|
The Butchering of Gaddafi Is Americas Crime
By Glen Ford
Last week the whole
world saw, and every decent soul recoiled, at the true
face of NATO’s answer to the Arab Spring. An elderly,
helpless prisoner struggled to maintain his dignity in a
screaming swirl of savages, one of whom
thrusts a knife up his rectum. These are Europe and
America’s jihadis in the flesh. In a few minutes of
joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid pack undid every
carefully packaged image of NATO’s “humanitarian”
project in North Africa—a
horror and revelation indelibly imprinted on the global
consciousness by the brutes’ own cell phones.
Nearly eight months
of incessant bombing by the air forces of nations that
account for 70 percent of the world’s weapons spending,
all culminating in the gang-bang slaughter of Moammar
Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his military chief of
staff, outside Sirte. The NATO-armed bands then
displayed the battered corpses for days in Misurata—he
city that had earlier made good on its vow to “purge
Black skin” through the massacre and dispersal of 30,000
darker residents of nearby Tawurgha—before
disposing of the bodies in an unknown location.
The saner sections
of America’s psychological operations machinery—including
their collaborators in the corporate media—were
doubtless as horrified as anyone at the Libyan jihadis’
insistence on revealing so graphically to the entire
planet the barbaric character of the “revolution.” The
months of gushing, ad nauseam press reports of
near-universal jubilation in Tripoli and elsewhere at
rebel “victories”—always
under cover of NATO bombs—now
made great sense. Who but those in search of instant
martyrdom would voice displeasure at the NATO-jihadi
triumph, with murderous fiends such as this roaming the
streets?
The United Nations
Human Rights Office and Amnesty International found
themselves compelled to ask for
investigations into Gaddafi’s death—as
if the immediate circumstances were not excruciatingly
apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. Although the same
U.S. domination of the UN that enabled NATO’s
regime-change operation will ensure that the neocolonial
powers escape legal liability for the results, the world
still sees the executioners, correctly, as monsters in
league with Washington, Paris, London and Riyadh. Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton, who gave a snarling thumbs
down to Gaddafi just days before his death, appeared
like ghoulish despots at a Roman Coliseum, reveling in
their Libyan gladiators’ butchery. Their hands and gums
ooze blood—a
lasting impression on decent world opinion.
The assault on
Libya began as a desperate bid by the West and Persian
Gulf royalty to bludgeon their way into the dangerous
(for them) dynamic of the Arab Spring. The “rebels”
(now, ludicrously, the “revolutionary” government) are
their guys, just as the Afghan “mujahidin” were the foot
soldiers of the Saudis and Washington from 1979 through
the Eighties and (for the Saudis) beyond. Here lies the
certainty of catastrophic “blowback.” As Trinity College
political scientist
Vijay Prashad points out, Tripoli
may soon resemble 1996 Kabul, a place of mass carnage
between rival warlords.
The Libyan jihadis
are far more Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s brethren, than
the West’s. The Arab Spring has both emboldened and
frightened the wealthy Persian Gulf despots, who have
their own agendas in the Arab world that are not
necessarily consonant with the U.S. and Europe (the same
applies in Pakistan and elsewhere in the region). All
reactionaries are not alike. The oil-rich monarchs are
fighting to preserve legitimacy in their own, Muslim
milieu, not for Western-based corporate hegemony, and
will cause at least as much problems for Washington as
the accommodating Gaddafi they set out to depose at the
beginning of the Arab Spring.
But that is
secondary. As always, U.S. imperialists cannot resist
the temptation to overreach. John Pilger writes, “With
Libya secured, an American invasion of the African
continent is under way.” It is by no means certain that
Libya will remain “secure” or under American sway. And
President Obama’s all-out offensive to the south—now
centered in East and Central Africa, but soon to become
generalized—takes
place with the cell phone imagery of Gaddafi’s demise
fresh in the minds of tens of millions of Africans.
