#Libya Intervention

[tmarshconnors]

Wars, 0 trials. Enough said.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)

Gulf War (1990-1991): Also known as Operation Desert Storm, this conflict was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A U.S.-led coalition drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Operation Just Cause (1989): The U.S. invasion of Panama aimed at deposing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

Bosnian War (1992-1995): The U.S. became involved in NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the enforcement of no-fly zones and airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces. This culminated in the Dayton Agreement.

Kosovo War (1998-1999): NATO, led by the U.S., conducted a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Operation Gothic Serpent (1993): This was part of the broader United Nations' intervention in Somalia, aiming to capture warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. It included the Battle of Mogadishu, famously known as "Black Hawk Down."

George W. Bush (2001-2009)

War in Afghanistan (2001-present): Initiated in response to the September 11 attacks, this war aimed to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.

Iraq War (2003-2011): Launched on the premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, this conflict led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

War on Terror (2001-present): This is a broader term encompassing various military operations and initiatives aimed at combatting terrorism globally.

Barack Obama (2009-2017)

Continuation of the War in Afghanistan: Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the country, before beginning a drawdown of forces.

Iraq War and ISIS Conflict: While Obama ended the U.S. combat mission in Iraq in 2011, U.S. forces returned in 2014 to help combat ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

Libyan Civil War (2011): The U.S. participated in a NATO-led intervention that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

Operation Neptune Spear (2011): The mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Interventions in Syria: The U.S. was involved in the Syrian Civil War, primarily through support of rebel groups and airstrikes against ISIS targets.

[mikhaila-bobersky]

If that don't work use more gun

[jessaerys]

rare putin w

[jloisse]

«Spoliation de l’Afrique»: pour détruire le dinar or, la France et l’OTAN ont détruit la Libye et Kadhafi

Le projet de dinar or de Kadhafi était une menace pour la France et les Etats-Unis, rappelle Moussa Ibrahim.

Et l'ex-porte-parole du dirigeant libyen de détailler:

«Quand Kadhafi a dit aux Français:"Mêlez-vous de vos affaires, c’est notre continent, c’est notre pétrole, nos banques, notre monnaie, nous voulons l'indépendance", c’était nuisible aux intérêts impérialistes de la France. »

[immaculatasknight]

Servitor of empire

[matan4il]

Out of curiosity, what does the UN actually gain from keeping the terrorists in power? Obviously antisemitism but way do they materially gain?

Anon, don't be so quick to dismiss antisemitism. It's a really powerful motivator, for some people even more than money, because it is often to connected to a person's views of themselves, their society and the world. As such, antisemitism can be linked to issues of self-worth or hope for the future. And the place where someone's self-worth depends on demonizing Jews, or their future hopes depends on the notion that their society will be so much better, if only a Jewish collective (whether the Jewish religion, race or state) will be dismantled, they are emotionally invested in ways that can be far more crucial to them than money.

So I personally do think that antisemitism played a big role in how the UN has acted regarding Israel for decades.

For example, the UN sets up a special agency to help Koreans in Dec 1950 (UNKRA). By Jul 1958, less than 8 years later and 5 years after a ceasefire was achieved between the two Koreas, the agency was seen as having served its purpose, and was dismantled. Since then, if there are ever Korean refugees still in need of help, it goes through the general UNHCR (established 1951. It replaced the UN's temporary agency IRO, established Dec 1946, which itself took over from UNRRA, established Nov 1943), the UN refugee agency that takes care of ALL refugees in the world... except the Palestinian ones. Their agency (UNPRP) was established by UN resolution 212 in Nov 1948, and later became UNRWA in Dec 1949.

Now, take a second to consider how there was NEVER any UN agency dedicated specifically to help about 1.5 million Jewish Holocaust survivors at the end of WWII, which is May 1945 (with many of them still being murdered after the end of the war, in places like Poland in Jul 1946 or Libya in the Nov 1945 and Jun 1948 pogroms). No special agency for them, no intervention to protect people who had literally been through and somehow survived the worst genocide in human history, and were still being targeted and killed after it was done, even though the UN had a talent for establishing plenty of refugee agencies just fine during those years. But there was a special agency set up for the Arabs in the Land of Israel, even though they were the aggressors in the 1947-1949 Independence War, and it still operates to this day, unlike UNKRA, which was set up later than UNRWA. Why? What reason is there for treating Holocaust victims worse than the Arabs who declared a war of extermination against Jews in Israel? Or for treating Palestinians better than any other group of refugees in the world, even though other groups often need the help much more?

