NATO’s Slow Genocide in Libya: Syria is Next

April 19, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary

What the world has to look forward to if NATO and the UN gets its way in Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci

April 19, 2012 – While Qatari government propaganda outlet Al Jazeera is busy whitewashing the NATO-led terrorist take-over of Libya with “documentaries” like “Gaddafi: The Endgame – State of Denial,” depicting the evisceration of one of Africa’s most developed nation-states as a pro-democracy revolution yielding a promising tomorrow – Libya in reality has been plunged into perpetual violence, destabilization, and division. And as militants battle each other while carving the once unified Libya into a myriad of fiefdoms, genocidal death squads continue a campaign of extermination nationwide.

Image: The people of Tawargha are Libyans and have been Libyan for generations, settling there from sub-Saharan Africa. They have been brutally persecuted by the NATO-armed terrorists now running Libya. In Syria, expect these to be Alawite, Christian, and secular faces.

One group of Libyans hit hardest are the people of Tawargha – who were either exterminated or exiled from their city of 10,000-30,000 during the NATO-led destruction of Libya last year. Since then, their refugee camps have been raided, and survivors who have not yet fled Libya are being systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

Now, the very network of corporate-funded and directed NGOs charged with “human rights advocacy,” who assisted the Libyan rebels in willfully lying to the world over violations of “human rights” in the lead up to NATO’s military intervention, are finally reporting the widespread atrocities being carried out by the rebels themselves. In fact, organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, both funded by convicted criminal and Wall Street speculator, George Soros, began reporting such atrocities back in 2011, but only long after NATO bombs were already falling on Libya and the process of “regime change” was already irreversible. And, at critical junctures, such as the sieges of Bani Walid and Sirte, where NATO itself was committing systematic war crimes by air in tandem with terrorist forces on the ground – organizations like HRW and Amnesty International were altogether mute.

Image: The desolate Libyan city of Sirte after NATO’s months-long siege – the tragic aftermath of a UN-sanctioned “humanitarian war.” Not a word regarding NATO’s blockade and bombardment of these cities has been mentioned by either HRW or Amnesty International in any terms resembling the rhetoric they used to justify NATO’s intervention in March of 2011.


Now though, with Syria next on the chopping block, many around the world are looking at the “progress” made in Libya to see if the UN and NATO’s proposal for military intervention is justified, warranted, or feasible. What they see is a patchwork of terrorist regimes butchering people systematically, infighting, making duplicitous, self-serving deals with foreign firms and otherwise running the nation into the ground.

Amnesty International, a full-year too late, has published a report titled, “Libya: NTC must investigate death of another Tawargha man under torture,” in regards to the latest case in the NTC’s systematic genocide of the people of Tawargha – a city now rendered a “ghost town.” HRW had published a report last week titled, “Libya: Wake-Up Call to Misrata’s Leaders,” also regarding the systematic genocide of the people of Tawargha. Ironically, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are giving all inquiring minds a look behind the curtain as to how exactly they are distorting other conflicts – including Syria today.

From the Beginning, Libyan Rebels were Known War Criminals

Long before the first NATO bombs dropped on Libya, genuine geopolitical analysts including Dr. Webster Tarpley of, noted that the Libyan “rebels” were in fact notoriously brutal racists and led by militias belonging to a listed international terrorist organization responsible for violence not only in Libya, but in Afghanistan and Iraq. On March 1, 2011 Dr. Tarpley spoke on the Alex Jones show warning that Libyan rebels were lynching black Libyans, hailed from Al Qaeda, and that the overall agenda of destabilizing and possibly intervening militarily across the Arab World was to implement “chaos, civil war, and the division of countries,” along with the installation of weak puppet-regimes.

Just days after NATO began its military operations against Libya in mid-March of 2011, Dr. Tarpley confirmed that the Libyan rebels were led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), claimed by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) to have been involved in fighting Western troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq before returning to Libya to then be armed, trained, and led by Western forces in the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi.

