Uh huh. Cf human rights watch, which might explain why their incarceration rates
appear so low:



"Since the Libyan uprising began on 17 February [we have] documented cases in
which government forces opened fire on peaceful protesters and the arbitrary
arrest and enforced disappearance of scores of people.



"Gaddafi's deplorable human rights record over 41 years in power enhances the
deep anxiety for the safety of the civilian population. Since he assumed power
in 1969, Gaddafi has repeatedly used arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced
disappearances, and political killings to maintain control.



"The most notorious incident occurred in 1996 after a failed prisoners' revolt
at Tripoli's Abu Salim prison. Security forces later killed an estimated 1,200
prisoners. The government recently started a process to compensate the families
of some of those killed, but it has failed to punish any of the responsible
security forces."



Check out Amnesty International too:



http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/libya/report-2010



Or, did anyone catch From Our Own Correspondent, with someone talking to several
of the legion of people who had family members 'disappeared?'



Perhaps Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the BBC are all CIA
stooges? This was nearly enough to make me unsubscribe from this list.



Dan



________________________________
From: Diggers350@yahoogroups.com [Diggers350@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Gosling [tony@...]
Sent: 03 March 2011 22:18
To: Massimo
Subject: [Diggers350] The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos



The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos

by David Rothscum
Global Research, March 2, 2011
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23474
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=20305

How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people
have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let
us look at the facts for a moment.

Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than
the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant
mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life
expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was
undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the
world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic
product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of
Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the
country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development
Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed
equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the
poverty line than in the Netherlands.

How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot
of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the
resources while the population starves, unlike countries like
Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt
bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost
of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil
revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his
opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the
article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he
holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake
that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in
fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should
be compared to a founding father.

The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The
current prime-minister is Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the
leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan.
Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary.
Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both
out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is
taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the
supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the
architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of
pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we
speak. "Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in"
youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5fLGNg0sk is gone. "Pro Gaddafi protests in
front of Libyan embassy London" youtube.com/watch?v=pRwv0Ac8qbc Is
gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when
it's from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it's viewers than
chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and
enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.

Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and
Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and
obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a
moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the
general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire
by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the
United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment
the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?

The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or
anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself
"Islamic Emirate of Barka", the former name of the North-Western part
of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This
is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the
group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing
four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group
and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the
eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his
fears of an Islamic Emirate of Benghazi declaring itself independent.

So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the
same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their
chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in
Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in
numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could
not rule out links to Israel.

Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to
assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the
National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is
being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This
group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the
National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this
organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya
into chaos on February 17 of this year.

It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been
opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front
for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to
unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the
Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this
failed uprising.

Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat
to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent
against the United States. This concept is called the United States
of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are
contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government
for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the
assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He
says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged
Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the
last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries
that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been
eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.

The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong
Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing
Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the
United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through
lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya
than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in
Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has
historically been divided into various tribal groups.

This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing
mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the
government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government
has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The
alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic
groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more
homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take
little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th
century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans.
The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that
the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play
a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.

Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war
unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia
and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters
suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments.
The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts,
conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the
country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi's system of
government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.

Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for
medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification
and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and
Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead
to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control
over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of
Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many
of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how
many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months,
as the world cheers.

Global Research Articles by David Rothscum
+44 (0)7786 952037
http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
<http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which
alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

 Add to the  Ł80,000 which students are expected to pay back for their  Ł39, 000  loan a further Ł351,000 which the mortgage  repayments cost on an average  house priced at Ł150,000  and the figures ‘don’t add up’, or rather they don’t make sense.

My idea of government is one that protects individuals from such corporate predation, not of a government that facilitates it. .

J A, Dorchester.

Our founder turned one trick climate pony - George scribbles like a Zombie for
the war and money control Western power elite in the Guardian today. These
fascists require positive press from fake environ-mentalists to put their evil
plans back on track since the developing Fukushima disaster.
No mention does Monbiot make of the need for crippling public subsidy -
motivation of entire industry being for plutonium for weapons - deadly legacy
for hundreds of thousands of years - nor of last week's accident at Oldbury nuke
station in Gloucestershire.

Neither will you find in the Guardian today anything that Jeremy Corbyn, John
MacDonald or dennis Skinner said in yesterday's commons 'debate' on Libya.

Oldbury reactor failure leads to 'mildly' radioactive steam release
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Concern-plumes-steam-Oldbury-nuclear\
-station/article-3348796-detail/article.html
Reactor 2 was automatically and safely shut down following an electrical problem
on conventional plant in the site's turbine hall.
"Post trip cooling on Reactor 2 has commenced successfully. Investigations into
the cause of this event are ongoing."



Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful
alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix up in my brain

Want some real news and not this City of London financed hypnotic pseudo-left
tripe?
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/
http://www.whatreallyhapened.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca

Tony

--- In Diggers350@yahoogroups.com, Tony Gosling <tony@...> wrote:
>
> A cloud of nuclear mistrust spreads around the world
> March 16, 2011
>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/a-cloud-of-nuclear-mistrust-spreads\
-around-the-world-2242988.html
>
http://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/a-cloud-of-nuclear-mistrust-spre\
ads-around-the-world/
>
> After decades of lies, nuclear reassurances now fall on deaf ears
>
> Special report by Michael McCarthy
>
> It is unprecedented: four atomic reactors in dire
> trouble at once, three threatening meltdown from
> overheating, and a fourth hit by a fire in its
> storage pond for radioactive spent fuel.
>
> All day yesterday, dire reports continued to
> circulate about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
> plant, faced with disaster after Japan's tsunami
> knocked out its cooling systems. Some turned out
> to be false: for example, a rumour, disseminated
> by text message, that radiation from the plant
> had been spreading across Asia. Others were true:
> that radiation at about 20 times normal levels
> had been detected in Tokyo; that Chinese airlines
> had cancelled flights to the Japanese capital;
> that Austria had moved it embassy from Tokyo to
> Osaka; that a 24-hour general store in Tokyo's
> Roppongi district had sold out of radios, torches, candles and sleeping bags.
>
> But perhaps the most alarming thing was that
> although Naoto Kan, Japan's Prime Minister, once
> again appealed for calm, there are many – in
> Japan and beyond – who are no longer prepared to be reassured.
>
> The scale of the alarm is the remarkable thing:
> how it has gone round the world (Angela Merkel
> has imposed a moratorium on nuclear energy; in
> France, there are calls for a referendum); how
> it's even displaced the terrible story of Japan's
> tsunami itself from the front-page headlines. But
> then, public alarm about nuclear safety, as the
> Fukushima emergency proves, is very easy to raise
> – and, as the Japanese authorities are now discovering, very hard to calm.
>
> The reason is an industry which from its
> inception, more than half a century ago, has
> taken secrecy to be its watchword; and once that
> happens, cover-ups and downright lies often
> follow close behind. The sense of crisis
> surrounding Japan's stricken nuclear reactors is
> exacerbated a hundredfold by the fact that, in an
> emergency, public trust in the promoters of
> atomic power is virtually non-existent. On too
> many occasions in Britain, in America, in Russia,
> in Japan – pick your country – people have not
> been told the truth (and have frequently been
> told nothing at all) about nuclear misadventures.
>
> To understand the mania for secrecy, we have to
> go back to nuclear power's origins. This was not
> a technology dreamt up as a replacement for
> coal-fired power stations; this is a military
> technology, conceived in a life-or-death
> struggle, which has been modified for civilian
> purposes. At its heart is the nuclear chain
> reaction, the self-sustaining atom-splitting
> process ("fission") which occurs when enough
> highly radioactive material is brought together,
> and which produces other radioactive elements
> ("fission products"), and a release of energy.
>
> When it was first achieved by the physicists
> Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard, in an atomic "pile"
> built in a squash court of the University of
> Chicago in December 1942, it merely produced
> heat; but all those involved understood that if
> it could be speeded up, it would produce the
> biggest explosive power ever known. And so was
> born the Manhattan Project, the US undertaking to
> build the atom bomb which was, while it lasted, history's biggest secret.
>
> Secrecy came with nuclear energy, like a
> birthmark, and, indeed, for 10 years after the
> first A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in August
> 1945, it remained a covert military technology,
> although first the Russians, and then the
> British, followed the Americans in developing it.
> Britain built a pair of atomic reactors at
> Windscale on the Cumbrian coast, which produced
> (as a fission product) plutonium, the material
> used in the first British nuclear weapon. That
> was exploded off the coast of Australia in 1952.
> And it was in one of these reactors that the
> world's first really serious nuclear accident
> occurred: the Windscale fire of October 1957. The
> reactor's core, made of graphite, caught light,
> melted and burned substantial amounts of the
> uranium fuel, and released large amounts of
> radioactivity. It was the most serious nuclear
> calamity until Chernobyl nearly 30 years later,
> but the British government did all it could to
> minimise its significance, trying at first to
> keep it a complete secret (the local fire brigade
> was not notified for 24 hours) and keeping the
> official report confidential until 1988.
>
> It was to be the first of many such nuclear
> alarms and cover-ups at Windscale. In 1976, for
> example, the secrecy surrounding a major leak of
> radioactive water infuriated the then Technology
> Minister, Tony Benn, who supported nuclear power,
> when he learnt of it. But similar cover-ups were
> happening all around the world.
>
> At the US atomic weapons plant at Rocky Flats,
> Colorado, there were numerous mishaps involving
> radioactive material which were kept secret over
> four decades, from the 1950s to the 1980s. In
> Russia, the province of Chelyabinsk, just east of
> the Urals, housed a major atomic weapons complex,
> which was the site of three major nuclear
> disasters: radioactive waste dumping and the
> explosion of a waste containment unit in the
> 1950s, and a vast escape of radioactive dust in
> 1967. It is estimated that about half a million
> people in the region were irradiated in one or
> more of the incidents, exposing them to as much
> as 20 times the radiation suffered by the
> Chernobyl victims. None of which, of course, was
> disclosed at the time. Chelyabinsk is sometimes
> referred to now as "the most polluted place on the planet".
>
> When we turn to Japan, we find an identical
> culture of nuclear cover-up and lies. Of
> particular concern has been the Tokyo Electric
> Power Company (Tepco), Asia's biggest utility,
> which just happens to be the owner and operator
> of the stricken reactors at Fukushima.
>
> Tepco has a truly rotten record in telling the
> truth. In 2002, its chairman and a group of
> senior executives had to resign after the
> Japanese government disclosed they had covered up
> a large series of cracks and other damage to
> reactors, and in 2006 the company admitted it had
> been falsifying data about coolant materials in its plants over a long period.
>
> Last night it was reported that the International
> Atomic Energy Agency warned Japan more than two
> years ago that strong earthquakes would pose
> "serious problems", according to a Wikileaks US
> embassy cable published by The Daily Telegraph.
>
> Even Chernobyl, the world's most publicised
> nuclear accident, was at first hidden from the
> world by what was then the Soviet Union, and
> might have remained hidden had its plume of
> escaping radioactivity not been detected by scientists in Sweden.
>
> So why do they do it? Why does the instinct to
> hide everything persist, even now, when the major
> role of nuclear energy has decisively shifted
> from the military to the civil sector? Perhaps it
> is because there is an instinctive and indeed
> understandable fear among the public about
> nuclear energy itself, about this technology
> which, once its splits its atoms, releases deadly forces.
>
> The nuclear industry is terrified of losing
> public support, for the simple reason that it has
> always needed public money to fund it. It is not,
> even now, a sector which can stand on its own two
> feet economically. So when it finds it has a
> problem, its first reaction is to hide it, and
> its second reaction is to tell lies about it. But
> the truth comes out in the end, and then the
> public trusts the industry even less than it
> might have done, had it admitted the problem.
>
> It doesn't have to be like this. A quarter of a
> century ago, Britain's nuclear industry acquired
> a leader who for a few years transformed its
> public image: Christopher Harding. He was an open
> and honest man who thought that the paranoia and
> secrecy surrounding nuclear power should be swept away.
>
> When he became chairman of British Nuclear Fuels,
> which ran the Windscale plant, he decided on a
> new order of things. He renamed it Sellafield,
> and, to general astonishment, decreed that
> instead of sullenly turning its back to the
> public, it should welcome them with open arms. He
> did the unthinkable: he opened a visitor centre!
>
> Harding died young in 1999, but he was, in his
> lifetime an exceptional man: not only for his
> charm and his personal kindness – he was revered
> by Sellafield employees – but for his vision of a
> nuclear industry which would be better off
> dealing with its problems through transparency
> and honesty, rather than through obfuscation and
> deceit. But he was, unfortunately, the exception who proved the rule.
>
> The rest of the nuclear industry has been
> dissembling for so long, and caught out in its
> lies so often, that the chance for trust may have
> passed. Even if, as I suspect, the Japanese
> government is trying to be reasonably up front
> about the problems at Fukushima, it is by no
> means certain that anything it says about the
> nuclear part of their nation's catastrophe will be believed.
> +44 (0)7786 952037
> http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
> http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
> http://www.911forum.org.uk/
> "Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
> _________________
> www.abolishwar.org.uk
> <http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
> www.public-interest.co.uk
> www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
>
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf
>
> "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
> poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
>
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
>

