אזהרה #6

The Flight of the Red Dragon


Amitakh Stanford

11th August 2011

The increased political, economic, societal and religious rage over issues that have seriously affected people's lives, rights and wellbeing ought to be a real concern for many countries. Peaceful and riotous protests are breaking out around the world.

The propaganda war continues to ravage smaller nations that cannot defend themselves against the armies that strike for the blank faces. Recent protests in North Africa and the Middle East are too well organised to have been generated by grass-roots movements. The earlier ones were more genuine, but the later ones were clearly scripted and sponsored by Western and certain Arab rulers. They know who they are! All of them are rewarded by the blank faces – for now. Like others before them, their fates might change at any time.

Most of the protests and riots are planned, with very few being spontaneous. Some of the planned protests and riots involve people who have suffered enough neglect, abuse, oppression and exploitation. Others are sponsored and backed by those with political interests. Governments are striking back at protesters, often excessively, sometimes with lethal force.

The London protests have alarmed many British people. There is great concern that something similar to the Arab Spring has reached the British Isles. United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron, who cut short his Italian holiday, has vowed to stop the riots and punish the offenders. Such a reaction is expected from any head of state facing domestic riots or rebellion. It is understood under natural law that sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves from foreign or domestic foes, troublemakers, terrorists and criminals. This is the basic premise behind self defence, which leaders have a duty to invoke to protect their countries, and to keep order in the streets to protect their own citizens.

To date, Cameron has not unleashed that much excessive force on the citizens to bring London back to order. However, he has said he will do whatever is necessary to restore order, including allowing police to use any tactics necessary to bring the situation under control, which would certainly include excessive and lethal force. If he deems it necessary, he could well order another Bloody Sunday, and let a successor PM apologise later by denouncing the homicides as “unjustified and unjustifiable”.

What will Cameron do if the protesters and rioters are using civil disobedience to make political statements and demands that he step down, or that the UK become a republic without the monarchy? What if the insurgents have the backing of strong foreign nations or alliances? Under those circumstances, surely Cameron would not give into their demands, and would be justified in using lethal force against the violent insurgents to protect his constituents. Certainly, the Western world would support his actions to save his government and protect his people.

In the sovereign nation of Libya, insurgents began making political demands, which resulted in both the government and the rebels killing Libyan citizens. But it seems the Western leaders do not think that Colonel Gaddafi has the right or duty to protect his country from either internal or external attacks. Cameron, in taking the side of the Libyan insurgents, condemned the sitting government of Libya. He went much further by demanding a military incursion to assist the rebels. Britain expanded Cameron's war efforts by soliciting an alliance consisting of many NATO nations. Conveniently, NATO was ready to strike at Gaddafi on very short notice. The Libyan riots were staged, with Britain laying in wait with all the force it could muster, ready to immediately attack the North African nation. The preparation for the assault took months to prepare – it did not happen on the spur of the moment as it was made to appear by the Western governments and media.

Many observers wonder why a sitting head of state should step down to rebel demands, regardless of how brutal that regime is alleged to be. Surely Gaddafi has the right to defend his nation from foreign and domestic foes. It does not matter whether it is the Great Hawk (NATO), or some other alliance, an invasion of a sovereign territory is an act of war against that nation.

The West has given the Libyan leader no choice but to fight to the death. They have already threatened to assassinate him. He is aware that he cannot step down or surrender to the West. Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was very bold to publicly back and praise Gaddafi when the latter has so little support worldwide. Chavez knows the danger to his own country and his people by openly supporting the Libyan leader in his war against NATO.

Gaddafi is aware of the fate of those who challenge the Great Hawk or those who are targeted by it. He sees Egypt's former President being caged and wheeled into a local courtroom on a portable hospital bed to stand trial. Israel's long-time ally, Hosni Murbarak, stepped down after much violence, yet nothing has changed to benefit the Egyptian people. Can the trial be fair given the circumstances under which it is being locally prosecuted? Would NATO do this to Gaddafi, too, if he were to step down? The trial of Saddam Hussein did not take long in Iraq, and the predictable verdict led to a televised public execution.