Obama may believe the pictures send the message that
resistance is futile, but it is likely to have the
opposite effect. As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
said, of the Americans, “The most lamentable thing is
that in their determination to dominate the world…they
are setting it alight.”
Glen Ford BAR executive
editor can be contacted at
Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
Source:
BlackAgendaReport
Glen Ford is a veteran
journalist, executive editor of
blackagendareport.com. In the late ’70s, he launched America’s Black
Forum, a national black news TV program, and in ’87 he launched the first
nationally syndicated hip-hop music show called Rap It Up. He also
co-founded the weekly political journal Black Commentator in 2002. Glen Ford
has been a critic of Barack Obama. Glen Ford gave very positive coverage of
Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate for President. Glenn Ford
confessed that it was easy for even himself to get caught up in the kind of
“Mecca for African Americans” that was this day of Inauguration for a black
president
Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
* * * *
*
U.S.-NATO Military Intervention
in Libya: A Blueprint for the Future?—Shaky video recorded the
gruesome end of Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Gadhafi’s life on Oct. 20
as he tried to escape his embattled hometown of Surte in a car convoy
that was hit by a NATO airstrike. An apparently wounded Gadhafi ran from
his car and sought refuge in a drainage pipe. When rebels captured him,
he was beaten, humiliated and executed with a gunshot to the head. The
grisly images distributed on the Internet were soon seen by millions
around the world. Before being buried in an unmarked grave, Gadhafi’s
body and that of his son Mutassim, were transported to the city of
Misrata, where they were put on public display in a warehouse cold
storage locker.
The loose coalition of rebels that
overthrew the Gadhafi regime under pressure from the international
community, announced they would conduct an investigation into Gadhafi’s
murder. But human rights organizations such as Amnesty International
have declared that the rebels have not adequately responded to a growing
pattern of unchecked violence by their forces during the course of the
eight-month revolution. In fact, a massacre of unknown proportions
thought to be perpetrated by anti-Gadhafi militias was discovered at
Surte’s Mahari Hotel in the days after the city fell to rebel control.—BTLonline
* * * *
*
* * * *
*
Hero , Mad Dog, Or Something In-Between?
Muammar Gaddafi: In Memoriam
By Fawzia Afzal-Khan
“Facts” around the
achievements of his socialist policies remain similarly
debatable, though reports of the Human Development Index
as recently as 2009 gave Libya the highest ranking of
all African countries, with a GDP that was fourth
highest in the continent. Citizens had access to free
health care and education and indeed, from having only
one-fifth of its citizens able to read and write before
he took power in 1969, at the time of his death,
Gaddafi’s policies could boast an 83% literacy rate.
His government also handed out 50,000$ to every couple
on their marriage to help them secure a home, and bank
loans accumulated no interest. . . .
We all believed he
meant what he said—we so wanted our leaders to stand up
against the tyranny of a capitalist world order that was
clearly dividing our world into one of haves and another
of have-nots. And despite his descent into megalomania
and crazy behavior, I ‘d still like to believe he
retained some vestiges of that early promise. Yes, he
died in a manner unbefitting a hero….but then, he had
ceased being that to many in his country. But to others,
both within Libya and elsewhere, he encapsulated the
image of the resistance fighter, lobbing ill-advised and
even insane comments and braggadocio at his militarily
superior enemies, someone who some of the time at least,
spoke truth to power. And perhaps for that, he paid the
price.—Counterpunch
*
* * * *
Libya War Lies
Worse Than Iraq—Thomas C. Mountain—23 July
2011—Asmara, Eritrea: The lies used to justify the NATO
war against Libya have surpassed those created to
justify the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch both had honest observers on the
ground for months following the rebellion in eastern
Libya and both have repudiated every major charge used
to justify the NATO war on Libya. According to the
Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not
one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi
fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the
Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications.
Amnesty could not verify a single “African mercenary”
fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged
international satellite television accounts of African
mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of
the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes
were fabrications. There were no confirmed accounts of
helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet
fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any
justification for the No-Fly Zone in Security Council
resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its
attacks on Libya.