There is another side to this story which may be of interest to anyone reading
speculatively:

Gaddafi is a secret darling of the West
http://www.cabaltimes.com/2011/03/20/gaddafi-is-a-secret-darling-of-the-west/


With the war unfolding in Libya, it came as no surprise that the West gravitated
towards supporting the Libyan rebels. But discerning readers will note that
Gaddafi has in the past, enjoyed the secret gratitude of the Powers That May Be,
who are based in the West.

In Gaddafi's Libya, following the Islamic religion even passively is grounds for
arrest. While Gaddafi can superficially be an Islamist, his attitude towards the
religion reeks of extreme hostility, which is usually witnessed in members of
the Western elite. Not surprisingly, he tried to fashion his country on the
principles of communism and started a cultural revolution to purge Libya of its
native values. This is all too similar with "leaders" that popped up in the
Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and Cuba.

Then there is Gaddafi's career. At one point, he pursued "further studies" in
Europe, specifically in Britain. It may be never known who his Western
counterparts were in this phase of his life.

Similarly, there are unanswered questions about the coup that brought him to
power, and abolished the Senussi dynasty. The United States discouraged British
Intelligence from intervening against Gaddafi, because they claimed he was
sufficiently anti-Marxist.

It appears that Gaddafi was meant to fashion Libya as a reactionary Muslim
power, superficially Islamicized, and ready to participate in the prescribed
"Clash of Civilizations" agenda when the time came. For example, elitist authors
Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre portrayed Gaddafi as trying to detonate a
nuclear bomb in Manhattan, in their 1980 novel, the Fifth Horseman. It appears
that since then, Iran has assumed the role of the Fifth Horseman, and Gaddafi
has become more or less redundant. Interestingly, Libya secretly supplied
Khomeini with soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war.

For those in the know, the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 was an inside job. Juval
Aviv, a private investigator hired by Pan Am, came to similar conclusions, in
fact this is what protected Pan Am from liability. While there is no space for a
full discussion of what might have happened, some of the passengers that died
should provide sufficient clues. There is blatant evidence of cover-up, in
particular, the scandal involving an iron fisted Wikipedia moderator. In her
earlier life, this moderator is said to have derailed the Lockerbie
investigation of ABC reporter Pierre Salinger, presumably in behalf of British
Intelligence. She infiltrated Salinger's investigation, claiming to have lost a
near one in Lockerbie. She did lose a boyfriend in the disaster. But her hook-up
with this passenger could also indicate prior knowledge, for the purpose of
later infiltrating the families of the victims, who are still seeking answers.
American professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer, investigating the Lockerbie case on
his own, found this moderator using her moderator privileges to make sure the
Lockerbie article on Wikipedia implicated Libya, not Western Intelligence
Services. She had a particular obsession with discrediting the Salinger
investigation.



In the popular context, Western Intelligence agencies don't do such horrible
things and it is impossible to picture Western Intelligence Agencies being
dragged to court for their misdeeds. Therefore, there was an urgency to find a
non-Western scapegoat. What is puzzling is that Gaddafi not only stood up to the
offer, but allowed all suspicion to be outsourced to his country. Unlike the
Taliban, who were eliminated without the chance of their involvement in 9-11
being proven, Gaddafi only had to suffer a few theatrical missile attacks. In
October 2008, Gaddafi would pay $1.5 billion in compensation to the victims of
Lockerbie and other bombings. These payments were necessary to buy the silence
of the families of the victims, as their insistence for justice would only
unravel the involvement of Western Intelligence. Here we have Gaddafi covering
up for Western Intelligence Agencies.

In 1998, foreign medical workers were caught infecting over 400 Libyan children
with HIV at a Benghazi hospital. A real dictator victimized by the West would
spare no effort in arranging public executions of all those involved. Instead,
Gaddafi tried his best to whittle down the issue. The Libyan magazine that
brought the issue to light was shut down. Eventually, all of the foreign medical
workers were released. They left Libya on a French plane, accompanied by the
former wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The so-called foreign aid workers who infected over 400 Libyan children with
HIV.

There is also other evidence of the Libyan government enjoying secret
preferential treatment in the West.

1. The Gaddafi family freely maintains assets in Western countries.

2. Members of the Gaddafi family freely travel to Western countries. For
example, Gaddafi's son gave a lecture at the London School of Economics. He was
given a Ph.D degree by them.

3. Libyan Intelligence freely operates in Western countries, and monitors Libyan
expats. They have been involved in dozens of assassinations.

4. Western firms freely do business with Libya, even when it was under
sanctions.

In my previous article on the crisis in Egypt and Tunisia, I suggested that
these revolutions were staged by Western Intelligence. But why would Western
Intelligence target Libya, which was already under their indirect control? There
are two possible theories:

1. Gaddafi had become redundant as a "Fifth Horseman." The time was ripe to
replace him with operatives straight out of Western think tanks (El Baradeis').
Based on an analysis of the rhetoric, it appears that Britain was most actively
pursuing the anti-Gaddafi line. They even sent an Intelligence team to make
contact with the rebels on March 6th 2011.  If the British were indeed involved
in the festering of the crisis, they may have miscalculated. Unlike the people
of Egypt who have been conquered and colonised by every regional power, the
Libyan people know how to fight on their own. They have little use for
controlled "social media" uprisings as those in Egypt. For example, Gaddafi has
faced sizable resistance including assassination attempts, unlike other Arab
dictators. As recent as 1990, Libyan veterans of the Afghan jihad against the
Soviets launched a civil war against Gaddafi. This was promptly covered up by
the International media. Following 9-11, this group was banned as being linked
to Al-Qaeda in Western countries, much to the relief of Gaddafi. Going back
earlier to World War I, The Italians were forced to retreat out of Libya under
heavy counterattack. A viewing of the film Lion of the Desert is a must see for
those interested.

2. The revolution in Libya was an unintended spillout of the fake revolutions in
Egypt and Tunisia, which quickly grew out of control, becoming a genuine
uprising. For example, there are rumours that the same British Intelligence unit
mentioned above was involved in setting fire to an ammunition dump the rebels
had captured. The Powers That Be did their best to delay the creation of the
no-fly zone, using the Japanese tsunami crisis as an opportunity to conduct a
media blackout of the uprising. But Gaddafi failed to take back control during
that window of opportunity. Further delaying the no-fly zone would only expose
Western hypocrisy to the entire world. It is interesting to note the number of
American military pundits who showed up on talk shows to demonstrate that a
no-fly zone was unfeasible. In addition, Gaddafi's "suicidal" stance speaks more
of his assurance  on his secret connections to the West. It does not betray the
attitude of a cornered and abandoned leader.

