent Libyan people is absolutely wrong, unjust, inhumane and hypocritical. NATO proclaims the virtues of democracy and liberty, yet its actions are the opposite. It has become the regional bully and thug with its sights set on conquest of the whole world. Who will NATO have succeeded in “saving” when the Libyan population is decimated? It is up to the many peace-loving nation members of NATO to stop the few warmongers.

Tunisians are starting to see through NATO's aggression and ugliness, and have begun impeding the NATO rebels. If others do the same, there is a real danger of the Libyan war spiralling into a regional conflict. The only people who could possibly perceive gain from expanding the conflict are warmongers and those who believe that the only way out of the world's deep recession is to have another huge war.

Libya is not the only dangerously explosive situation in the world. There are many nations practising apartheid at one level or another with NATO's blessing. Britain gave birth to Israel, which treats Palestinians much differently than Jewish citizens. In Malaysia, the Malays have special privileges over non-Malays, yet it is supposed to be a democratic country and is fully incorporated into the British Commonwealth. There are many other cases that could be listed. Ultimately, the British government is responsible for inequality and distinct forms of apartheid in the Commonwealth. The indigenous people in Commonwealth countries are notoriously disadvantaged by the rulers, and this is not only condoned, but supported and sponsored, by the British government and its Monarch.

Why has Libya been singled out? Is NATO looking for another place to implement apartheid? There are many hidden and obvious reasons why Libya was singled out. Esoterically, things in Libya are quite foreign or alien, which helps explain the unusual passivity of Iran, China and Russia in this matter. Things are not always what they appear to be.

© 2011 Amitakh Stanford