I can only see one thing in common when it comes to all of these illogical, counterintuitive decisions, and that is antisemitism. Dislike the Jews? Deprive them of getting their own agency, even while others get one. Hate the Jews? Dedicate special resources to the refugees who can be used as a political pawn against the Jewish state, while still counting them as refugees even after being resettled with citizenship elsewhere, unlike every other refugees group.

And never forget, the UN's voting "democracy" (where antisemitic abuse is not penalized in votes) IS inherently vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. There is only one Jewish state at the UN. There is a block of over 20 Arab countries, another of over 50 Muslim ones, and when they're told a lie such as the one invented by Amin al-Husseini in 1929, that the Jews are attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, then it's easy to recruit all of them against Israel without even much effort. Then add countries which have vested interests in keeping the Arab and Muslim countries on their side, or who have issues with the pro-west, pro-democracy countries (and Israel is not only one of them, it is closely allied with the US, which is the leader of that stance) and basically the one Jewish state has close to no chance.

But over the years, in addition to being invested in keeping the issue of the Palestinian refugees going as a tool against Israel, to present the Jewish state as uniquely oppressive, the UN has also become invested in the jobs that the conflict produces for its members. UNRWA alone employees over 30,000 people and is, by the UN's own admission, one of its biggest employers.

On top of that, the UN also has other workers who deal specifically with the conflict (and therefore are employed thanks to it), such as OCHA oPt. OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) is the "humanitarian arm" of the UN and oPt is its branch that takes care specifically of the Palestinians. WHY is there even a need for this, if the Palestinians already have (UNIQUELY!) an entire UN agency dedicate just to them? And then on top of that (yes! A redundancy on top of a redundancy!) they also have a Palestinian branch for the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).

Having so many employees dedicated to this specific conflict does make the UN financially invested in keeping it from being resolved. Also, it's probably easier to get donations for the UN when talking about this falsely over-hyped conflict (here's a recent example, a report shows there's no famine in Gaza, the UN has known this and kept it quiet), especially when the hype is fed by so many antisemites happy to spread libels about the Jewish state. Some of the antisemites are likely very rich and happy to donate to any organization targeting Israel (I can even name some very wealthy governments happy to continuously donate to the UN and UNRWA, when they're also known for their antisemism, like financially sponsoring known antisemitic professors at US universities).

I do think the antisemitism is what enabled the creation of the financial aspect to the UN's anti-Israel bias, and interest in preserving the conflict, but now I'll mention one more factor. It's also one that IMO was preceded by the antisemitism and financial interest, but now it adds its own fuel to the fire. Since 2007, when Hamas violently took over Gaza, in order to keep its programs running there, the UN has been collaborating with Hamas. Because that's what happens in an actual dictatorship, which has absolute power over its people, and doesn't allow for any civilian liberties. If you wanna run a UN agency in North Korea, you will HAVE to collaborate with Kim Jong Un's dictatorial regime. And if you want to run a UN agency in Gaza post Jun 2007, you will HAVE to collaborate with Hamas. So that's exactly what the UN has been doing in Gaza. In doing so, it has been collaborating with a genocidal, antisemitic, radical Islamist, terrorist organization. And as has allowed Israel to enter Gaza and gather evidence, we have more and more proof that the UN is complicit in Hamas' crimes. That is NOT something the UN wants the world to realize. So it's trying its best to stop Israel from fighting in Gaza, to prevent the gathering of further evidence, at the same time that the UN is doing its best to screw over Israel's credibility. If the UN can vilify the best witness against it, who will believe the evidence about its complicity anyway?