Of these two explanations, I am currently in favour of the second one. It
remains to be seen how things will play out. It is likely that the West will try
to leave Gaddafi intact. If Gaddafi has to be removed, he will be, complete with
a fake execution and a secret transit to Europe.

--- In Diggers350@yahoogroups.com, Dan Olner <d.olner07@...> wrote:
>
> Uh huh. Cf human rights watch, which might explain why their incarceration
rates appear so low:
>
>
>
> "Since the Libyan uprising began on 17 February [we have] documented cases in
which government forces opened fire on peaceful protesters and the arbitrary
arrest and enforced disappearance of scores of people.
>
>
>
> "Gaddafi's deplorable human rights record over 41 years in power enhances the
deep anxiety for the safety of the civilian population. Since he assumed power
in 1969, Gaddafi has repeatedly used arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced
disappearances, and political killings to maintain control.
>
>
>
> "The most notorious incident occurred in 1996 after a failed prisoners' revolt
at Tripoli's Abu Salim prison. Security forces later killed an estimated 1,200
prisoners. The government recently started a process to compensate the families
of some of those killed, but it has failed to punish any of the responsible
security forces."
>
>
>
> Check out Amnesty International too:
>
>
>
> http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/libya/report-2010
>
>
>
> Or, did anyone catch From Our Own Correspondent, with someone talking to
several of the legion of people who had family members 'disappeared?'
>
>
>
> Perhaps Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the BBC are all CIA
stooges? This was nearly enough to make me unsubscribe from this list.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Diggers350@yahoogroups.com [Diggers350@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Tony Gosling [tony@...]
> Sent: 03 March 2011 22:18
> To: Massimo
> Subject: [Diggers350] The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos
>
>
>
> The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos
>
> by David Rothscum
> Global Research, March 2, 2011
> http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23474
> http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=20305
>
> How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people
> have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let
> us look at the facts for a moment.
>
> Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than
> the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant
> mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life
> expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was
> undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the
> world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.
>
> People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic
> product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of
> Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the
> country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development
> Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed
> equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the
> poverty line than in the Netherlands.
>
> How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot
> of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the
> resources while the population starves, unlike countries like
> Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.
>
> Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt
> bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost
> of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil
> revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his
> opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the
> article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he
> holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake
> that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in
> fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should
> be compared to a founding father.
>
> The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The
> current prime-minister is Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the
> leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan.
> Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary.
> Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both
> out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is
> taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the
> supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the
> architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of
> pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.
>
> Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we
> speak. "Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in"
> youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5fLGNg0sk is gone. "Pro Gaddafi protests in
> front of Libyan embassy London" youtube.com/watch?v=pRwv0Ac8qbc Is
> gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when
> it's from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it's viewers than
> chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and
> enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.
>
> Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and
> Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and
> obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a
> moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the
> general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire
> by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the
> United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment
> the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?
>
> The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or
> anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself
> "Islamic Emirate of Barka", the former name of the North-Western part
> of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This
> is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the
> group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing
> four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group
> and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the
> eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his
> fears of an Islamic Emirate of Benghazi declaring itself independent.
>
> So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the
> same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their
> chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in
> Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in
> numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could
> not rule out links to Israel.
>
> Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to
> assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the
> National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is
> being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This
> group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the
> National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this
> organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya
> into chaos on February 17 of this year.
>
> It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been
> opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front
> for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to
> unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the
> Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this
> failed uprising.
>
> Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat
> to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent
> against the United States. This concept is called the United States
> of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are
> contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government
> for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the
> assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He
> says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged
> Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the
> last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries
> that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been
> eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.
>
> The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong
> Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing
> Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the
> United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through
> lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya
> than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in
> Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has
> historically been divided into various tribal groups.
>
> This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing
> mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the
> government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government
> has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The
> alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic
> groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more
> homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take
> little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th
> century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans.
> The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that
> the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play
> a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.
>
> Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war
> unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia
> and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters
> suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments.
> The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts,
> conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the
> country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi's system of
> government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.
>
> Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for
> medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification
> and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and
> Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead
> to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control
> over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of
> Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many
> of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how
> many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months,
> as the world cheers.
>
> Global Research Articles by David Rothscum
> +44 (0)7786 952037
> http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
> http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
> http://www.911forum.org.uk/
> "Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
> _________________
> www.abolishwar.org.uk
> <http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
> www.public-interest.co.uk
> www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
>
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf
>
> "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which
> alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
>
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
>

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2011/03/16/police-exert-control-on-26-march-protest/

The role of stewards will be much more than just guiding the march on its
agreed route. Senior stewards will share intelligence with the police via
their radio communications,
and have agreed strategies on how to bring the police in if 'trouble-makers'
infiltrate the march. The TUC is also working closely with the police to
deliver 'key messages' to those
participating in the demonstration.

TUC route stewards are being trained to be a 'first response' in a similar
way to stewards at football matches. They will alert senior stewards, and
thereby the police, to any incidents, including the approach of
'troublemakers'. They have been instructed to deal with minor incidents - a
group of people doing a sit-down protest en route, for example -
on their own in the first instance. If or when the stewards don't get a
positive response, or if things escalate, the police will move in. It
appears to be very much a 'zero tolerance'
approach.



~
~  [g]  ~  [george]  ~  george@...   ~
~       07970 378 572    ~ ~       ~
~                    www.dicegeorge.com   (c)2011.  ~
~

Budget 2011: new planning rules ease path for developers
Chancellor calls current system 'chronic
obstacle' to economic growth, but move could
clash with promise of greater involvement from local people
Polly Curtis Whitehall correspondent - guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 March 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/23/budget-2011-planning-regulations-eased-\
local-communities

Moves to streamline planning regulations could
see sustainable projects given an automatic
go-ahead and councils encouraged to auction land
with pre-approved permission for development.
The reforms are central to government strategy
after businesses and construction companies
lobbied hard, claiming growth is being hampered
by local nimbys objecting to new developments.
George Osborne told the Commons planning was a
"chronic obstacle" to economic growth.
The moves put two of the government's most
crucial domestic policies – giving more power to
local people and making Britain more
business-friendly – on a collision course.
Experts warned it would be nearly impossible to
reconcile planning liberalisation with local
communities having a greater say over developments in their neighbourhood.
Countryside campaigners also claimed that,
despite government assurances that green belts
would be protected, some environmentally
sensitive areas could become vulnerable. The reforms will:

• Pilot new land auction models. These will
initially see councils auction off public sector
land pre-approved with planning permission to
encourage more areas to be developed. This could
eventually lead to councils giving planning
permission to private land owners prior to sale and sharing in the profits.
• Create a new presumption that sustainable
projects will be approved. Green belt and areas
of outstanding natural beauty will be protected.
• Scrap a requirement that developers obtain
permission to convert empty office blocks,
warehouses and business parks into housing,
allowing the rapid development of new homes.
• Push councils to drop deals they have made with
developers to provide new schools or roads as
part of their being granted planning permission
if the developments are stalling.
• Simplify the planning process with a 12-month
cap on the time it takes – including appeals.

Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, said:
"We are unblocking the complex, costly planning
system, regenerating redundant sites and putting
the brakes on the years of Whitehall
micro-management that has tied business up in red
tape, slowing and stifling growth."
It would end the current system which is "plagued
by conflict and appeals", he added. The
communities department said that people would be
more likely to approve planning developments
because they will have a greater say through new
neighbourhood plans which will be passed by
referendum and councils will have to stick to.
John Brooks, director of planning at DTZ, one of
Britain's biggest property firms which advises a
third of local authorities, said the proposals
could help to encourage more developments. But he
added: "The success of these changes will
ultimately rely on local people accepting
development in their back yards, and the
government could become the architect of its own
demise if its drive to empower local communities
pulls the rug from under its pro-growth agenda."
Gary Porter, chairman of the Local Government
Association's environment and housing board,
said: "Local authorities would like to see an
improved planning system which favours local
decisions over central control.
Democratically-elected councillors need to be
able to make decisions that reflect the
aspirations and needs of the people and businesses in their areas."
Neil Sinden, director of policy at the Campaign
to Protect Rural England, said: "The planning
measures present a potentially devastating threat
to the countryside and are unlikely to boost long-term economic growth."
The Confederation of British Industry said the
moves will provide "relief to companies trying to take on staff and invest".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/23/budget-2011-planning-regulations-eased-\
local-communities
+44 (0)7786 952037
http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
<http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

More eco-towns in green planning reforms
10 March 2010 | By Isabel Hardman
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/more-eco-towns-in-green-planning-reforms/6508882.\
article
Housing minister John Healey revealed two more
local authorities have joined the list of ‘second wave’ eco-towns.
Sites planned by East Devon District Council and
Fareham Borough Council will join fourteen other
developments from nine local authorities which
could become eco-town settlements. The sites will
have to meet standards set by the eco-towns
planning policy statement for low-carbon communities of at least 5,000 homes.
The eleven second-wave councils will receive a
share of a Ł10 million fund to help plan the new sites.
Mr Healey also launched a ‘green planning
rulebook’ for councils and pledged Ł9.75 million to develop green skills.
He announced a consultation on changes to three
planning policy statements which will ensure
councils encourage low carbon and renewable energy on new developments.
The three statements – Climate Change, Natural
Environment, and Coastal Change – will encourage
sustainable developments which aim to reduce
carbon emissions. The additional funding will
help local councils train members and planners in
sustainable planning practices.
Mr Healey said: ‘We know we need greener,
renewable energy if we are to meet our ambitious
low carbon targets. We also know that the ways
and means for people to access this energy need to be quicker and easier.
‘The tougher, better guidelines for planning give
councils a new blueprint, reflecting the latest
targets and ensuring councils put combating
climate change at the heart of future development
– ultimately saving people money on their bills and reducing emissions.’
Planners and builders welcomed the consultation
proposals. Dr Hugh Ellis, chief planner at the
Town and Country Planning Association, said:
‘This is an historic moment. Planning can, and
must, address the critical need to reshape our
society and economy into a positive low carbon future.
‘This policy is one of the most dramatic and
significant steps forward in the development of spatial planning.’
Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green
Building Council, said: ‘Today’s announcement
recognises the critical role that planning plays
in tackling climate change and adapting to its
impacts. Planning really is at the heart of creating sustainable communities.’