After three months on the ground in rebel controlled
territory, the
Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in
Benghazi
which included Gadaffi supporters. Only 110 dead in
Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died
there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives
including pro-government people.No rapes, no African
mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and
only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO
bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.Today
according to the Libyan Red Crescent Society, over 1,100
civilians have been killed by NATO bombs including over
400 women and children. Over 6,000 Libyan civilians have
been injured or wounded by the bombing, many very
seriously.—InformationClearinghouse
*
* * * *
NATO’s Agenda for Libya
Qaddafi, From Beginning to End
By Vijay Prashad
21-23 October
2011
Qaddafi is dead. As
the euphoria dies down, it might be important to recall
that we are dealing with at least two Qaddafis. The
first Qaddafi overthrew a lazy and corrupt monarchy in
1969, and proceeded to transform Libya along a fairly
straightforward national development path. There were
idiosyncrasies, such as Qaddafi’s ideas about democracy
that never really produced institutions of any value.
Qaddafi had the unique ability to centralize power in
the name of de-centralization. Nevertheless, in the
national liberation Qaddafi certainly turned over large
sections of the national surplus to improve the
well-being of the Libyan people. It is because of two
decades of such policies that the Libyan people entered
the 21st century with high human development indicators.
Oil helped, but there are oil nations (such as Nigeria)
where the people languish in terms of their access to
social goods and to social development.
By 1988, the first
Qaddafi morphed into the second Qaddafi, who set aside
his anti-imperialism for collaboration with imperialism,
and who dismissed the national development path for
neo-liberal privatization (I tell this story in Arab
Spring, Libyan Winter, which will be published by AK
Press in the Spring of 2012). This second Qaddafi
squandered the pursuit of well-being, and so took away
the one aspect of his governance that the people
supported. From the 1990s onward, Qaddafi’s regime
offered the masses the illusion of social wealth and the
illusion of democracy. They wanted more, and that is the
reason for the long process of unrest that begins in the
early 1990s (alongside the Algerian Civil War), comes to
a head in 1995-96 and then again in 2006. It has been a
long slog for the various rebellious elements to find
themselves.
The new leadership
of Tripoli was incubated inside the Qaddafi regime. His
son, Saif al-Islam was the chief neoliberal reformer,
and he surrounded himself with people who wanted to turn
Libya into a larger Dubai. They went to work around
2006, but were disillusioned by the rate of progress,
and many (including Mahmud Jibril, the current Prime
Minister) had threatened to resign on several occasions.
When an insurengy began in Benghazi, this clique
hastened to join them, and by March had taken hold of
the leadership of the rebellion. It remains in their
hands. . . .
The manner of
Qaddafi’s death is a synecdoche for the entire war.
NATO’s bombs stopped the convoy, and without them
Qaddafi would probably have fled to his next redoubt.
The rebellion might have succeeded without NATO. But
with NATO, certain political options had to be
foreclosed; NATO’s member states are in line now to
claim their reward. However, they are too polite in a
liberal European way to actually state their claim
publically in a quid-pro-quo fashion. Hence, they say
things like: this is a Libyan war, and that Libya must
decide what it must do. This is properly the space into
which those sections in the new Libyan power structure
that still value sovereignty must assert themselves. The
window for that assertion is going to close soon, as the
deals get inked that lock Libya’s resources and autonomy
into the agenda of the NATO.
