The Bombing Will Continue Until Cameron Resigns

The UK Government Is Killing Libyans in the Name of ”Humanitarian War”.  Vietnam, Iraq and many others show there is no such thing.  Cameron should go, not Gaddafi.

Open Europe – Writing in the Times, David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy argue that “the bombing continues until Gaddafi goes”.    That means one thing.  The bombing will continue until Cameron resigns, along with Obama and Sarkozy.  After all, why should Gaddafi go?  He didn’t start any wars.  That was David Cameron.  He’s the one who should be got rid of for indulging in unnecessary barbarism, inflicted with the purpose of subduing an independent and benign nation, Libya.

Libya was used as the cover story by the CIA for fomenting terrorism across Europe through the 1970s and 1980s.  The CIA were and are the terrorists.  The One World Government, who David Cameron hopes will reward him with as many millions as they did Blair, assassinated British politicians who wanted to resist the advance of the EU, as Enoch Powell realised, as written in Simon Heffer’s biography Beyond The Roman.  Powell knew that Libya was not behind the assaults on our peace.

Libya was a dream state before the bombing started.  No citizens of any country in the world enjoyed such good state services and such a strong economy, and such good educational support.  Gaddafi wanted to bring the same freedoms and high standards of living to the rest of Africa,  widening the use of his independent currency, the DInar, and escaping the rapaciousness of the Rothschild/Rockefeller Central Banking model that has brought ruin to America and Europe.

And this is what Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama are determined to stop to please their paymasters.

Global Research –  written by Ellen Brown –

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government.  Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.  This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.
Alex Newman wrote in the New American:
In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?  It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”
Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya.  Supposedly it’s about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory.  According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:
As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body’s Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya’s human rights record. 
The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a “priority” and for bettering its “constitutional” framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens — who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal. 

Whatever might be said of Gaddafi, the Libyan people seem to be thriving.  A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:


[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial assistance.  Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious. 
They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. “Tell us,” they said, “who would not like such a regime?” 
Even if that is just propaganda, there is no denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government: it broughtwater to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the $33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project.  Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in Libya.  The GMMR provides 70 percent of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya’s vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north.  The Libyan government has done at least some things right.   
Another explanation for the assault on Libya is that it is “all about oil,” but that theory too is problematic.  As noted in the National Journal, the country producesonly about 2 percent of the world’s oil.  Saudi Arabia alone has enough spare capacity to make up for any lost production if Libyan oil were to disappear from the market.  And if it’s all about oil, why the rush to set up a new central bank?
Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.).  In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq.  Clark was surprised and asked why.  “I don’t know!” was the response.  “I guess they don’t know what else to do!”  Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. 
What do these seven countries have in common?  In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).  That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. 

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.  Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oiland this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”


According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.  Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.  During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.  The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.  The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.


And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank.  In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:


One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . .Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability.  Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.
Libya not only has oil.  According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults.  With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules? 
All of which prompts a closer look at the BIS rules and their effect on local economies.  An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network are supposed to have as their single or primary objective “to preserve price stability.”  They are to be kept independent from government to make sure that political considerations don’t interfere with this mandate.  “Price stability” means maintaining a stable money supply, even if that means burdening the people with heavy foreign debts.  Central banks are discouraged from increasing the money supply by printing money and using it for the benefit of the state, either directly or as loans. 
In a 2002 article in Asia Times titled “The BIS vs National Banks,” Henry Liu maintained:   
BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The BIS does to national banking systems what the IMF has done to national monetary regimes. National economies under financial globalization no longer serve national interests.

It is Cameron who is the war criminal, not Gaddafi.  Cameron can write cowardly letters in The Times threatening Gaddafi with dismissal by bombs, ensuring thousands of innocents get killed, including young children the same ages as his own.  That is the fate that he himself deserves.  In the bible it tells us clearly.  Live by the sword.  Die by the sword.  Cameron has defined the terms of his own dismissal.  He should go, and the bombing should stop.  His going is the world’s path to peace and prosperity, as is Gaddafi’s survival.

How they manipulate public opinion

Libya – ground invasion?  Or no ground invasion?  They say no invasion, then come up with any excuse they need to do what the intended all along – to take the country with troops on the ground.  People just switch off, when they are presented with continually switching and changing information, and they become compliant.

Cameron’s mindgames.

Note – Enoch Powell saw the rising American ambition as a great threat to Britain’s independence even in 1943.  He wrote to his parents –

The thought struck me for the first time today that our duty to our country may not terminate with the peace – apart, I mean, from the duty of begetting children to bear arms for the King in the next generation. To be more explicit, I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were; and if the present hostilities do not actually merge into a war with our terrible enemy, America, it will remain for those of us who have the necessary knowledge and insight to do what we can where we can to help Britain be victorious again in her next crisis.

  • Letter to his parents (16 February, 1943), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 75
If Powell could have imagined a world like today where a British Prime Minister is working to promote the elimination of our sovereignty in favour of an American-led One World Government, I wonder what his reaction would have been.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

7 Responses to “The Bombing Will Continue Until Cameron Resigns”

  1. Me says:

    Great post.

    We can’t talk enough about banks and bankers. They are central to everything that is happening. When you realise it, and read posts like yours above, it’s hard to understand why one had not accepted their importance earlier. Political analysis without discussion of banks is as good as a boxer going into a fight with one hand tied behind his back.

  2. Tapestry says:

    By email from Gillian –

    Excellent blog today 15th April, 2011 on Libya and Gaddafi.
    To put it simply Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama seem to be conveniently forgetting that it wasn’t Gaddafi who began the recent fighting in this country. It was an uprising sponsored and instigated by well, I suspect we can guess who is behind it all.
    Next they will tell us that black is white and vice versa. Do they really think that people are that stupid?

  3. Stuart Fairney says:

    This is most interesting. I posted on JR’s website (see when that gets out of moderation!) a question as above. Top post.

  4. Snakey says:

    Yes an excellent highlight of the real agenda behind all this – imperial mobilization and full spectrum dominance via debt slavery and constant war.

    The creation of the central bank in Libya is now, unfortunately, a fait accompli.

    Cameron is just a puppet and getting rid of him isn’t going to change anything. The faces change but the core axiom of Empire remains.

    I was nearly physically sick when watching Jeremy Bowen on the BBC News the other night playing down the fear that must be in all those poor people in Tripoli as war planes are flying above their heads, casually reigning death upon them. The vacuous narration of “does Tripoli look like a city at war?” was nauseating in the extreme when I know what their reaction would be if it was the other way around and it was London that was being threatened in the same way.

    The moral vacuum appears to be complete.

  5. Tapestry says:

    Yes that snake oil salesman Bowen makes me switch off literally.

    Stuart, I rarely make it through Redwood’s comments, whatever I write.

  6. Stuart Fairney says:

    Well it looks like you have this time, albeit by proxy, the point remains unanswered however.

    I have to agree, BBC coverage would make Pravda blush given it’s simplicity and utter missing of the point. It’s news for five year-olds.

  7. Tapestry says:

    Keep up the good work Stuart

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.