+44 (0)7786 952037
http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
<http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

From: maw.emails@...
Subject: Statement by the International Peace Bureau
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:34:00 +0000

 
 

Movement for the Abolition of War - Emails

 

 

MAW is a member of the International Peace Bureau (Geneva) and works closely with it. The attached statement on the Libyan crisis was made by IPB today.  It sets out a clear position which is in line with MAW's thinking.
 
For any further information call 01908 511948 or email tony.kempster@....
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Libya: International Peace Bureau condemns military strikes and urges political negotiations to protect the civilian population

21 March 2011. A new historical era opened three months ago with the popular uprisings in Tunisia and then Egypt, the first of the ‘Arab spring’ season. These rebellions brought hope to millions and youthful energy to societies suffering decades of repression, injustice, inequality, especially gender inequality, and increasing economic hardship. The Libyan revolt was inspired by these largely nonviolent victories, but, as the world has witnessed with dismay, has rapidly become militarized and is now embroiled in a full-scale civil war.

NO MORE ARMED INTERVENTIONS

The western powers’ fateful decision to push through the UN Security Council a resolution to authorize military strikes and a no-fly zone has transformed the situation into one reminiscent of the Iraq crisis of 2003. While supporting the objective of protecting the civilian population, in Benghazi and elsewhere, IPB condemns yet more armed attacks by western powers on yet another Muslim country. Have these same powers learned nothing from their disastrous failures over the last 10 years? It is clear that non-military methods have not been utterly exhausted. Were all economic sanctions imposed and enforced? Was massive electronic jamming put into operation? Were all oil and gas sales cancelled? – and will we ever be told?

WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?

Western media fascination with the minutiae of battle tends to obscure historical memory, without which any clear assessment is impossible. Have we all forgotten who sold arms to, and struck energy deals with, Col. Gaddafi in the first place? Do the phrases ‘no-fly zone’ and ‘air strikes’ not bring back painful memories of the slide into disastrous occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

There is no lack of alternative courses of action. In IPB’s view, the most urgent task, and the most effective way to carry out the UN-mandated ‘Responsibility to Protect’ the civilian population, is to engage immediately both the Gaddafi regime and the rebels in serious negotiations. These should focus, first on a genuine and multi-lateral ceasefire, and then on the foundations of a political settlement based on participatory democracy. The UN already has a special representative in place in Tripoli. Cynical or not, Gaddafi has made a ceasefire gesture – which could be used as a starting point. Western states, especially the US and the former colonial powers, should keep out. The UN Secretary-General and a panel of highly respected figures from the Muslim world should be invited to take part in whatever talks can be arranged. An offer to call off the air strikes could be used as a confidence-building measure. In the medium-term, consideration should be given to a UN-authorised peacekeeping presence, preferably not composed of western military forces, with a classical peace-keeping (not peace-enforcement) mandate. Why is it that investment in mediation, diplomacy, trust-building and similar efforts is always a tiny fraction of the money spent on armed intervention?

UNLOCKING CREATIVITY

Arab peoples have shown that they have the courage to break away from past habits and have demonstrated impressive discipline and dignity in confronting their oppressors. The western world should now respond by finding the courage to break with its own past habits, and to apply the enormous creativity of its own societies in the search for new ways of resolving conflicts. Success in Libya - or indeed elsewhere in the region - would offer tremendous inspiration to peoples locked in deadly conflict in other regions.

REVERSING COURSE

It is still not too late for those leading this latest military gamble to pull out of the quagmire that looms ahead. We urge the world to mobilise now against war and foreign intervention, and in favour of negotiated solutions.


What is done in the coming days and weeks will determine the possibilities for a long-term settlement. Foreign bombing only threatens a wider conflagration with unpredictable consequences.

WIDER ASPECTS

There are all kinds of wider considerations to be explored, and important lessons that need to be assimilated. In particular, that the five permanent members of the Security Council cannot continue to police the world as if we were still in 1945; and that it is time for a global outcry against the massive expenditure devoted to the military system ($1,500 billion per annum), and in particular the international arms trade, with its accompanying corruption and double standards.

The International Peace Bureau is clear on its own priorities. We need to disarm in order to develop. The basic needs of the population must be catered for as the absolute priority, not as a by-product of ‘national security’. We appeal to the arms-producing countries and industries to urgently start converting military research and production to civilian purposes. The world will never achieve the Millennium Development Goals if it fails to abandon the military-dominated way of thinking and action. We have learned in recent years that democracy cannot be imposed, and that regime change is only a matter for the population itself. The time is now ripe to assist the people in the Middle East/North Africa region in building societies based on the vision of a culture of peace, as hoped for by peoples everywhere. Such a programme was agreed by the UN in the preparation of the International Year for a Culture of Peace in 2000 and the following Decade on a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence that has just come to an end, and that must now be energetically renewed.



The International Peace Bureau is dedicated to the vision of a World Without War. We are a Nobel Peace Laureate (1910), and over the years 13 of our officers have been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our 320 member organisations in 70 countries, and individual members, form a global network which brings together expertise and campaigning experience in a common cause. Our main programme centres on Sustainable Disarmament for Sustainable Development. We welcome your participation.

Current project: Global Day of Action on Military Spending, April 12, 2011: http://demilitarize.org
 
 
 
 
MAW Emails
Movement for the Abolition of War (MAW)

http://www.alternet.org/story/150312/big_ag_wants_to_make_it_a_crime_to_expose_a\
nimal_abuse_at_factory_farms?akid=6719.225075.L9cQX-&rd=1&t=27

• Have you saved a business threatened with closure?
• Have you started or turned a business into a co-operative?
• If so, please read on and help if you can!

George Monbiot is getting slagged off by greens for doing the maths!
The only longterm solution is reduction of human
population to less than 1% of what it is now - will people vote for that?
Or, Tony, what's your solution to our addiction to power and population growth?

dicegeorge (member in charge of comms in 'new TLIO' core group)
~
~  [g]  ~  [george]  ~  george@...   ~
~       07970 378 572    ~ ~       ~
~                    www.dicegeorge.com   (c) 2011.  ~
~


[Worrying misuse of the word 'only' in line 2
george. Population growth happens in traumatised
unequal societies under attack by the power elite.]
[Solution: work locally, move to self-sufficient
post industrial society, renationalise railways &
utilities, redistribute land, use clean coal and way less energy generally]
[- surely a better move than exterminating 99% of
the world's population (useless eaters) which the power elite want? - Tony]


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Zardoz" <tony@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:41 AM
To: <Diggers350@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Diggers350] Monbiot's conversion, now
'loves' glowing example of Fukushima