Source:
Counterpunch
Vijay Prashad
is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian
History and Director of International Studies at Trinity
College, Hartford, CT His most recent book, The
Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, won
the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize for 2009. The Swedish and
French editions are just out. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu /
Vijay Prashad—The Darker Nations, Part 1
/
Vijay
Prashad—The
Darker
Nations,
Part 2
/
Vijay Prasad on Obama's Middle East Policies
*
* * * *
Libya: White Flag War Crime & Working With Al-Qaeda
26
October 2011
“To ignore the
white flag of surrender, the white flag of truce, I
think is a major, major war crime and one that NATO will
try to cover up with all of its resources because every
one recognizes that that is way beyond the pale when it
comes to a war crime; failing to recognize the white
flag of truce.”—Wayne Madsen
(Investigative Journalist)
According to Madsen’s sources, Gadhafi was another
victim in an assassination plot, telling Aaron Dykes, of
Infowars.com, that “I do believe that the CIA, now, was
involved in allowing Gadhafi to be executed” (Infowars:
10/24/11 ). Kurt Nimmo writes that “The use of white
flags to signal surrender is an ancient tradition going
back to the Eastern Han dynasty in China and the Roman
Empire. Violating the widely accept convention is
considered an act of extreme treachery.”
Officials deny that
Gadhafi was trying to surrender. According to Nimmo’s
report, Madsen’s sources claim that “Gaddafi was told to
surrender to the al-Qaeda rebels besieging Sirte before
morning prayers at 5 am, but that it was decided to
surrender after the sun was well up in the sky so the
white flags would be clearly visible.” Alex Jones and
Wayne Madsen have both brought up the point that if
Gadhafi was trying to escape, as the officials state,
the ousted leader of Libya would have done so at night,
not during the day, where Predator drones could spot
Gadhafi and take him out. Though a Drone did wound
Gadhafi, it’s reported that the leader was taken alive
by rebel forces on the ground. Like the Osama “death”
the official story ahs changed many times.—WeAreChangeTV
*
* * * *
Hillary Clinton knew of Qaddafi
‘White Flag’ truce: US drone fired at Qaddafi convoy after negotiated
truce?—Daya Gamage—Asian Tribune Foreign News Desk—26 October 2011—Asiantribune—Libyan
Leader Muammar Qaddafi was traveling under a negotiated “White Flag”
truce last Thursday in an agreement to leave Libya. More claims from
sources inside Misrata, Libya that the Libyan National Transitional
Council did in fact agree to allow Qaddafi and his convoy safe passage
out of Libya.
In addition rebel sources in Misrata claim US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton was informed of the “White Flag” truce negotiated and agreed to
by Libya’s NTC while visiting Libya Wednesday October 19. . . . The
question today is: Was Secretary Clinton told of the “White Flag” truce
giving Qaddafi safe passage out of Libya? Did Secretary Clinton use this
information to prepare a US Drone attack on Qaddafi’s “White Flag”
convoy? Who authorized the US Predator Drone strike on the “White Flag”
convoy? Will Barack Obama be called to answer for the US firing on a
“White Flag” convoy? . . . While Obama stated back in the spring that
the UN Resolution did not call for nor allow the targeting of Qaddafi,
and stating the US would not target Qaddafi, last Thursday he referred
to the capture & murder of Qaddafi as “we have done what we went in to
do.” The claims that a truce was negotiated to allow Qaddafi to leave
the country raise some serious questions as to what role Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton played in the agreement. It also raises the
question did Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration knowingly
authorize a US Drone strike on a convoy traveling under a White Flag
truce? If so, the Web Site raises, both Clinton and Obama should
immediately be charged with war crimes and accessory to murder. . . .
The “White Flag” issue is sure to dominate the political talk here in
the United States and among global rights organizations, Asian Tribune
understands.—InformationClearinghouse
* *
* * *
The Rule of Law and the
Extrajudicial Killing of Muammar Gaddafi—Curtis
Doebbler—The willful killing or summary
execution of a prisoner of war who is no longer
participating in an armed conflict is a grave breach of
the
Third Geneva
Convention on Prisoners of War of 1949,
to which both France and the US are parties. It makes no
difference how much one dislikes the particular prisoner
of war. The resulting obligation for all parties to this
treaty is that they investigate, arrest, and punish the
perpetrators of such crimes.