I hope that helps answer the question!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[psychotrenny]

The whole Bourdain quote about beating Kissinger to death rings very hollow when you remember that Bourdain was a straight up US State Department asset; "Henry Kissinger for people who drink craft beer". Like he spent most of his post 2006 career manufacturing consent for the US Imperialism, including for one of the most devastating interventions of the 21st century. Like you know that if Bourdain had been had been born a few decades earlier he would have gone on about how the beautiful people of South Vietnam are under threat from oppressive Northerners infiltrating from their border with the ineffectual regime running Cambodia. Like that Kissinger quote is an excellent example of how liberals will condemn every atrocity but the one currently happening. And to paraphrase that quote; once you've been Libya, you'll never stop wanting to beat Anthony Bourdain to death with your bare hands"

[dostoyevsky-official]

Retreat of Syrian Forces Threatens ‘Saigon Moment’ for Russia

Syria has partly been an ideological project for Putin. The intervention in Syria became a way for Russia to extend its vision of a multipolar world opposed to the Western liberal order, said Nicole Grajewski, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of a coming book on Russia’s relationship with Iran, including in Syria. “To see Russian planes leave Syria as rebel forces move onward towards their air bases, and their assets in Damascus fall, this would be so devastating for the Russian image of itself,” she said. “It would be akin to a Saigon moment for them.” Putin’s assistance was instrumental to Assad’s survival, and showed Moscow’s allies far beyond the Middle East that Russian intervention could help push back popular uprisings, said a former Russian official. African leaders began to invite Russia, and specifically contractors from the Wagner paramilitary group who also played a critical role in Syria, to help stabilize their regimes.  Syria holds significant strategic value for Russia as well. The Khmeimim air base near the coastal city of Latakia serves as a logistical hub for flights to Libya, the Central African Republic, and Sudan, where Russian private contractors and soldiers have operated for years.  A naval base in the port city of Tartus serves as the only replenishment and repair point for the Russian navy in the Mediterranean, where it has brought in goods by bulk through the Black Sea. Tartus has granted Putin access to a warm water port, something Russian rulers for centuries before him sought in the Middle East. The port could also potentially connect Russia to Libya—like Syria, a Soviet-era ally—where it seeks a naval base to extend its reach into sub-Saharan Africa. A rebel takeover of those Syrian coastal positions could jeopardize Russia’s global-power projection. “Syria provided so many advantages at a low cost,” said Anna Borshchevskaya, senior fellow at the Washington Institute think tank and author of a book on Putin’s war in Syria. “Losing Syria would be a big strategic defeat that would reverberate beyond the Middle East. It would have global repercussions.”

[ptseti]

AMERICA IS THE BIGGEST GANG IN THE WORLD’

“America is the biggest gang in the world.”

Legendary rapper Tupac explains how US foreign policy is no different to the gang mentality seen on America’s streets. If it doesn’t like something, it steams in to show who’s boss – whether it’s Cuba or Yugoslavia where war had raged around the time Tupac gave this interview. Since then, of course, the US has carried out a string of interventions which included the destruction of Libya in 2011.

Tupac was more than a hip-hop hero, he was an activist dedicated to African liberation in America. And he had a way of speaking that resonated with millions

[mariacallous]

On a sunny April afternoon in 2006, thousands of people flocked to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for a rally with celebrities, Olympic athletes, and rising political stars. Their cause: garner international support to halt a genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.

“If we care, the world will care. If we act, then the world will follow,” Barack Obama, then the junior Illinois senator, told the crowd, speaking alongside future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That same week, then-Sen. Joe Biden introduced a bill in Congress calling on NATO to intervene to halt the genocide in Sudan. “We need to take action on both a military and diplomatic front to end the conflict,” he said.

Flash-forward 18 years, and the prospect of genocide again looms in Sudan amid an explosive new civil war. But this time, there are no rallies, no A-list celebrities, no calls for outside military intervention. Few world leaders pay anything more than lip service to condemning the atrocities.

Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced some 9 million since the conflict began in April 2023. The United States accused both sides of committing war crimes and atrocities and concluded that the RSF and its allied militias have committed ethnic cleansing.

