Home > Foreign Relations, News, politics > Russia Today, former British intelligence officer, Annie Machon, on Libya

Russia Today, former British intelligence officer, Annie Machon, on Libya

Russia Today interviews former British intelligence officer, Annie Machon, who gives illuminating analysis on the Libya situation. She peels the onion on the ‘West war trio’, oil, terrorists, Qadhafi, and other players.

  1. Shylock
    March 26th, 2011 at 11:43 | #1

    Great video! Haven’t encountered a better summary of the “true” situation in Libya. Pains me to think of the innocent Libyans who are suffering because of UN Resolution 1973.

  2. spectral
    March 27th, 2011 at 16:53 | #2

    Hmm … not sure what’s Great here.

    If she is/was MI6 than I am surprised that UK exists at all. Just bunch of lies and semi-information from her. Dumb, very dumb! I am surprised the RT picked her for interview.

    Lies such as PanAm Flight 103:

  3. Common Tater
    March 28th, 2011 at 12:15 | #3

    That was MI5, which is domestic counter-intelligence, not MI6, Mr Spectral.

    BTW, nobody in the community uses those WW2 terms anymore. Now it’s the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service.

    And to those regular NATO-bashers on the site: Who exactly is this chick, other than an anti-NATO voice with an intelligence background?

    I mean, how do you know she is illuminating, as opposed to just passing gas?

    Not that you would care, as long as she is bashing “the West”.

  4. March 28th, 2011 at 13:21 | #4

    “anti-NATO” voice? And you expect we are suppose to take your word for it? 😉

    For starters, try to offer up on where you disagree with her. But I’ll understand if you just admit you’ve been pumped full of whatever and no room left for other perspectives.

  5. Rose
    March 28th, 2011 at 23:09 | #5

    I don’t know US is “saving the world” or really terrorize the world. Check out this Rolling Stone article titled:
    “The Kill Team
    How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: An exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon”
    link http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=5

    US soldiers killing Afghan civilians as a sport has become a “frontline military culture”. Months of killing spree includes plot like “throw candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shoot the children who came running to pick up the sweets (or simply run them over)… “

  6. March 29th, 2011 at 00:05 | #6

    The U.S. government will never condone it and will prosecute when real evidence is leaked out to the public. Given the previous scandals, I would guess the U.S. is doing the best it can to avoid this kind of things.

    The U.S. is bombing Libya without much public backlash. So it seems such scandals doesn’t have much impact to public opinion about wars.

    For me, one of the major problems is the U.S. media and their immoral behavior of not reporting the Afghans as real humans. Afghan death and tragedy are simply not told to the American public in a way that matters.

    When China was last invaded, the Chinese people were victim of this type of killings too.

  7. March 29th, 2011 at 06:04 | #7


    It is the tendencies of moralistic foreign interventions to de-humanize “foreigners” whom were never the real concern of the invention policies.

    Hence, words like “collateral damage” are easily used to hide the moral contradictions.

  8. March 29th, 2011 at 09:50 | #8

    @raventhorn2000 #7,

    “Collateral damage” in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya is a euphemism, but even that euphemism seems to be quietly silenced. You don’t even hear that much about it.

    “Collateral damage” by your enemy though means civilian catastrophe rising to the level of International Crime and humanitarian military invention deserving of the backing of the UNSC implemented by the biggest military power in history on earth – U.S. of A. – and its lap dog NATO.

  9. March 29th, 2011 at 10:11 | #9

    You are right, Allen,

    We don’t talk about “collateral damage” in this war any more.

    Now, it’s much easier to label all civilian casualties as “terrorists” and “pro-dictator thugs”, and knotch them up as victory points.

  10. March 29th, 2011 at 11:48 | #10

    Victory points. I like that… In any case, they are not human and do not deserve “rights.”

  11. Rose
    March 30th, 2011 at 21:54 | #11

    There appear to be a pattern when it comes to US led invasion.

    First step: secretly support rebels in “hostile/evil” nations for extended period.

    Second, draft out an invasion plan while waiting or actively creating an opportunity (usually some kind of chaos/protest).

    Third, mobilize a massive media campaign to paint a two- tier picture: one depicts atrocity (i.e. killing of “civilians”); the other targets personal life (i.e. corrupt life style). It serves to garner pubic support and raise the legitimacy of starting a war. Those who disagree with war may not mind getting rid of an “evil and immoral dictator”.

    Forth, carry out invasion with or without UN sanction.

  12. March 31st, 2011 at 05:18 | #12

    They are patterns, of habits now in US foreign policies.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.