There is also talk of taking Gaddafi to an international tribunal in Europe. Foreign trials decisively favour the prosecution and greatly disadvantage the defence. These distant-land trials were invoked by England's tyrannical Henry VIII because he knew they cut off many viable defences. George III expanded these unjust trials against rebellious American colonists by arresting the defendants in America, transporting them to England, and trying them in hostile territory. The results were what the two tyrants wanted. The International Criminal Court in The Hague is a Western extension of the Henry VIII and George III style of “justice”.

Gaddafi has good reason not to trust the West. He has a good idea of the likely result if he is tried in Europe. He also suspects that, if he puts on too good of a defence, he could suffer a fatal heart attack just like Slobodan Milosevic did during his trial. Gaddafi is also keenly aware of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's stroke and coma, and the fate of Yasser Arafat suffered in a Paris hospital. Even if the West is not responsible for all the above-mentioned incidents, Gaddafi has good reason to think they are all closely related.

What if, by chance, Gaddafi prevails, defeating the NATO forces that Cameron urged to attack Libya? Would Gaddafi then be justified in transporting Cameron, other NATO leaders and their supporting mob to Caracas for “fair” trials?

The Syrian President Assad is somewhat in a similar position as Gaddafi. Whilst his country has not yet been invaded, all the signs are there. He has been thoroughly vilified by hypocritical media and Western leaders, which follows the same pattern used against Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Colonel Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic and others. This group of warring hypocrites can turn venom on anyone, even their own leaders. Assad also realises that he has no choice but to fight the West, which was his former ally as long as he protected Israel. Assad has turned ground troops and tank corps on his own people, killing many. This is horrible and unacceptable. But, what about Israel's ongoing use of its air force jets to bomb and kill Palestinians as Israel terrorises and destroys the Gaza Strip? This is far more cruel than anything Assad has done to his people. Yet, NATO and the United Nations are forever encouraging, praising and protecting Israel as it continues its war on the Palestinians. Today, Assad is expendable, tomorrow it could be Netanyahu's turn.

The road to Damascus leads to many places.

No wonder so many countries are increasing and strengthening their military forces in case the Great Hawk targets them, too. It will not matter whether they are targeted for humanitarian purposes, for not being democratic, for being wealthy, for not being obedient to their dictates, or whatever other valid or invalid reasons are asserted. The result is predictable!

When the Arab Spring began, with primarily Tunisian and Egyptian people protesting, Gaddafi urged the Palestinians to seize the moment and protest in earnest against the Israeli government for an independent state. Shortly after that, Libya was attacked by NATO.

Instead, the Palestinian people decided to try one more time to acquire recognition of statehood through civil channels rather than violent protest. Come September, the Palestinians will try to bring their application for membership before the United Nations. Israel is lobbying for countries to block the vote from coming to the General Assembly. Right now, the United States and Israel are aggressively lobbying to prevent the Palestinians from getting recognition. It is no surprise that British Commonwealth nations are being encouraged to support Israel in the matter also.

By going to the UN, the Palestinians' effort will not be wasted, no matter what the outcome. At the very least, they will get confirmation of who their real allies are, and whether the UN is fair dinkum or is controlled by the mighty nations. The Palestinians will get their independence, but not through peaceful negotiations with Israel, Britain or the United States.

Protests, rebellions and riots will blast the world
The Eagle will face them too
The coming unrest will spread like wild bush fires
Fascism and other “isms” will threaten everything

Saudi Arabia will be ruffled and shaken
When the sun sets on it
And the angry sharks storm in

The Butterfly flushed the Red Dragon from its lair
Freeing the British people of its grasp
As the heartless Red Dragon prepares its escape
By fleeing London for a distant land
It intends to puff fire on the island

© 2011 Amitakh Stanford