Western officials and aid workers working on Sudan say they are vexed, and horrified, by the lack of international attention and resources the conflict is receiving—particularly compared to the global response to the conflict in 2006, which was the progenitor of the current conflagration.

If this trend continues and there is no forceful international crisis response, they warn, Sudan will likely collapse into a failed state and could face full-fledged genocide once again.

“You can’t help but watch the level of focus on crises like Gaza and Ukraine and wonder what just 5 percent of that energy could have done in a context like Sudan and how many thousands, tens of thousands of lives it could’ve saved,” said Alan Boswell, an expert on the region at the International Crisis Group.

The top general of the SAF, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the head of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan “Hemeti” Dagalo, jointly seized power from a transitional government in a coup in 2021. Tensions between the rival sides escalated and finally erupted into war in April 2023.

In the 13 months since, the RSF has entrenched its positions around the national capital of Khartoum, forcing the SAF to relocate its headquarters to the coastal city of Port Sudan. The RSF has made steady gains in seizing control of Darfur and advancing southward and eastward against SAF forces. The SAF still controls territories around Khartoum and up the Nile River, a vital strategic route to Egypt; along the Red Sea coast; and the eastern borders with Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The conflict has also expanded into a full-fledged regional proxy war. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Riyadh’s arch regional rival Iran, back the SAF, while the United Arab Emirates is reportedly funneling arms and military supplies to the RSF. The RSF also reportedly receives support from Chad and from Russia through its affiliated mercenary groups.

The focal point of the conflict now is on El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and the center of fighting. The RSF has taken control of vast swaths of western and southern Sudan in its war against the SAF. El Fasher is the last SAF stronghold in Darfur, occupying a strategically important position for trade routes from neighboring Libya and Chad.

The RSF recently began its advance on El Fasher where an estimated 2 million to 2.8 million civilians have sought to take refuge from the fighting. (Precise figures are hard to come by.)

“The risk of genocide exists in Sudan. It is real, and it is growing every single day,” Alice Nderitu, the U.N. special advisor on the prevention of genocide, warned in a U.N. Security Council meeting last week.

A lengthy report from Human Rights Watch documented how the RSF and allied militias committed widespread atrocities, including mass rape, child murder, and massacres of civilians when it captured the Sudanese city of El Geneina last year. U.S. and U.N. officials and human rights experts warn that the same will likely happen if the RSF takes control of El Fasher, but on a much wider scale. The United States and aid groups have accused the SAF of blocking vital food aid from entering the country and RSF forces of looting humanitarian stocks, exacerbating the crisis and pushing regions of the country closer to famine.

“The potential fatality generation here is off the charts,” said Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale’s School of Public Health who runs a research project that monitors the conflict in Sudan. “What will happen when the RSF takes El Fasher? Exactly what is happening in every other place they control.”

“There is Hiroshima- and Nagasaki-level casualty potential,” he added, referring to the U.S. atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War II that killed up to 225,000 people.

Aid organizations and officials who work on Sudan have long decried the relative inattention the conflict in Sudan gets compared to Ukraine or the war in Gaza. Some 20 million people—or 10 times the population of Gaza—are at risk of famine in various regions of Sudan. “Very few people who don’t work on Sudan know that Darfur is on the brink of famine,” Boswell said. “Obviously, everyone knows about the risk of famine in Gaza.”

U.S. President Joe Biden’s own social media posts about Gaza versus Sudan provide another, albeit imperfect, window into the attention each conflict receives. Biden tweeted about Israel or Gaza at least 107 times in the six months since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks that started the Israel-Hamas war. Since the war in Sudan began over a year ago, he has tweeted about Sudan four times—three of which were about the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum right after fighting broke out.

Aid groups are strained for resources to tackle the humanitarian crisis caused by the war. In February, Doctors Without Borders warned that in one refugee camp alone in North Darfur, one child was dying every two hours of malnutrition. In April, on the conflict’s first anniversary, aid groups said the international humanitarian response plan to aid the Sudanese was only 6 percent funded. At a donor conference that month in Paris, countries pledged $2 billion more—though that is still only about half of what aid groups estimate the country needs.