Of course, the Third Geneva
Convention applies mainly during international armed
conflicts. The armed conflict in Libya, however, had
undoubtedly become international once NATO intervened.
It makes no difference in this classification that the
intervention was based on a UN Security Council
resolution. Indeed, international humanitarian law
applies to any international armed conflict, even an
illegal one. If one of the domestic parties to a
non-international armed conflict becomes an ally of a
foreign power and commences fighting against its own
people as NATO-led rebels, these rebels could be under
enough control from foreign powers so as to make the
foreign powers responsible for their acts.
There is evidence that this was the
case when Gaddafi was killed. More would have to be
known, but the mere fact that Gaddafi's convoy was first
attacked by foreign air power and then by ground forces
that, according to some reports, included foreign troops
is quite telling evidence. Moreover, if as it looks,
Gaddafi was fleeing Sirte, it would appear that he was
attacked not as a threat to any civilians in Libya, the
remit of the use of force provided by the UN Security
Council resolution, but either as part of an
indiscriminate attack or one aimed at killing people
fleeing from an armed conflict. In either case, it would
be a use of force against the political independence and
territorial integrity of Libya, especially given the
fact that the NATO-led rebels had expressly stated they
do not form a new government of Libya. Such an attack,
as had been going on for months, constitutes the crime
of aggression. Such an attack, outside the remit of the
mandate of the UN Security Council, which itself is
bound by international law, also constitutes a serious
violation of one of the most fundamental principles of
international law prohibiting the use of force.—Jurist
* *
* * *
Libya and the Big Lie: Using
Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars—Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya—29
September 2011—The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United
Nations Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the
basis of unproven claims, specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was
killing his own people in Benghazi and Libya. The claim in its exact
form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in
Benghazi as well as in other parts of the country. These claims were
widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis
of this claim that Libya was referred to the U.N. Security Council at
U.N. Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N. Human
Rights Council in Geneva. False claims about African mercenary armies in
Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media
campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have
become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a
legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war
on Libya.— GobalResearch
* *
* * *
US and NATO Murder Muammar
Gaddafi—Bill
Van Auken—24
October 2011—The
savage killing Thursday of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi served
to underscore the criminal character of the war that has been prosecuted
by the US and NATO over the past eight months. The assassination follows
NATO’s more than month-long siege of Sirte, the Libyan coastal city that
was Gaddafi’s hometown and a center of his support. The assault on this
city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold
numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were
deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.
Gaddafi was apparently traveling in
a convoy of vehicles attempting to break out of the siege after the last
bastion of resistance had fallen to the NATO-backed “rebels”. NATO
warplanes attacked the convoy at 8:30 a.m. Thursday morning, leaving a
number of vehicles in flames and preventing it from moving forward. Then
the armed anti-Gaddafi militias moved in for the kill. The death of
Gaddafi appears to have been part of a larger massacre that has
reportedly claimed the lives of a number of his top aides, loyalist
fighters and his two sons, Mo’tassim and Saif al-Islam. . . .
Gaddafi’s body was then taken west
to the city of Misrata, where it was reportedly dragged through the
streets before being deposited in a mosque. The fate of the body is
politically significant in that it was seized by a Misrata militia
faction that is operating under its own command and has no loyalty to
the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC), which Washington
and NATO have anointed as the “sole legitimate representative” of the
Libyan people. Thus this grisly event, which President Barack Obama
hailed in the White House Rose Garden Thursday as the advent of “a new
and democratic Libya,” in reality only exposes the regional and tribal
fault lines that are setting the stage for a protracted period of civil
war. . . Just two days before the murder of Gaddafi, US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton staged an unannounced visit to Tripoli on a
heavily armed military aircraft. While there, she issued a demand that
Gaddafi be brought in “dead or alive.”