During the initial phases of NATO’s intervention, HRW and Amnesty International were complicit in covering these facts up and instead focused on lending legitimacy to the now confirmed lies of the NTC regarding human rights abuses perpetrated against them by the Libyan government. It wasn’t until July of 2011 that HRW would admit that Libyan rebels were carrying out systematic abuses of their own, and even then they were whitewashed and excused. And while Human Rights Watch now admits that what the Libyan NTC is doing to the Tawargha people amounts to “crimes against humanity,” they could have just as easily drawn such conclusions backed with ample evidence before NATO intervened militarily and rendered moot the entire “humanitarian” “responsibility to protect” doctrine the entire war was disingenuously based on.

In retrospect, we are meant to believe these organizations simply made a mistake and could not have possibly known the rebels would turn out to be worse human rights violators than those they sought to replace.

HRW & Amnesty Repeating “Mistakes” in Syria, No Mistake

That HRW and Amnesty International appear to be making the exact same mistakes in Syria, even as they finally admit the crimes of the “pro-democracy” rebels in Libya a year later and tens of thousands of lives too late, is certainly no mistake. This is exactly the purpose both organizations are meant to serve along with a myriad of other faux-NGOs – to lend legitimacy to both the Syrian terrorists and the governments of the West arming and directing them as they carry out what is essentially a campaign of foreign military conquest.

The first admissions of Syrian rebels committing atrocities have likewise come a full-year after unrest was triggered in 2011. Human Rights Watch admitted in their report, “Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses,” that Syrian rebels are kidnapping, torturing, and executing people, many of whom have been confirmed to be civilians. Again, geopolitical analysts have stated since the unrest began in 2011 that Syria’s opposition likewise represented not genuine “pro-democratic” forces, but rather proxies for foreign interests, many linked to extremist groups including Al Qaeda, and with Libya’s LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj literally pledging cash, weapons, and men to the Syrian rebels’ and NATO’s cause.

Indeed, Syria is destined not for a stable democratic-tomorrow, but rather the same division, destruction, chaos, and genocide now rampant across Libya, where self-serving traitors simultaneously sell their nation out from under its people while eliminating their competition through violence and terrorism. As NATO and the UN attempt to court Syria’s ruling business and government cliques, it would be wise for Syrians to look at Libya as an example of just how much worse it can get and the necessity to remain unified against what has been planned from the very beginning to be the end of Syria.

That the West’s war machine extends not only around the world in the form of vast military assets, but with an immense media infrastructure to propagate their agenda, and a gargantuan network of NGOs funded and directed to subvert every form of national institution should be a big enough clue for stake-holders within besieged nation-states that the West has neither the need nor the desire to “share” once they prevail.

Stand United, or Fall Divided: Basic Game Theory

Strategists in the West approach each targeted nation, including Libya and now Syria, employing a form of game theory assuming that those they interact with, friend and foe alike, “play” using the dominant strategy – meaning, each “player” picks the best strategy resulting in the maximum benefit for themselves only, regardless of how other “players” play. This means that the West approaches two opposition factions in any given nation, makes their intentions of moving in known, and offers each the chance to defect. Defectors are given calculated benefits and losses, while their opposition will be eliminated entirely. While in reality, both factions stand the most to gain if they thwart the vastly superior West from plundering their nation, neither considers this an option because of a combination of intellectual flaws, thus both will lose more, even under the most favorable outcomes.

The West specifically targets and favors those faction with the most flaws in character, intellect, motivation etc., as in any conflict, those ruled by emotions and irrational methodology are infinitely easier to manipulate.

In Libya, had the rebels of Cyrenaica worked with Qaddafi to expel foreign encroachment and worked to divide an intact and unified Libya’s wealth amongst themselves, they would have both vastly benefited more than even the sole victors are now. Instead, the West was able to prey on the arrogance, ideology, animosity, ignorance, and prejudices of both factions, wearing both down, dividing the remaining victor, and will, in time, eventually even eliminate them altogether. The same can be seen playing out in the perpetually divided Iraq and the same will certainly happen in Syria.

The age old axiom of standing united, or falling divided, is just as relevant today as ever. Understanding the true fault-lines running through humanity, between the global corporate-financier oligarchy and everyone else, and disallowing artificial fault-lines to be imposed upon us allows us to stand united against our true enemies and prevail. The moment we begin fighting amongst ourselves, regardless of who prevails, we all ultimately lose.