Biden appointed a special envoy for Sudan in February—Tom Perriello, a former U.S. representative from Virginia and State Department veteran. Most experts have cheered Perriello’s new push to hold cease-fire talks in the months since and engage U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill to bring more levers of U.S. power and financing to bear on Sudan, but they also fear his efforts may be too little, too late for the civilians trapped in El Fasher.

“It will be very hard to deescalate the situation, though everyone should try. But there is an aura of inevitability that this is all going to blow up,” Boswell said. “The degree of mobilization from all sides is hard to walk down.”

Diplomatic and aid officials working on Sudan have some theories on why the atrocities in Darfur and across the country are receiving such little attention now compared to the 2000s, but none gives a full answer.

In 2006, the United States was still reaching the heights of its post-9/11 “war on terror” campaign. Sudan, under former dictator Omar al-Bashir, had given safe haven to Osama bin Laden as he built up al Qaeda’s global terror network, and “bashing Bashir and his genocide in Darfur couched nicely with [counterterrorism] priorities” of the U.S. government at the time, said Nicole Widdersheim, a former senior National Security Council official now with Human Rights Watch.

The memories of failed and successful international interventions to halt genocide—Rwanda in 1994 and the Balkans later that decade, respectively—were still relatively fresh in the minds of policymakers. The costly Western campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya that later exposed the shortcomings and blowback of military interventions were still underway.

It also preceded the current era of great-power competition, where Washington is intensely focused on countering Russia and China. Sudan also competes with the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine for international attention and humanitarian resources. Others suggested racism built into Western foreign policy played a part. “It’s seen as yet ‘another war in Africa like all the others,’” said one official dryly. Not one single factor can explain it all, experts concluded.

“Gaza is taking up the always limited American public interest and activism on a foreign crisis, but to be fair, there was nearly no public activism or engagement on the Sudan war before” the Israel-Hamas war, Widdersheim said.

Experts say the relative inattention Sudan has gotten from the top echelons of the White House and other Western powers that could have influence in pressuring the warring sides in Sudan to sit for peace talks has led to the current protracted state of the war.

Biden hosted Kenyan President William Ruto for a state visit this week, where the two called on “the warring parties in Sudan to facilitate unhindered humanitarian access and immediately commit to a ceasefire” toward the end of a lengthy joint statement but did not elaborate further. U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas Greenfield have also been outspoken about urging an end to the conflict in Sudan.

Successive cease-fire talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over the past year, brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia, failed to clinch any lasting deal. Those talks were led on the U.S. side not by a top White House official or Secretary of State Antony Blinken, but by the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Molly Phee.

Behind-the-scenes efforts by some members of Congress in December 2023 to appoint a special presidential envoy on Sudan—one who would report directly to the White House, rather than an envoy reporting to the assistant secretary of state—were unsuccessful, multiple officials and congressional aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration dynamics. Perriello was appointed two months later.

Perriello in mid-April said that cease-fire talks would resume in Jeddah “within the next three weeks,” but so far those talks have yet to materialize. Several current and former officials familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said the talks in Jeddah could resume in June, by which point the RSF could have already captured El Fasher from the mostly cutoff SAF forces.

“The need to start formal peace talks in Jeddah is absolutely urgent, and the United States is working exhaustively with partners to make that happen,” said a State Department spokesperson. “But we are not waiting for formal talks to begin—rather, we have accelerated our diplomatic engagements to align international efforts to end this war, mitigate the humanitarian crisis, and prevent future atrocities.”

Cease-fire talks have worked in limited ways in the past, such as when the United States got both sides to briefly stop fighting in Khartoum so it could evacuate its embassy in April 2023. “When the right leverage is put on the table at the right time to get the RSF and SAF to stop fighting, it can be done,” said Kholood Khair, a Sudanese policy analyst and founding director of Confluence Advisory, a Sudan-focused think tank. “The international community has just chosen not to deploy that same leverage this time around.”