As the Associated Press reported,
Clinton declared “in unusually blunt terms that the United States would
like to see former dictator Muammar Gaddafi dead. “‘We hope he can be
captured or killed soon so that you don’t have to fear him any longer’,
Clinton told students and others at a town hall-style gathering in the
capital city.” The AP went on to note: “Until now, the US has generally
avoided saying that Gaddafi should be killed.” Yet in reality,
Washington is pursuing an unconcealed policy of state murder. In this
case, it has openly advocated and provided every resource to facilitate
the killing of a head of state with whom the US government had
established close political and commercial relations over the course of
the last eight years.
The battered corpse of Gaddafi’s
son Mo’tassim, who was also captured alive and then executed, was put on
display in Misrata. As recently as April 2009 he was warmly welcomed to
the US State Department by Hillary Clinton. In his Rose Garden speech
Thursday, Obama boasted of his administration having “taken out” Al
Qaeda leaders, sounding for the all world like a Mafia don, minus the
charm. Among his most recent victims are two US citizens, Anwar Awlaki,
the Arizona-born Yemeni-American Muslim cleric, last month and, two
weeks later, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who was born in Denver.
Both had been placed on a “kill list” by a secret National Security
Council subcommittee and murdered with Hellfire missiles. Abdulrahman
was blown to bits along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other
friends as they ate dinner. —GlobalResearch
* *
* * *
Cosatu condemns Gaddafi pictures—21
October 2011—The Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) on Friday
condemned the way media around the world were broadcasting and
publishing images of slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's body. "This
triumphalism is an example of imperialist barbarism at its worst,"
Cosatu spokesman Patrick Craven said in a statement on Friday. The only
force which has the right to overthrow his dictatorial regime is the
Libyan people and not the military might of imperialist powers whose
sole concern is to safeguard and promote their economic interests in
this oil-rich country," Craven said.
He said Gaddafi should have been
charged in the International Court of Justice and not executed in a
manner that resembled "cold-blooded murder". Gaddafi was shot dead in
his hometown of Sirte on Thursday. As news of his death spread, images
of the 69-year-old former leader's bloodied body were broadcast across
the globe. Gaddafi is the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring
uprisings that began in the Middle East last year.— Sapa
IOL
* *
* * *
Ghadaffi—Tribute to a Fallen Hero
 |
Hero Martyr Muammar Gaddafi Speaks
For 40 years, or was it longer, I
. . . can’t remember, I did all I could to
give people houses, hospitals, schools,
and when they were hungry, I gave them
food, I even made Benghazi into farmland
from the desert, I stood up to attacks
from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed
my adopted orphaned daughter, he was
trying to kill me, instead he killed
that poor innocent child, then I helped
my brothers and sisters from Africa with
money for the African Union, did all I
could to help people understand the
concept of real democracy, where
people’s committees ran our country.
But
that was never enough, as some told me,
even people who had 10-room homes, new
suits and furniture, were never
satisfied, as selfish as they were they
wanted more, and they told Americans and
other visitors, they needed “democracy”
and “freedom,” never realizing it was a
cut throat system, where the biggest dog
eats the rest, but they were enchanted
with those words, never realizing that
in America, there was no free medicine,
no free hospitals, no free housing, no
free education and no free food, except
when people had to beg or go to long
lines to get soup, no, no matter what I
did, it was never enough for some.
But
for others, they knew I was the son of
Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true
Arab and Muslim leader we’ve had since
Salah’ a’ Deen, when he claimed the
Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed
Libya, for my people, it was his
footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my
people free from colonial
domination—from thieves who would steal
from us. |
Now, I am
under attack by the biggest force in military
history, my little African son, Obama wants to
kill me, to take away the freedom of our
country, to take away our free housing, our free
medicine, our free education, our free food, and
replace it with American style thievery, called
“capitalism.” But all of us in the Third World
know what that means, it means corporations run
the countries, run the world, and the people
suffer, so there is no alternative for me, I
must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall
die by following his path, the path that has
made our country rich with farmland, with food
and health, and even allowed us to help our
African and Arab brothers and sisters to work
here with us, in the Libyan Jammohouriyah, I do
not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to
save this land, my people, all the thousands who
are all my children, then so be it.