NYT Insults Intelligence in Latest Syrian Op-Ed

April 10, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary

Dear New York Times, It Takes Two to Tango.
an editorial by Tony Cartalucci

April 10, 2012 – In New York Times’ (NYT) latest, anonymous editorial, they berate the Syrian government for not making good on Kofi Annan’s alleged “peace deal,” openly admitted by US policy think-tanks as a rouse to buy time for a floundering NATO proxy force and to be used as leverage to justify a partial invasion by NATO-member Turkey into northern Syria.

More specifically, the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution think-tank, in their latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” stated (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” –page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

And now that is exactly what the UN, NATO, and its massive network of propagandists are attempting to sell the public – including the New York Times’ anonymous editorial board.

While the NYT unprofessionally throws around adjectives like “despicable” “brutal” and describes the events unfolding in Syria as “slaughter,” even by the Syrian opposition’s own admissions and throughout reports by “top rights groups” like Human Rights Watch (HRW), they are fighting just as “despicably,” “brutally,” and committing “slaughter” just as readily. That is because it takes two belligerents to conduct an armed uprising – a fact of reality the NYT attempts to sidestep in their desperate appeal to what they must assume is an infinitely ignorant readership.


Photo: The “Free Syrian Army,” whose composition consists of not only Syrian extremists, but Libyan terrorists from the US State Department listed “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” led by Abdul Hakim Belhaj, are far from the “hapless, helpless” victims the New York Times portrays them as – nor is the current conflict in Syria as one-sides as the Times portrays.


The HRW report titled, “Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses,” is broken into three parts in regards to the rebels forces; kidnapping, torture, and executions. And while the report attempts to focus mainly on atrocities carried out against security forces and government supporters, the mention of civilian victims is made as well. The report states:

“Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians.”

Under the title “Kidnappings,” it is stated:

“Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians.”

“Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about FSA [Free Syrian Army] kidnappings of Iranian nationals, some of whom the group has confirmed are civilians.”

Under “Executions,” HRW’s report describes the Syrian opposition’s practice of rounding up suspects and killing them without trial, generally on the grounds of confessions coerced through torture. Other executions are simply carried out as reprisals with no apparent offense beyond suspected affiliations being cited.

What responsible government would allow overtly armed factions to carry out such crimes within its borders? What responsible journalist would omit these documented crimes during a discussion over how to end the bloodshed in Syria? Clearly both sides are armed, both sides are fighting one another, both sides are alleging the other is committing atrocities while declaring their own hands clean.

What the NYT also conveniently fails to mention is that the rebels they are so adamant in defending, have outright rejected Kofi Annan’s “peace deal,” in effect rendering the entire deal null and void, declaring their intentions to continue fighting the Syrian government with the constant torrent of cash and weapons pledged to them during the last “Friends of Syria” summit – a summit that disingenuously supported the “peace deal” while openly making provisions to continue the bloodshed. How could President Bashar al-Assad withdraw troops then, even if he wanted to?

Finally, the NYT shamelessly cites hearsay over an alleged “cross border” incident admittedly unconfirmed and involving conflicting reports in an attempt to further demonize the Syrian government and provide the impetus for Turkey, a NATO member since the 1950’s, to establish Wall Street and London’s prescribed “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” from which to continue their attempts to topple the Syrian government. As a matter of fact, Today’s Zaman literally announced verbatim that Turkey’s next step would be indeed to implement this very strategy, conjured up not from within the halls of the Turkish government in Ankara, but within the pages of a Fortune 500-funded Washington “think-tank.”

An informed citizen would recognize NYT’s editorial as just another mouthpiece of a singular Western agenda of premeditated violence with predetermined prescribed courses of action prepared to topple the government of Syria – a plan decades in the making. It is not that conditions on the ground have coincidentally converged to justify these plans – it is that professional liars like the NYT, the TV networks and the governments of NATO are creating and/or lying about the conditions on the ground when they otherwise would not exist to justify these plans.

Recognize that we are once again being lied to by the New York Times, just as we were by “Curveball” and Donald Rumsfeld regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the admittedly false “humanitarian” claims made by the Libyan opposition, or most recently by the US government-funded Kony 2012 propaganda campaign. How many more times must we be lied to by the exact same shrill voices before we, as a rule, doubt, question, and challenge everything they say?