Khair added that the Jeddah talks format has failed before, and it will likely fail again. “The concern is that because of the laziness and complicity of the international community at this point, you don’t have any diplomats who are looking for a new way of doing things. Jeddah in many ways is blocking the start of any new diplomatic efforts or other good ideas that could be effective.”

“Diplomats are fixated on Jeddah now, simply because it’s already there,” Khair said.

As Perriello engaged in frenetic diplomacy, he has also publicly marveled at how little attention the scale of the conflict and death in Sudan is receiving on the international stage.

“One of the things that to me captures just how invisible and horrific this war is, is that we don’t have a credible death count,” Perriello said during a congressional hearing in front of the 21-member Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month. “We literally don’t know how many people have died—possibly to a factor of 10 or 15. The number was earlier 15,000 to 30,000. Some think it’s at 150,000,” he said. During the course of Perriello’s hearing, senators cycled out of the room due to scheduling conflicts, often leaving only one senator in the room and 20 empty seats.

[mightdeletelater]

I spent 15 hours, across three days, watching and taking notes on the legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice, where South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel. 

South Africa's case was a temporal snapshot that lay the weight of decades of historical context. Although the specifics of the case pertained to Israel's actions in Gaza, its overarching objective reached beyond these particulars. At its core, the case sought to address the substantial disparity between the lived reality of Palestinians and the narrative propagated by dominant political forces.

Across the globe, public anger regarding the events in Gaza has manifested on the streets. However, political leaders consistently chose to overlook, dismiss, ban, or vilify this collective sentiment. Maybe it is recency bias, but in my lifetime, there has never been such a disconnect between politicians and their people than when it comes to Gaza. 

The significance of South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice is that it publically challenges the portrayal of the Palestinian cause as a fringe issue.

Beyond merely outlining the severity of events – 23,000+ killed in Gaza, the 1.9 million displaced, the 7,000+ missing under the rubble, and the thousands of bombs dropped, making this the deadliest rate of conflict of the 21st century – the case links these claims to the Geneva Conventions and human rights law. 

But where are we as a society, as a human race even, that we are at a point where the case was brought forth in the first place? Such an initiative questions the legitimacy of the international response and underscores the diminishing persuasive power of Western logic in an increasingly multipolar world. 

The case represents a broader confrontation within international institutions, raising doubts about the actual existence of the human rights infrastructure. The conflict has placed Western allies in the precarious position of undermining or neglecting their own established systems, eroding their credibility on the global stage. When you're against the United Nations and hundreds of human rights organisations and objecting to a submission in a global court (in the case of the US and UK, a court that they themselves established), you are simply pulling apart your house with the very tools that built it.

Western powers, having previously failed to support a Gaza ceasefire, will from now on be viewed in the global south as fighting on Israel's side. More so than they were already. And why wouldn't they be? These politicians have made it clear that they want to supply arms and military support to a regime, and their intervention, it seems, is contingent upon the safeguarding of goods shipment. These politicians assert that financial resources are lacking for reconstructing their nations, yet readily allocate funds for military endeavours. Why? How is any of this normal? 

After the legal proceedings, Netanyahu said, "We will continue the war in the Gaza Strip until we achieve all our objectives. The Hague and the axis of evil will not stop us." Without compelling a policy change from Israel, what hope is there that South Africa's case will avail? It was obvious that Israel would use support from the US and the UK to prosecute the real agenda that Netanyahu and hundreds of Israeli politicians have hidden in plain sight (i.e. admitted on camera constantly): the destruction of Palestine and its people.

The recurring pattern is evident. Gaza transforms from an open-air prison to an open-air slaughterhouse under Israeli actions. Iraq faces invasion and fragmentation fueled by falsehoods and lies. Libya, once somewhat stable, descends into a state of civil war. Afghanistan witnesses invasion followed by prolonged failure and abandonment. Yemen endures relentless bombing, culminating in one of the most severe humanitarian crises in recorded human history. Syria? Also bombed, resulting in the displacement of thousands of refugees.

All of this, and more, is the legacy of Western "intervention", war, and policy in the Middle East.

Strangely, I find myself distanced from all this turmoil, yet the impact remains surprisingly profound. So many people I love have been impacted, yet I still experience a sense of detachment.