>Our founder turned one trick climate pony -
>George scribbles like a Zombie for the war and
>money control Western power elite in the
>Guardian today. These fascists require positive
>press from fake environ-mentalists to put their
>evil plans back on track since the developing Fukushima disaster.
>No mention does Monbiot make of the need for
>crippling public subsidy - motivation of entire
>industry being for plutonium for weapons -
>deadly legacy for hundreds of thousands of years
>- nor of last week's accident at Oldbury nuke station in Gloucestershire.
>
>Neither will you find in the Guardian today
>anything that Jeremy Corbyn, John MacDonald or
>dennis Skinner said in yesterday's commons 'debate' on Libya.
>
>Oldbury reactor failure leads to 'mildly' radioactive steam release
>http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Concern-plumes-steam-Oldbury-nuclea\
r-station/article-3348796-detail/article.html
>Reactor 2 was automatically and safely shut down
>following an electrical problem on conventional
>plant in the site's turbine hall.
>"Post trip cooling on Reactor 2 has commenced
>successfully. Investigations into the cause of this event are ongoing."
>
>
>
>Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
>Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if
>there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic
>power is part of the mix up in my brain
>
>Want some real news and not this City of London
>financed hypnotic pseudo-left tripe?
>http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/
>http://www.whatreallyhapened.com
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
>http://www.antiwar.com
>http://www.globalresearch.ca
>
>Tony
>
>--- In Diggers350@yahoogroups.com, Tony Gosling <tony@...> wrote:
>>
>>A cloud of nuclear mistrust spreads around the world
>>March 16, 2011
>>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/a-cloud-of-nuclear-mistrust-sprea\
ds-around-the-world-2242988.html
>>http://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/a-cloud-of-nuclear-mistrust-sp\
reads-around-the-world/
>>
>>After decades of lies, nuclear reassurances now fall on deaf ears
>>
>>Special report by Michael McCarthy
>>
>>It is unprecedented: four atomic reactors in dire
>>trouble at once, three threatening meltdown from
>>overheating, and a fourth hit by a fire in its
>>storage pond for radioactive spent fuel.
>>
>>All day yesterday, dire reports continued to
>>circulate about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
>>plant, faced with disaster after Japan's tsunami
>>knocked out its cooling systems. Some turned out
>>to be false: for example, a rumour, disseminated
>>by text message, that radiation from the plant
>>had been spreading across Asia. Others were true:
>>that radiation at about 20 times normal levels
>>had been detected in Tokyo; that Chinese airlines
>>had cancelled flights to the Japanese capital;
>>that Austria had moved it embassy from Tokyo to
>>Osaka; that a 24-hour general store in Tokyo's
>>Roppongi district had sold out of radios, torches, candles and sleeping bags.
>>
>>But perhaps the most alarming thing was that
>>although Naoto Kan, Japan's Prime Minister, once
>>again appealed for calm, there are many - in
>>Japan and beyond - who are no longer prepared to be reassured.
>>
>>The scale of the alarm is the remarkable thing:
>>how it has gone round the world (Angela Merkel
>>has imposed a moratorium on nuclear energy; in
>>France, there are calls for a referendum); how
>>it's even displaced the terrible story of Japan's
>>tsunami itself from the front-page headlines. But
>>then, public alarm about nuclear safety, as the
>>Fukushima emergency proves, is very easy to raise
>>- and, as the Japanese authorities are now discovering, very hard to calm.
>>
>>The reason is an industry which from its
>>inception, more than half a century ago, has
>>taken secrecy to be its watchword; and once that
>>happens, cover-ups and downright lies often
>>follow close behind. The sense of crisis
>>surrounding Japan's stricken nuclear reactors is
>>exacerbated a hundredfold by the fact that, in an
>>emergency, public trust in the promoters of
>>atomic power is virtually non-existent. On too
>>many occasions in Britain, in America, in Russia,
>>in Japan - pick your country - people have not
>>been told the truth (and have frequently been
>>told nothing at all) about nuclear misadventures.
>>
>>To understand the mania for secrecy, we have to
>>go back to nuclear power's origins. This was not
>>a technology dreamt up as a replacement for
>>coal-fired power stations; this is a military
>>technology, conceived in a life-or-death
>>struggle, which has been modified for civilian
>>purposes. At its heart is the nuclear chain
>>reaction, the self-sustaining atom-splitting
>>process ("fission") which occurs when enough
>>highly radioactive material is brought together,
>>and which produces other radioactive elements
>>("fission products"), and a release of energy.
>>
>>When it was first achieved by the physicists
>>Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard, in an atomic "pile"
>>built in a squash court of the University of
>>Chicago in December 1942, it merely produced
>>heat; but all those involved understood that if
>>it could be speeded up, it would produce the
>>biggest explosive power ever known. And so was
>>born the Manhattan Project, the US undertaking to
>>build the atom bomb which was, while it lasted, history's biggest secret.
>>
>>Secrecy came with nuclear energy, like a
>>birthmark, and, indeed, for 10 years after the
>>first A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in August
>>1945, it remained a covert military technology,
>>although first the Russians, and then the
>>British, followed the Americans in developing it.
>>Britain built a pair of atomic reactors at
>>Windscale on the Cumbrian coast, which produced
>>(as a fission product) plutonium, the material
>>used in the first British nuclear weapon. That
>>was exploded off the coast of Australia in 1952.
>>And it was in one of these reactors that the
>>world's first really serious nuclear accident
>>occurred: the Windscale fire of October 1957. The
>>reactor's core, made of graphite, caught light,
>>melted and burned substantial amounts of the
>>uranium fuel, and released large amounts of
>>radioactivity. It was the most serious nuclear
>>calamity until Chernobyl nearly 30 years later,
>>but the British government did all it could to
>>minimise its significance, trying at first to
>>keep it a complete secret (the local fire brigade
>>was not notified for 24 hours) and keeping the
>>official report confidential until 1988.
>>
>>It was to be the first of many such nuclear
>>alarms and cover-ups at Windscale. In 1976, for
>>example, the secrecy surrounding a major leak of
>>radioactive water infuriated the then Technology
>>Minister, Tony Benn, who supported nuclear power,
>>when he learnt of it. But similar cover-ups were
>>happening all around the world.
>>
>>At the US atomic weapons plant at Rocky Flats,
>>Colorado, there were numerous mishaps involving
>>radioactive material which were kept secret over
>>four decades, from the 1950s to the 1980s. In
>>Russia, the province of Chelyabinsk, just east of
>>the Urals, housed a major atomic weapons complex,
>>which was the site of three major nuclear
>>disasters: radioactive waste dumping and the
>>explosion of a waste containment unit in the
>>1950s, and a vast escape of radioactive dust in
>>1967. It is estimated that about half a million
>>people in the region were irradiated in one or
>>more of the incidents, exposing them to as much
>>as 20 times the radiation suffered by the
>>Chernobyl victims. None of which, of course, was
>>disclosed at the time. Chelyabinsk is sometimes
>>referred to now as "the most polluted place on the planet".
>>
>>When we turn to Japan, we find an identical
>>culture of nuclear cover-up and lies. Of
>>particular concern has been the Tokyo Electric
>>Power Company (Tepco), Asia's biggest utility,
>>which just happens to be the owner and operator
>>of the stricken reactors at Fukushima.
>>
>>Tepco has a truly rotten record in telling the
>>truth. In 2002, its chairman and a group of
>>senior executives had to resign after the
>>Japanese government disclosed they had covered up
>>a large series of cracks and other damage to
>>reactors, and in 2006 the company admitted it had
>>been falsifying data about coolant materials in
>>its plants over a long period.
>>
>>Last night it was reported that the International
>>Atomic Energy Agency warned Japan more than two
>>years ago that strong earthquakes would pose
>>"serious problems", according to a Wikileaks US
>>embassy cable published by The Daily Telegraph.
>>
>>Even Chernobyl, the world's most publicised
>>nuclear accident, was at first hidden from the
>>world by what was then the Soviet Union, and
>>might have remained hidden had its plume of
>>escaping radioactivity not been detected by scientists in Sweden.
>>
>>So why do they do it? Why does the instinct to
>>hide everything persist, even now, when the major
>>role of nuclear energy has decisively shifted
>>from the military to the civil sector? Perhaps it
>>is because there is an instinctive and indeed
>>understandable fear among the public about
>>nuclear energy itself, about this technology
>>which, once its splits its atoms, releases deadly forces.
>>
>>The nuclear industry is terrified of losing
>>public support, for the simple reason that it has
>>always needed public money to fund it. It is not,
>>even now, a sector which can stand on its own two
>>feet economically. So when it finds it has a
>>problem, its first reaction is to hide it, and
>>its second reaction is to tell lies about it. But
>>the truth comes out in the end, and then the
>>public trusts the industry even less than it
>>might have done, had it admitted the problem.
>>
>>It doesn't have to be like this. A quarter of a
>>century ago, Britain's nuclear industry acquired
>>a leader who for a few years transformed its
>>public image: Christopher Harding. He was an open
>>and honest man who thought that the paranoia and
>>secrecy surrounding nuclear power should be swept away.
>>
>>When he became chairman of British Nuclear Fuels,
>>which ran the Windscale plant, he decided on a
>>new order of things. He renamed it Sellafield,
>>and, to general astonishment, decreed that
>>instead of sullenly turning its back to the
>>public, it should welcome them with open arms. He
>>did the unthinkable: he opened a visitor centre!
>>
>>Harding died young in 1999, but he was, in his
>>lifetime an exceptional man: not only for his
>>charm and his personal kindness - he was revered
>>by Sellafield employees - but for his vision of a
>>nuclear industry which would be better off
>>dealing with its problems through transparency
>>and honesty, rather than through obfuscation and
>>deceit. But he was, unfortunately, the exception who proved the rule.
>>
>>The rest of the nuclear industry has been
>>dissembling for so long, and caught out in its
>>lies so often, that the chance for trust may have
>>passed. Even if, as I suspect, the Japanese
>>government is trying to be reasonably up front
>>about the problems at Fukushima, it is by no
>>means certain that anything it says about the
>>nuclear part of their nation's catastrophe will be believed.
>>+44 (0)7786 952037
>>http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
>>http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
>>http://www.911forum.org.uk/
>>"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
>>_________________
>>www.abolishwar.org.uk
>><http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
>>www.public-interest.co.uk
>>www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
>><http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/med\
ia2003.pdf
>>
>>"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
>>poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
>><https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/\
members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Diggers350 - an e-mail
>discussion/information-share list for
>campaigners and members of THE LAND IS OURS
>landrights network based in the UK http://www.tlio.org.uk
>
>The list was originally concerned with the 350th
>anniversary of The Diggers (& still is concerned
>with their history). The Diggers appeared at the
>end of the English Civil war with a noble
>mission to make the earth 'a common treasury for
>all'. In the spring of 1999 there were
>celebrations to remember the Diggers vision and their contribution.
>
>TASH FROM THE HILL
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWk9rRJsk5I
>
>THE LAND MAGAZINE
>Simon Fairlie still produces The Land magazine every 6 months or so.
>Subsription is Ł18 (Ł15 unwaged) or Ł4 for a single edition
>Contributions are welcome http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/
>
>THE SCYTHE SHOP (advertisement)
>There is a revival of scything in the UK.
>Scything summer growth by hand is usually
>quicker than using a strimmer, and there is no
>noise, vibration or pollution. Mowing an acre of
>grass with a scythe is probably less hassle than
>maintaining and using a motor scythe. Once you
>have learnt how to sharpen and use an Austrian
>scythe properly, mowing a meadow by hand becomes
>a joy, rather than a struggle. http://www.thescytheshop.co.uk/
>
>SOCIAL JUSTICE FILMS AND DVDS
>Today, many of the best TV programmes are
>broadcast in the wee small hours. Some
>outstanding films don't make it onto TV at all!
>You need miss out no longer. At CultureShop.org
>you can buy historic independent media at a
>sensible price. http://www.cultureshop.org
>
>You can find out more about the Diggers and see
>illustrations at: http://www.bilderberg.org/land/
>
>Brendan Boal from the Climate Camp would like me
>to point out that Bilderberg.org is my private
>web site and as such is not officially part of The Land Is Ours.
>Neither is this web site:
>http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.htmlYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Now the Minister they call Henley VIII is caught up in EU farm subsidies row

Wealthy minister earns Ł2m in EU farm subsidies which his department tried to cover up

Millionaire Tory Zac Goldsmith's Ł60,000 in farming payouts

Fantastic little 30 minute documentary including
these great modern Russian & Ukrainian Diggers
uncovering hidden Partisan bases from World War II etc etc

Many interesting things are hidden underground.
In Odessa, Ukraine, man-made caves are scattered
across the region and are two and a half thousand
kilometers long. These so-called catacombs were
home to partisan bases during World War II. In
Vladivostok – the main Russian military naval
base in the Far East – engineers built a fortress
at the beginning of the 20th century. Also, the
largest underground Russian church is hidden in Penza.
http://rt.com/programs/documentary/ground-caves-russian-odessa/

download link
http://rt.com/files/programs/documentary/ground-caves-russian-odessa/under-the-g\
round.flv

















+44 (0)7786 952037
http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
<http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Wealthy minister earns Ł2m in EU farm subsidies which his department tried to cover up

Millionaire Tory Zac Goldsmith's Ł60,000 in farming payouts

Save yourself Ł27,000 fees and Ł50,000 repayments of your student loan by reading this 

distillation of all political science.  Hons. grads of PPE at Oxford clearly  miss this point.

