When is a no fly zone not a no fly zone?
When it is yet another needless Zionist War by another name.
We are told we don't have enough money for old peoples' homes, for local libraries, and so much more.
Yet we have enough money to launch planes and Tomahawk missiles against Libya (which must be costing many millions).
The War Hawks have picked another victim.
- It's not Israel who used white phosphorous against civilian targets.
- It's not Bahrain or Saudi Arabia who used the military against unarmed civilians.
What is interesting now is what happens next:
- Will the war (for bombing a sovereign country is an act of war) escalate?
- Will the armed rebellion continue - and if so are the Libyan forces not allowed to counter?
- Will Gaddafy spill the beans on the alleged bankrolling of Sarkozy?
If Russia uses military muscle against armed Chechen rebels (as they have) will that mean Britain, France and America have the right to attack strategic Russian targets?
Or let us look at a more extreme example right here.
Social cohesion breaks down and civil unrest happen in Britain over the cut-backs. Scotland is especially riotous given the Tory government and there is open insurrection. Parts of Scotland are armed by Irish Republican splinter groups, and there is tit for tat sectarianism. The socialists and republicans of Scotland start an all out paramilitary campaign against "British" targets and a minor Royal is killed on a Scottish estate by a servant.
In English cities the unrest spreads, pushed on by far-left militants, and many coloureds take part to air their own grievances. Some Muslim-dominated areas join in to fight the government. In some white working class areas even radical patriots declare "home rule" to defend their communities from roving criminals and corrupt left-wing councils. In the chaos bands of students and ex-students take it upon themselves to attack banks, robbing them, burning whatever records they can find.
Even where riots and disturbances don't break out, there is a run on the banks as people panic, the shops empty, armed police patrol and the army is on standby.
With many of these disparate forces (Scots, leftists, Irish republicans, coloureds, Muslims etc.) joining up in a (very) loose confederation, based on the examples of Egypt, Libya etc., they begin taking over more areas,more towns.
A shocking image in the newspapers is that of "state agents/provocateurs" being strung up or burnt alive in the manner of the South African burning tyre "necklaces."
The rebels clamour for the end of Tory/Liberal/Labour government and call for some form of government open to people and free from party corruption and vested interests (the Scots and Irish elements want some form of increased home rule).
With violence, the call for the splintering of the UK, the army is sent in and many civilians (some armed, some not) are killed. Despite the intense violence it is clear in the rebel-held areas most people are not taking part, the TV film shows crowds of a few thousand at most.
If this happened do you think Russia, China, Japan and others have the right to declare a no-fly zone? Do you think they should have the right to launch missiles at "strategic targets?"
Now I know this is an extreme example; but as nationalists we should always worry when the "international community" gives itself the right to attack a sovereign nation when some form of civil war or civil unrest breaks out.
We must be very careful before giving credence to the usual suspects starting a war.
Some will try to paint Gadaffy as a "mad mullah" - as opposed to a latter-day friend of 'the West' - but be careful what you wish for: the opposition is an unknown commodity and as well as the usual CIA and Mossad plants, will undoubtedly contain those who want an Islamic State.
As for Gadaffy himself, he must be kicking himself that he didn't drop white phosphorous on Benghazi, as that's what the Israelis did and the "international community" barely uttered a word!
Here endeth the lesson.