Let this
testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up
to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty,
stood up to betrayal, stood up the West and its
colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my
African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers,
as a beacon of light, when others were building
castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent, I
never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our
national treasury foolishly, and like Salah’a’deen,
our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for
Islam, I took little for myself.
In the West,
some have called me “mad,” “crazy,” but they know
the truth but continue to lie, they know that our
land is independent and free, not in the colonial
grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been
clear and for my people and that I will fight to my
last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help
us to remain faithful and free.
* *
* * *
Last Will and Testament
By
Muammar Gaddafi
This is my will. I, Muammar bin
Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al
Fuhsi Gaddafi, do swear that there is no other God but Allah and that
Mohammad is God's Prophet, peace be upon him. I pledge that I will die
as Muslim. Should I be killed, I would like to be buried, according to
Muslim rituals, in the clothes I was wearing at the time of my death and
my body unwashed, in the cemetery of Sirte, next to my family and
relatives.
I would like that my family,
especially women and children, be treated well after my death. The
Libyan people should protect its identity, achievements, history and the
honorable image of its ancestors and heroes. The Libyan people should
not relinquish the sacrifices of the free and best people. I call upon
my supporters to continue the resistance, and fight any foreign
aggressor against Libya, today, tomorrow and always. Let the free people
of the world know that we could have bargained over and sold out our
cause in return for a personal secure and stable life.
We received many offers to this
effect but we chose to be at the vanguard of the confrontation as a
badge of duty and honour. Even of we do not win immediately, we will
give a lesson to future generations that choosing to protect the nation
is an honour and selling it out is the greatest betrayal that history
will remember forever despite the attempts of others to tell you
otherwise.—NewZimbabwe
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
|
Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in
America
By Melissa V.
Harris-Perry
According to the
author, this society has historically exerted
considerable pressure on black females to fit into one
of a handful of stereotypes, primarily, the Mammy, the
Matriarch or the Jezebel. The selfless
Mammy’s behavior is marked by a slavish devotion to
white folks’ domestic concerns, often at the expense of
those of her own family’s needs. By contrast, the
relatively-hedonistic Jezebel is a sexually-insatiable
temptress. And the Matriarch is generally thought of as
an emasculating figure who denigrates black men, ala the
characters Sapphire and Aunt Esther on the television
shows Amos and Andy and Sanford and Son, respectively.
Professor Perry
points out how the propagation of these harmful myths
have served the mainstream culture well. For instance,
the Mammy suggests that it is almost second nature for
black females to feel a maternal instinct towards
Caucasian babies.
As for the source
of the Jezebel, black women had no control over their
own bodies during slavery given that they were being
auctioned off and bred to maximize profits. Nonetheless,
it was in the interest of plantation owners to propagate
the lie that sisters were sluts inclined to mate
indiscriminately.
|
 |
* *
* * *
 |
Sex at the Margins
Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry
By Laura María Agustín
This book explodes several myths: that selling sex is completely different from any other kind of work, that migrants who sell sex are passive victims and that the multitude of people out to save them are without self-interest. Laura Agustín makes a passionate case against these stereotypes, arguing that the label 'trafficked' does not accurately describe migrants' lives and that the 'rescue industry' serves to disempower them. Based on extensive research amongst both migrants who sell sex and social helpers, Sex at the Margins provides a radically different analysis. Frequently, says Agustin, migrants make rational choices to travel and work in the sex industry, and although they are treated like a marginalised group they form part of the dynamic global economy. Both powerful and controversial, this book is essential reading for all those who want to understand the increasingly important relationship between sex markets, migration and the desire for social justice. "Sex at the Margins rips apart distinctions between migrants, service work and sexual labour and reveals the utter complexity of the contemporary sex industry. This book is set to be a trailblazer in the study of sexuality."—Lisa Adkins, University of London |
* *
* * *
posted 27 October 2011
|