The Gross Capitalization (GC) of just one bank, Barclays , is equal to the  total Gross Domestic Product of UK. Think of it!

Barclays’ GC  was Ł1.3trillion in 2007.   UK GDP was Ł1.3 trillion. (That’s Ł1.3 million x million.

“Barclays Gross Balance Sheet is 100 per cent of UK Gross Domestic Product”….

Nils Pratley, Guardian , 30 March 2011.

This confirms what we otherwise have come to realize, that corporations run Britain, not the government.

This explains why Prime Ministers exhort banks not to pay bonuses, yet Eric Daniels the outgoing chair of Lloyds (now notionally owned by  the state)  was paid a bonus of  Ł1.45million, why Barclays paid Ł2billion in bonuses , and  Lloyds Ł200million.

Compare the Prime Minister’s` salary of Ł164,000 and ask yourself where the power lies?

Our so called democratic system of government gives power to the corporations, money to their executives, and the votes to citizens.

As someone said, “If the vote was worth anything they would abolish it.”

In May a referendum will decide whether to change to an alternative voting system.

Personally I will not vote, since the  result is only marginally important and  significantly

diversionary.

I have not voted for years, believing that voting is a sham.  Today’s  revelation by Nils Pratley just puts the case in numbers.

Perhaps even more revealingly, the gross capitalisation of the US bank, JP Morgan,

equals 24 per cent of the  GDP of  USA.

To control Corporations.

The enemy within are the corporations. To control them we should fix a variable termination date for each. 

To  bring about change

When 50 per cent of us don’t vote , we can argue  that in a democracy, we have no legitimate representative government. 

In Athens , democracy meant not being represented by someone else, but direct government- every citizen being required to actively govern at some level.

To bring democracy up to date

I appreciate what  Paine did , but that was 250 years ago, and Pankhurst 100.   Now we have grown up, democracy is a process, not a stasis and it is time to move to universal adult direct government by peoples’ assembly, controlling the  H of C executive. .  

Where does all that money go? Why do CEO’s ‘need’ Łmillion rewards?

The bonuses are converted into  capital funds.  Ł1million is the  starting level entrance fee which fund managers demand for those speculating in the mortgage/ commodity/currency secondary markets.  Computer trading relies on millions of transactions each making a fraction of a fraction of 1p profit. .

Believe me,  they don’t teach you this  in the M.A. inter-honours economics course at Edinburgh Uni.

"Prescription for Survival": A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy Between
Anti-Coal Advocate George Monbiot and Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott.
The crisis in Japan has refueled the rigorous global debate about the viability
of nuclear power. Japan remains in a "state of maximum alert" as the experts
scramble to contain radiation that is leaking from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power station. Nuclear energy remains a controversial topic in climate change
discourse, as environmental activists argue how to best reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere—often the debate pits one
non-renewable energy against another as renewable energy technology and research
remains underfunded. Democracy Now! hosts a debate today about the future of
nuclear energy between British journalist George Zombiot and Dr. Helen
Caldicott. Monbiot has written extensively about the environmental and health
dangers caused by burning coal for energy, and despite the Fukushima
catastrophe, stands behind nuclear power. Caldicott is a world-renowned
anti-nuclear advocate who has spent decades warning of the medical hazards posed
by nuclear technologies, and while agreeing about the dangers of burning coal,
insists the best option is to ban nuclear power.

George Monbiot, British journalist and author. He is a columnist with the The
Guardian (U.K.) and most recently wrote the article "Why Fukushima Made Me Stop
Worrying and Love Nuclear Power."

Helen Caldicott, world-renowned anti-nuclear advocate, author and pediatrician.
She has spent decades warning of the medical hazards posed by nuclear
technologies. She is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on



--- In Diggers350@yahoogroups.com, Tony Gosling <tony@...> wrote:
>
> Nuclear Expert Calls Global Warming Alarmist Monbiot "Criminally
> Irresponsible" For Downplaying Fukushima
>
> Dr. Christopher Busby calls Monbiot's claims "total nonsense,"
> challenges British environmentalist to television debate
>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nuclear-expert-calls-global-warming-alarmist-monbiot\
-criminally-irresponsible-for-downplaying-fukushima.html
>
>
> Paul Joseph Watson - <http://www.prisonplanet.com/../>Prison
> <http://www.prisonplanet.com/../>Planet.com - Monday, March 28, 2011
>
> Prominent nuclear and radiation expert Dr. Christopher Busby has
> slammed British global warming alarmist George Monbiot as being
> "criminally irresponsible" for writing a series of articles for the
> Guardian in which Monbiot downplays the threat of radiation from the
> stricken Fukushima nuclear plant in a bid to shore up his claims
> about man-made climate change being a far deadlier concern.
>
> In the wake of Fukushima, we have seen numerous self-proclaimed
> environmentalists who are normally so quick to raise the alarm about
> devastation caused by man-made global warming, actually downplaying
> the environmental concerns attached to the Fukushima crisis,
> radiation, and nuclear power in general.
>
> Chief amongst them is prominent British environmentalist George
> Monbiot, who in an article for the London Guardian last week
> entitled,
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21\
/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima>Why
> Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, wrote that
> critics of how Fukushima is being handled had, "wildly exaggerated
> the dangers of radioactive pollution".
>
> "As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer
> nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology," added Monbiot.
>
> Monbiot's bizarre nuclear "kool-aid" moment was perhaps written in
> haste at a time when he believed Japanese claims that the crisis was
> diminishing. But in the past few days, the situation at Fukushima has
> worsened considerably. Officials hastily retracted numbers yesterday
> which suggested that radiation levels in the containment building of
> reactor number 2
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-reactor-2-radiati\
on-10-million-times-above-safe-level/>were
> an astounding 10 million times above normal. In addition, water
> purifications plants across Japan
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81334.html\
>have
> been told to stop taking in rainwater as radiation levels in the
> atmosphere continue to rise.
>
> Monbiot's rhetoric is a stark reminder that many leading
> environmentalists don't give a damn about real threats to the
> environment, preferring instead to spend all their time obsessing
> about carbon dioxide emissions and thinking up new ways to exploit
> global warming fearmongering as a means of controlling every aspect
> of our lives.
>
> While weaving terrorizing scenarios about man-made climate change
> making whole areas of the planet uninhabitable, most notably the
> island of Tuvulu,
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index\
.php/heraldsun/comments/column_more_to_tuvalu_than_the_alarmists_claimed/>which
> global warming alarmists already claim has been abandoned due to
> rising sea levels when in fact its population has doubled in the past
> three decades, alarmists like Monbiot don't seem to be too fussed
> when real environmental catastrophes like Chernobyl really do make
> entire regions uninhabitable.
>
> Indeed, others have gone even further.
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/http://www.infowars.com/lets-send-ann-coulter-to-fu\
kushima/>Columnist
> Ann Coulter appeared on Fox News to ludicrously proclaim that
> exposure to radiation was "good for you". Given that she's so
> enamored with the apparent health benefits of radioactive fallout,
> which
>
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/../harmless-chernobyl-radiation-killed-nearly-one-m\
illion-people.html>new
> studies blame for nearly a million cancer deaths in the 25 years
> since Chernobyl, we offered to send Coulter on an all-expenses paid
> holiday to Fukushima. We've not heard back from her.
>
>
>
> Monbiot's father, Raymond Geoffrey Monbiot, was the deputy chairman
> of the Conservative Party and Chairman of the National Convention.
> His mother Rosalie, the elder daughter of Roger Gresham Cooke, M.P.
> is a Conservative councillor who led South Oxford district council
> for a decade.
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Family>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki\
/George_Monbiot#Family
>
> Raymond Monbiot was behind rule changes to exclude party members from
> voting for the leader
>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4220346.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/u\
k_politics/4220346.stm
>
> +44 (0)7786 952037
> http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/
> http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
> http://www.911forum.org.uk/
> "Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
> _________________
> www.abolishwar.org.uk
> <http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
> www.public-interest.co.uk
> www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
>
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media\
2003.pdf
>
> "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which
> alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
>
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/me\
mbers/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Download the PDF of the "Monbiot critique" report from --
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/01/ecolonomics-010-20110322.pdf

P.



Free Range News and Alerts Network Press Release –-
Thursday 31st March 2011
http://www.fraw.org.uk/news/index.shtml


NEW REPORT PICKS APART GEORGE MONBIOT'S SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER AND FINDS
SIGNIFICANT FACTUAL AND ANALYTICAL ERRORS IN HIS CLAIMS

Writer and researcher Paul Mobbs claims that, "The concentration on either the
nuclear or carbon issue in isolation detracts from a more meaningful and
balanced debate about the impacts of the human system in general."



Today, environmental consultant and author Paul Mobbs(1) has released a
detailed analysis of George Monbiot's claims regarding nuclear power.
Published as part of his 'ecolonomics' newsletter series(2), it takes, point
by point, Monbiot's claims regarding the environment movements position on
nuclear power, radiation and health, and the significance (above over kinds of
human activity) of coal burning on carbon emissions.

Rather than limiting the debate over the merits of nuclear versus coal, the
report seeks to look at the issues George Monbiot has raised in the context of
human ecology general –- our total impact on the environment rather than a
single facet of it –- and finds that there is a more fundamental truth that
the
debate is ignoring; even with nuclear power human society would still be
unsustainable.