I go about my life. I have family and friends. I have hobbies and a job. But multiple times a day, it will hit me. I'll remember the videos I've seen of a mother crying over her son's body. Or the father carrying the remains of his children in plastic bags. Or the doctors performing amputations in overcrowded hospitals with nothing more than a dull butter knife. A wave of deep sorrow washes over me, settling in my chest like a persistent ache, lingering until I find a sufficiently absorbing distraction. And then, the cycle restarts.

But I don't want to be distracted. And I don't want to forget. I feel like I don't deserve to forget. It feels like the least I can do. Because I, unfortunately, do not have a megaphone loud enough to shout to those in positions of authority and tell them they are cowardly individuals sitting on chairs fashioned from the bones of Gaza's children.

In 2024, you would think that we would only be quoting Martin Luther King to learn about history and not to still use his message for current happenings, but he honestly said it best: "No one is free when we are all free." 

[dandelionh3art]

There is a growing awareness among many that the narratives we are exposed to, particularly in Western media, often reflect geopolitical agendas rather than objective truth. This isn’t to say everything is propaganda, but the way information is framed, prioritized, or omitted can shape perceptions significantly. Here's a closer look:

---

1. Media Framing and Bias

Selective Focus:

Media outlets often highlight issues in countries that are seen as adversaries to Western powers (e.g., Syria, Iran, Russia) while downplaying or ignoring abuses by Western allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Israel).

Simplified Narratives:

Complex conflicts are reduced to good versus evil stories, ignoring historical, cultural, and regional dynamics. For example, labeling all opposition groups as "freedom fighters" or all government forces as "oppressors" simplifies nuanced realities.

Corporate and Government Interests:

Many Western media outlets are influenced by corporate or political stakeholders who align with specific foreign policy goals, shaping how stories are reported.

---

2. Historical Examples of Misleading Narratives

Iraq War (2003):

The invasion was justified with claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and links to terrorism, both of which were later proven false. This led to massive destruction and loss of life but remains a cautionary tale about the power of media narratives.

Libya (2011):

The intervention was framed as a humanitarian mission to stop Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. However, Libya’s descent into chaos and ongoing civil war is rarely discussed in Western media.

Palestine:

Coverage often lacks balance, with a focus on Israel's security while minimizing the lived realities of Palestinians under occupation.

---

3. "Bad Guys" and Geopolitical Interests

Many so-called "bad guys" are leaders or nations resisting Western influence or pursuing independent paths:

Syria: Assad is demonized, but his alliances with Russia and Iran challenge U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.

Russia: Frequently framed as a global aggressor, but its actions are often responses to NATO’s eastward expansion.

China: Criticized for authoritarian practices, but its rise as a global power threatens Western economic dominance.

This isn’t to excuse genuine human rights violations or aggression but to recognize the double standards at play.

---

4. Why Narratives Are Constructed

Control and Influence:

Shaping public opinion justifies interventions or sanctions. For instance, by painting a country as a threat, governments can rally support for military or economic actions.

Economic Interests:

Wars and sanctions often benefit industries like defense and energy while protecting Western corporate interests.

Cultural Superiority:

Western media sometimes perpetuates the notion that Western democracies are morally superior, downplaying their own historical and ongoing injustices.

---

5. A Balanced Perspective

Seek Multiple Sources:

Exploring non-Western media (e.g., Al Jazeera, RT, CGTN) or independent journalism can provide alternative viewpoints.

Question Motivations:

Ask who benefits from certain narratives. For example, does demonizing a country pave the way for resource control, regime change, or military intervention?

Empathize with the People:

Governments are often not the same as the people. Understanding the perspectives of those living in these countries adds depth to the narrative.

---

6. Growing Awareness

Many are now questioning long-held narratives, fueled by access to diverse information sources online. This awareness doesn’t mean rejecting all Western media outright but approaching it critically and with an understanding of its limitations.

[alanshemper]

[28 July 2024]

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened Israel with a possible military intervention amid mounting tensions over the Gaza conflict and the Israelis’ move towards what could turn into an all-out-war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and possible wider regional conflict.

