NATO engaged in a devastating air campaign against the Libyan government under the guise of a neutral "no fly zone." This effort was responsible for the rebel victory. We know now that:
"Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force." Kuperman, Alan. "Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene." Policy Brief, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, September 2013.
Not only was the "no fly zone" a support operation for regime change, it was based on blatant distortions and faulty information.
Key leaders of the NATO alliance were adamant about blaming the Syrian government for the August 2013 chemical weapons attack on civilians in Damascus. Secretary of State John Kerry was thoroughly convinced that the Al-Assad government was responsible:
"We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas" Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area." Secretary of State John Kerry, White House, August 21, 2013
Kerry's
assertion relied on an 8 km delivery path for the chemical weapons,
placing the origin in Syrian government-controlled territory.
Subsequent weapons analysis (using the UN report) demonstrated that the
missiles carrying chemical weapons had only a 1.75 to 2.25 km boundary
range. Further, there was no Syrian dominated territory within 2.25 km
radius, which represents the outside boundary from which the rockets
could have been launched. Possible
Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve
Agent Attack of August 21, 2013, Richard Lloyd, Tesla Laboratories, Inc.
and Theodore A. Postol, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
These scientific finding raise serious questions about the source of the missile attack. The findings raise absolute concerns about the willingness of the U.S., France, and other NATO nations to attack Syria based on analysis that these nations knew or should have known was fundamentally flawed. The press and public were given inaccurate information and when it was clear that it was flawed, no corrections were offered.
The NATO nations knew or should have known the real nature of events in Libya. They knew that their no fly zone was really a military operation to secure a rebel victory. They knew, without any doubt, that the presentation of "facts" to the press and public was wildly inaccurate.
How can NATO punish Turkish officials for a planning a false flag attack when the leading members of the alliance engage in violent actions against other nations for political gain based on distorted and misleading presentations to the press and public?
END
N.B. For a fuller picture of false flags in NATO countries, see NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe by Daniele Ganser
Creative Commons 3.0
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
2