To summarise the main points:

# The media's treatment of George Monbiot's comments typifies a problem with
both the reduction of the ecological debate to the views of a few iconic
figures. This result in the presentation to the public of an unchallenging and
technically poor analysis of the trends that will increasing define the limits
of our lives over the Twenty-First Century. (page 2/3)

# The claims made by George Monbiot, along with other figures who have recently
professed a pro-nuclear position such as Stewart Brand or Mark Lynas, are
distorting the analysis of the proposals for new nuclear build because. As
noted above, the message they give is partial and not well analysed, and does
not accord to recent academic and public policy research. (page 2)

# If we look at the significance of the carbon emissions from coal burning
globally, they are no more significant than the emissions from the use of oil.
It's not possible to single out coal as being qualitatively worse than other
industrial activities –- for example it is arguable, at the global level, that
the impacts of agriculture have a much greater impact upon the general
environment and climate change than coal burning. (pages 4-6) In many ways
coal has become a convenient scapegoat to deflect criticism from the affluent
Western consumer lifestyle in general. (page 18)

# The statement that radiation emissions from coal-fired power stations are
"100 times" (two orders of magnitude) greater than an equivalent nuclear power
plant is _wholly incorrect_. Although based upon a Scientific American article,
the analysis presented is a complete misquoting of the original 1977 research
paper produced by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which put the emissions
from coal and two different nuclear technologies as within one order of
magnitude (10 times) of each other. The 1977 study also indicates that
radiation doses to certain organs (e.g. bones) was lower for some nuclear
emissions whilst the dose to other organs, (e.g. the thyroid) from nuclear
power was always greater than coal. Subsequent UK-based studies of the
radiation dose from coal power and the use of coal ash in building materials
found no such hazard to exist. (pages 7/9)

# Claims that the Fukushima Daiichi accident is not "like Chernobyl" are only
correct in terms of the causative mechanisms –- the radiological impact, based
upon sampling reports by the IAEA in their daily updates, indicates that
contamination is approaching the levels typically found around Chernobyl's
30km exclusion zone. (page 8)

# The claims that environmentalists' "exaggerate" the impacts of radiation are
unfounded, and do not represent the current state of the scientific debate over
radiation and health. There are many scientific grounds to criticise current
dose models, which is why recent scientific studies have produced impacts for
Chernobyl's death toll far higher than the “accepted” government and IAEA
statistics. For example, a recent study published by the New York Academy of
Sciences put the excess deaths from Chernobyl at 985,000 –- in contrast to the
IAEA's figure of 4,000. In fact the head of the ICRP's scientific secretariat
resigned in 2009 because existing dose models could not predict or explain the
health effects of radiation exposures to human populations. (page 9/10)

# Any new nuclear build in Britain, if less than 9GW to 10GW of electrical
capacity (or at least 7 new 1.6GW plant) will do nothing to reduce carbon
emissions because of the retirement of existing nuclear plant –- and in fact,
even replacing all existing coal and nuclear plants (34GW of capacity) with 22
new nuclear plants would only reduce the UK's total carbon emissions by 12%.
Contrast this reduction with, for example, the recent 12% reduction in
emissions that has taken place over the economic recession, and we can see
that there are other options available to reduce carbon emissions –- and many
of these are much cheaper. (pages 12/13)

# In any case, nuclear is no more a secure form of energy than any other fuel
since uranium production is also experiencing capacity problems that are the
result of declining resource quality. Nuclear fuel production is likely to
experience supply problems as new nuclear plants ramp-up demand, and globally
uranium production may peak as early as 2030. (pages 11/12)

# If we look at the available data on the carbon emissions from fossil fuels
since 1992, when the UN Convention on Climate Change was signed at the Rio
"Earth Summit", emissions have, over the intervening 20 years, increased by
50% when compared to the emissions of carbon over the previous 240 years of
industrialisation. This demonstrates the complete political failure to address
carbon emissions, primarily because we can't cut emissions without
significantly changing the operation of the economic process, and that entails
the end of "growth economics". (page 5)

# Most significantly, the issue of resource and energy depletion throws the
operation of our present economic system into question –- the system can't
grow if resource shortage create physical and inflationary pressures on the
economy. In fact even if we were to cease carbon emissions tomorrow, the effect
of other problems within the human ecological system –- such as food, water
and mineral resource shortages –- will create a severe crisis over the next
few decades. This is a fact attested to not just by environmentalists, but
also by academic, public policy and intelligence agency research over recent
years. (pages 13-16)

# Finally, and most significantly, the media and mainstream environmentalism's
consumer-oriented infatuation with carbon is skewing the analysis of issues of
human ecology and their public debate. We must develop a more broad-based
critique of the political-economic process in order to understand and deal
with these problems. The “deep green” members of the environment movement
have
always held such a viewpoint, but this has been marginalised, not only within
George Monbiot's recent article, but also by the move of the large campaigning
groups towards limited and often ineffectual “sustainable consumption”
measures
over the last two decades –- often promoted in return for sponsorship or
political access rather than because on an objective analysis they are proven
to “solve” the problems of human ecology. (pages 16-18)


To quote Paul Mobbs' views on George Monbiot's pro-nuclear argument --

"I can't help feeling that George has been "assimilated" by the misinformation
of the nuclear-industrial lobby; add to that Stewart Brand, Mark Lynas and
others of their ilk. Faced with the dilemma between representing a hard,
unpopular truth; or... trying to make some perhaps positive but ultimately
futile steps (in terms of the ecological trends and where they are heading)
towards accomplishing some change –- they have decided not to stand for an
interpretation of the data that makes the best sense because it represents
such a challenge to existing political orthodoxy."


And he continued, relating the way the tobacco industry and their public
relations advisor's have manipulated the scientific debate in the past –-

"....as we've seen this week, George's article has created rather a clamour;
and that, if nothing else, is really what I believe the nuclear lobby wish to
do. It's not so much that George's efforts make any different to the bulk of the
population; but amongst the environment lobby, the people who are likely to
make trouble in the next few years as EDF and others apply to build new
nuclear plants, it creates doubt and division –- and that, more than anything,
is what vested interests seek to create today."


In conclusion, on the general philosophy of environmentalism, and the innate
contradictions between the consumer-oriented message of Monbiot (and others)
and the need for a fundamental change in society's relationship to the world
it inhabits, he stated –-

"As individual environmentalists we are called upon to witness the world as we
experience it, and to share that insight with others; there should be no
expectation that we represent "the facts" –- such evidence, freely available,
should stand for itself without any nuancing of its content. Of course, taking
such a view can be challenging for many people; unpredictable change is so
much harder to think about than than a reassuringly predictable and reliable
stasis. Environmental philosophy challenges us to understand and solve this
dichotomy. The question we have to resolve is a value judgement over which is
the best option for us to adopt: Is it better to serve under an order that is
delusional (in the face of the evidence, perhaps suicidally so), and by taking
no action risking that if it collapses your lifestyle will be seriously
compromised; or, by accepting the need for change, risking the seeming chaos
of trying to adapt your lifestyle to escape that outcome?"


Speaking on the release of his report, Paul stated –-

"I think that my greatest concern is that in the rush to fulminate at George's
comments we may be missing the most important dimension of this debate –- the
environment. The concentration on either the nuclear or carbon issue in
isolation detracts from a more meaningful and balanced debate about the
impacts of the human system in general. The fact is, even if we stopped all
coal burning tomorrow by magicking hundreds of nuclear plants into existence,
the eventual outcome for the human species over the course of this century
would change very little. The crisis of human ecology is much greater than
either the nuclear or carbon issue; and I believe that the fixation upon carbon
emissions is leading us to ignore equally pressing trends that will also
create just as much misery and servitude for humanity over the course of this
century."


Paul's critique of George Monbiot's justification of nuclear power is available
via his web site –- http://www.fraw.org.uk/f.html?monbiotcritique

or for the PDF version go to –-
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/01/ecolonomics-010-20110322.pdf


For further comments or interviews he can be most easily contacted by email –-
mei@... –- or if necessary by telephone on 01295 261864 (for
ecological reasons, he has no mobile phone).

ENDS



Notes

1. For information on Paul Mobbs' past and present work visit his web site –-
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml

2. The 'ecolonomics' (a contraction of the terms 'ecology' and 'economics')
newsletter is an occasional publication that examines issues relating to
energy, ecology and economics, and seeks to develop a more in-depth (in Paul's
terms, unapologetically detailed, or as he uncompromisingly states, "My medium
is the word, the argument and the reference") view of everyday issues that
define human ecology. For further details see –-
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/index.shtml




- --

.

"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burrough, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')

Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
For details see http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ebo/

Read my 'essay' weblog, "Ecolonomics", at:
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/

Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
email - mobbsey@...
website - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml
public key - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/mobbsey-2011.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
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=K2OT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE !

       “ Banks ..are too big to fail 

        Rather , It may be

        That Britain is too small.

Barclay’s gross balance sheet is 100% of Britain’s GDP

        J P Morgan’s larger balance sheet

        Is 24% of US GDP “

              …………………………Nils Pratley,   Guardian,  30 March 2011

The reason why corporations should pay.

and the constitutional and legal arrangements  to bring this about.

We are told the country is in debt and that government services must be cut.

With what end in view?

Is it to pay off  the debt?   Is it to reduce the short term government spending ?

Or is it to reduce long term government spending – in order to avoid future crashes or, for a very different reason, to reduce the  size and role and spending power of government, and if so who wants this and with what end in view?

The occasion of the debt was bailing out Northern Rock and Lloyds /Halifax/ Bank of Scotland.

Why bail them out?  The conventional answer is to uphold the trust which we have in money (Ł sterling) and UK banking  since without that trust, money will lose value as it did in Germany 1945, in France after the French Revolution and in US after the independence war. (see ‘Money’  JK Galbraith)

Without money trade would stop, imports of food would  fall, savings would be valueless….

So we don’t want that  , do we?

Who bailed them out?  HMG . Why? This was convenient as the only body funded and  geared to act  immediately.  But  should the cost be shifted to the corporations? 