Speaking in his hometown of Rize on July 28, Erdogan stressed Turkey’s need to demonstrate strength in response to Israel's military actions in Gaza.

"If we are strong, Israel cannot [behave like this toward] Palestine. Just as we intervened in Karabakh [in ally Azerbaijan’s conflict with the Armenians] and Libya, we can do the same to them. There would be no reason for not doing that," he said.

Erdogan also warned that the day might come when Israel might attack Turkey, saying: “Who can guarantee that those who are razing Gaza today will not set their sights on Anatolia tomorrow?”

Although Erdogan is known for his fiery rhetoric that often comes to nothing, with the situation surrounding Israel, Gaza and Lebanon so volatile, such a threat of military action from the Turkish leader cannot be entirely dismissed.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Lula drops Milei a hint as the Argentine is the last leader to join the Global Anti-Poverty Alliance

Brazilian president spoke about Argentinian diplomacy at G20 Summit in Rio

At the opening of the second session of speeches at the G20 Leaders' Summit on Monday (18), the host president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, sent a few messages, especially to the far right, represented at the meeting by the Argentine president, Javier Milei. "It's no surprise that inequality fosters hatred, extremism, and violence. Nor that democracy is under threat. Neoliberal globalization has failed," he said.  

Lula also mentioned impasses created by the Argentine government around multilateral discussions such as the climate crisis. "Recent impasses around the Pandemic Treaty, the Pact for the Future, and the COP on biodiversity in Cali show that diplomacy is losing ground to intransigence," said the president.  

On the session's subject, Lula said that "the world stability depends on more representative institutions" and defended multipolarity as the path to peace. In this sense, he criticized the United Nations Security Council and the "indiscriminate use of the veto."  

"The Security Council's failure to act has itself been a threat to international peace and security. The indiscriminate use of the veto makes the body hostage to the five permanent members. From Iraq to Ukraine, from Bosnia to Gaza, the perception is growing that not every territory deserves to have its integrity respected and not every life has the same value. Disastrous interventions have overturned order in Afghanistan and Libya. Indifference has relegated Sudan and Haiti to oblivion. Unilateral sanctions produce suffering and hit the most vulnerable," said the president, in front of heads of government from countries that are or have been involved in the wars mentioned.

Continue reading.

[darkmaga-returns]

by David Stockman Posted on December 16, 2024

About 17 years ago the insufferable former general, Wesley Clark, reported on a talk he once had in the Pentagon:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Well, it took several years longer but now six of the seven countries mentioned in that famous memo have been thrown into utter chaos, where they stumble around the Middle East and North Africa as failed states and well-springs of barbarism, crime, economic collapse and terrorism. And the ludicrous thing is that every one of these calamities were the result of intentional policy on the banks of the Potomac.

So if any more proof is needed that Imperial Washington inhabits a loony bin this week’s demise of the sixth of these target states, Syria, is surely just that. It will now become another warlord-dominated no man’s land caught in the cross-hairs of maneuver by its neighbors – Turkey, Iran, Israel, Russia and, everywhere and always, the United States.

Still, perhaps the unfolding madness now overtaking the corpus of Syria will finally demonstrate that Empire First has been a catastrophe which must be abandoned once and for all. To layout the framework for that long overdue pivot back to an America First policy, we reach back to a picture we published five years ago. This was during his first time at bat, when the Donald made a tepid effort to bring home a few hundred troops and wind down Washington’s multi-front interventions and meddling in a tiny land with 20 million people, a GDP of just $40 billion, a per capita income of barely $2,000, no significant natural resources or industrial capacity and no capability to project any military power whatsoever beyond its own borders.

[takemeinyrarmy]

but what is really making me sick is seeing yanquis celebrate this ONCE AGAIN like they celebrated Iraq like they celebrated Libya just a population of morons who never learn anything about what a death sentences their "intervention for democracy" actually means for the people of the countries they deem need such an intervention because honestly most yanquis think that the people of those countries are idiots WHO NEED amerikkkan interventionism and they are also just apathetic enough to never care to learn what that interventionism actually entails after all is done