Given that it is right to  preserve the monetary system (and the banks?)

We should ask :

1 WHO who can  pay to prop up the money system

2 WHO should pay

3 WHO caused the crisis

4 WHO got us into debt.in 2009?

5WHO got us into debt in 1994?

6 WHO got us into debt sometime in 1960’s?

1 There are three estates .  Not the traditional estates of the middle ages, which were Church, Royalty and Aristocracy.  To-day, for analysis only , it is still convenient to allocate power (and wealth) between   three estates -  people , corporations ( both of which estates have ‘bodies’ -that is where the ‘corp(us)’  of ‘corporations’ comes from) and government.

(I am including in government with a small ‘g’  all the agencies of government including

police, justice, local government, regulatory bodies , parliament and HMG and Royalty (the ‘HM’ of HMG)

The estates we here characterize claim no exclusive or absolute existence, but  this division helps with the  analysis of  the present crisis. 

Consider the origins of  the three estates.

  First the People, don’t need to justify their origin. Deer and badgers have no government or registered corporations.   These latter estates are derivative of  people.(  Royalty are at best  dispensable more or less convenient but certainly subsidiary to people.)

Second , Corporations- an  interesting phenomena worthy of some thought. .   They are an artificial creation,  by People (again) .   Corporations have been brought into existence, granted the  privilege of existence,  by courtesy of government acting on behalf of the People.

Finally there is government. 

Government has two valid roles.  The first is to facilitate the day to day life of millions of people living in one area.   Think of the chaos if there was no rule of the road, to drive on the left.   We delegate education,  justice, law, health care , defense and welfare  to government and to this end  (reluctantly) government gathers  taxes , funds services and disburses ‘welfare’.

It will be seen that People have primacy within the three estates.

2 Which estate is to pay to prop up the money system?

                                     Subsidiary questions arise ,

                                           Why is the money system at risk? 

                                           Who is best able to pay?

                                           What is the imbalance at present between the three estates?

 The answer is that the corporations are able to pay,

they can  pay because they have more money and resources than government

they should pay because they are subsidiary to the People whose welfare is paramount

they should pay because corporations are the immediate occasion of the crisis

they should pay because they are the source of the debt ideology

they should pay because corporations have suborned government

they should be made to pay because the tipping point is here and now-

and if, alternatively as is proposed , People were  to agree to  pay,  this will be one more  surrender by people before  the power of corporations

Corporations should pay because if government pays  that would involve reducing the wealth and power of government and government is the  People’s defence against malevolent, out of control,  predatory corporations

Corporations are an invention , made apparently  in a fit of amnesia, convenient in the past, and in moderation  sometimes now , but as evidenced by the crash , by their size and by their manic debt ideology and by adopting predatory aims, , corporations threaten the welfare of People and have subverted government and it is the subverted government which  unless we correct it, threatens to do the  corporations’ work for them and pass the bill for the crisis to the People. .

Corporations should pay, not government which is the peoples’ servant, nor people because this will further disable People and, as we have seen Corporations and government both are dependent on the welfare and wealth of a sovereign People.

It is in corporations long term interests ,and to ensure their own survival.

Corporations should pay because it is in the interests of People.

It is in the interests of People and Corporations and government s’ long term existence that corporations not people , not government should pay.

The essence of the  issue is that  corporations should pay because people, being sovereign ,  and holding the welfare of people inviolable and above all else , choose that corporations should pay for the reasons given.    A democracy being the will of the People, it is fitting that not people ,but  corporations, should and are most able to suffer the effects of paying off national debts.

Corporations , in the person of banks and the financial sector, have by  anti social policies forfeited any claim to equal  or even fair treatment.   Passing on to People the  consequences of corporate misbehaviour  rewards the  malefactor and  privileges the already privileged.    

Corporations as a sector have forfeited the essence of  corporate life which is integrity and  service to the common good.  Since the existing  governance of corporations has proverd inadequate there is a need to  amend the conditions of their existence. 

Setting a variable termination date for each registered corporation is indicated as a way of holding them to account.

Removing and outlawing lobbying opportunities of corporations redresses the balance of political power now greatly loaded in favour of  corporations v people- restoring people power  is essential  for the required  improvement in  our democratic system.  

Corporations by pursuit of their commercial aims have demonstrated  malice and mal practice on a world- shattering and nation – crippling, money system- threatening  scale.

BP, Microsoft, Total , Morgan Stanley , for example have incurred  multi Łmillion fines

Railtrack have been found guilty of manslaughter.  Banks have  directed their  commercial  aims to gambling massively  and irresponsibly and irrationally.   Wrongdoing on this scale tarnishes their  existence and calls for  revising the terms of their existence.        Regulatory authorities have found multiple examples of  corporations acting against  the public interest.   OFT in 2009 named 104 giant plc builders for rigging bids for public contracts against  the public interest.

Corporations should pay because  individually their welfare can be harmed  without vitally affecting their existence.  As we have seen , corporations are subsidiary to People It can only be the last resort of government to  reduce the welfare of People as in war when  pursued  for the greater good. .     

3  Who caused the crisis?

The occasion of the crisis in UK was the imminent failure of Northern Rock.. This was caused when the international market lost confidence in  packages of mortgages sold on as tradable assets and Northern Rock had over committed itself to this secondary mortgage market.  Few understood or cared to enquire as to the nature of the assets.   

When traders stopped to question the value of the  debts behind the assets – the realizable Łworth of the mortgages, trade stopped .

  Confidence in US was shaken first when Lehman brothers closed and in UK when international  markets lost confidence in Northern Rock.

But behind the mortgages lie house values.

Corporations had an interest in inflating house prices to increase individual  mortgages and associated secondary debt-  and bank charges - and fees.  Estate agents , land owners , national house builders, mortgage lenders, banks ,,,, all these corporations had an interest in- and  actively and fiercely stoked up- rising  house prices .

Governments are complicit. Politically in UK 70 per cent of the population own a share in their house and can be persuaded that increased house prices benefit them.

Politically,  economic booms  benefit governments in power.

Debt stimulates high street spending.  Government , Treasury and Bank of England all were complicit.        

4 Who got us into debt in 2009 ?

As we have seen, The mortgage lenders with government and corporate complicity.

5  Who got us into debt in 1994

In 1994 Gordon Brown  and MPC of Bank of England explicitly adopted a policy of manipulating house prices by  moderate inflation at 2.5% , to stimulate the economy through increased levels of debt.

At a meeting, well before the  crash,  of the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Governor of the Bank of England Eddie George explained the trade in assets and, aware of the instability of the housing boom,  formally passed the problem to his successor, Mervyn King.              “  

6 Who got us into debt in the 1960’s?

In post war Britain debt was a national calamity caused by massive spending on armies, on  armaments and on reconstruction during and after the war. People then considered debt as a moral lapse.

Most people had no bank accounts, no credit cards, no overdraft and no debt, and many had no savings.    

Consumerism  was the  invention of Madison Avenue . The spread of tv ownership and national tv broadcasting ,  and the ending of BBC monopoly of radio broadcasting and

Allowing commercial channels funded by advertising stimulated  consumerism. Rising house prices were engineered by  the government to support the City. The method was to remove the mortgage limits imposed by  a prudent lending to income ratio. (3.5:1).

Government selling off  state assets (privatizing gas, steel, British Rail etc,) stimulated corporations.    Corporations then were in a stronger position to spread the ideology of debt.     Government explicitly encouraged share ownership which is equivalent to arms length  speculation in someone else’s labour and someone else’s  initiative.

CURRENCY ARMAGEDDON LOOMING

To repay student fees of 3years at Ł9,000 requires repayments of some Ł50,000 over The life of the  loan.  To repay a mortgage at the current  average house price of  Ł220,000 requires repayments over the life of the loan of a further Ł470,000  (at 5.5% interest)   It cannot be done!  

New house supply at 125,000 in 2010  was at half the  (conservative) required  target of 240,000 to accommodate rising population and family formation.

These  anomalies (actually  death blows to  welfare and democracy) ensure self detonation of the money  system. Forecasts of hyper-inflation  or  of deflation are just other ways of  describing the  destruction of a stable  money system   

Ending  insititutional debt creation by putting the corporations in the dock is the way to avoid this – that and  stablising  house prices.   Another way of describing rising house prices is as falling money values.  We have here graphic evidence of an imminent  run- away currency crisis.

 CONCLUSION

Debt has been the tool of growth in power and wealth of the corporations.  Personal wealth has also grown but at the expense of massive increase of stress  caused by commuting, by overwork, by worries about debt level and by a housing crisis which has left housepurchase outwith the reach of many couples even those on good dual salaries.

The debt ideology is the deliberate invention deployed by  the corporations.

Acceptance of debt has subverted the ethical standards which underlie a sound money system. The need is to  punish debt and support personal money responsibility .

Government has been complicit in the corporate debt ideology.

Government no longer promotes the welfare of  People because it is compromised by the corporate ideology of debt.  Government has been subverted by corporations .

   Reducing debt of   massive proportions although important must be subsidiary to an even greater threat,  reducing the cause and source of debt- the power of the corporations.

Reducing  the power of corporations are an even greater requirement for the  road to  democracy and welfare than  reducing the debt itself, important though this is.

    Democratic government is the Peoples’ will safeguarding their interest.  Individuals are powerless against malevolent corporate tyrannies. 

Meeting the cost of the debt by reducing  government is a double triumph by corporations.

It penalizes the people once by reducing their welfare and again by removing their sole defence against the machinatins of the predatory corporations - democratic government.

The prime task is to strengthen government by means of control by a peoples’ assembly .

Only  this can  give a united front  against the corporations.

Setting a variable termination date for each  corporation and banning local and parliamentary lobbying by corporations are two of the measures required.

Levying corporatins to pay national debt is required.

The debt incurred by the  malpractices of the corporations should be  laid entirely at their door to teach them the lessons of money management. .

James Armstrong     March 2011   

New era as locals inherit Somerset Moorlands tannery