NATO is helping terrorist organizations. Isn’t that special?
NATO lied and innocent civilians died. This of course is not new.
The UN has stolen The Libyans money.
So who are the real terrorists?
Be sure to send E-mails to the UN security council.
Information provided at the bottom of the post. Please pass it on.
Help stop the Crimes in Libya.
August 31 2011
These included “mass rape”, enormous numbers of civilians allegedly killed by Gaddafi and the hiring of Sub-Saharan mercenaries to fight the people of Libya.
Despite the fact that all of these claims have remained unsubstantiated and some have been completely discredited altogether, the moderator and a professor at Oxford University all nodded in agreement and sat silently by while the rebel spokesman continued to spew pure propaganda and lies.
I was quite disgusted by this lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Al Jazeera. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised that a station funded by the first Arab nation to drop bombs on innocent people in Libya would be propagandizing the ignorant members of their audience.
Regardless, I always seem to expect that non-Western news outlet might have a bit more integrity and honesty but I am continually disappointed.
The reality of the situation in Libya is ugly and every day that goes by it looks more like it is turning into another Iraq or Afghanistan.
The West seems to have a knack for turning people against themselves based on imaginary divisions of skin color, national origin or religious sect.
In Libya it is an especially dangerous situation because it is quite obvious by now that much of the rebel forces have been successfully convinced that black people are automatically Gaddafi mercenaries, even though this is completely untrue.
One must wonder who is directing these operations on the ground and perpetuating these myths. Could it be the many Anglo-American Special Forces troops that are admittedly on the ground in Arab disguises?
One cannot say that this is occuring with any amount of certainty, but one can say, based on historical precedent that this is likely the case. Take, for instance, in 2005 when undercover British soldiers were arrested by Iraqi police for allegedly murdering an Iraqi policeman. This is just one of many examples of similar events occurring in Iraq and elsewhere to raise tensions and destabilize the region.
While there is currently no evidence that proves foreign agents are behind inciting this racist violence, one can safely say that based on the past it would be hard to imagine that Western forces are not encouraging such actions.
The British news organization the Independent has published an article today that revealed some of the instances of this tragic race-based violence in Libya.
One man named Ahmed Bin Sabri told the Independent as he pulled back a tent flap, “Come and see. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries.”
Speaking of the dead bodies put on display by Bin Sabri, the Independent aptly points out, “Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed?”
Bin Sabri merely shrugged in response and the Independent writes, “It was seemingly incomprehensible to him that anything wrong had been done.”
This lack of understanding seems to be widespread among the Libyan rebels and their supporters across the world. It seems as if the rebels can do no wrong and when they are guilty of crimes against humanity they are merely advised to restrain themselves.
Why are the rebels not treated with the same hostility that Gaddafi and his forces were regarded with? Why is NATO not bombing rebels now?
If they actually had any intention of following the United Nations resolution that allows them to be there which mandates the protection of Libyan civilians, they would be attacking the rebels now.
But, of course, they are not. They will not, as the rebels have already made it clear that they will serve their Western masters that have allowed them to come to power through the establishment of a private bank and their sales of oil.
Interestingly, the Independent article still paints a somewhat biased picture of the aftermath of the “revolution” in Libya.
In Gaddafi’s latest broadcast he warned that the people of Tripoli would be targeted by revolutionaries and that women would be raped in their homes. The Independent calls these “unsubstantiated, as are similar claims by his official apologist, Moussa Ibrahim.”
I think that this is a little bit too early to make such generalizations. We have indeed seen that the Libyan rebels are targeting the people of Tripoli, so how exactly are these claims unsubstantiated?
In the next paragraph they claim that Gaddafi “has repeatedly unleashed appalling violence on its own people.”
Actually, these claims are just as unsubstantiated as Gaddafi’s, but since this is a Western media outlet one wouldn’t expect them to point that out, I guess.
However, one must give them credit for pointing out that “the mounting number of deaths of men from sub-Saharan Africa at the hands of the rebels – lynchings in many cases – raises disturbing questions about the opposition administration, the Transitional National Council (TNC) taking over as Libya’s government, and about western backing for it.”
This is an important passage because the West has indeed openly supported the non-democratically declared Libyan government without hesitation.
Other parts of the world, on the other hand, have not been so quick to endorse the murderous band of criminals affiliated with al Qaeda that the media lovingly calls the rebels.
Take the African Union, for example. They refused to recognize the Transitional Council until the violence ceased. The aforementioned segment on Al Jazeera included the rebel spokesman excoriating the AU for their prudent “wait and see” approach.
This shouldn’t be surprising as the rebels are attempting to draw together as much support as possible before the world begins to realize that their forces are committing and have committed war crimes throughout the uprising.
Tripoli is not the only city that has been marred by racist violence at the hands of rebel forces in Libya.
Amnesty International has reported that similar acts of brutality have been committed in the coastal city of Zawiyah. They have reported that black Sub-Saharan African migrant workers have been killed there just as they have throughout Libya since the uprising started.
The rebel attempts at explaining why they have been summarily executing black people who they suspect to be mercenaries are laughable at best.
When the Independent posed this question, “if the men had been killed in action, why did they have their hands tied behind their back?” A rebel fighter from Misrata named Mushab Abdullah said, “Maybe they were injured, and they had to be brought to this hospital and the handcuffs were to stop them from attacking. And then something went wrong.”
The rebels are clearly lacking guidance and sound decision-making skills. Just look at the case of Ahmed Safar Warfalla, a man accused of spreading Gaddafi propaganda. He told the Independent, “They accuse me of a crime, but this is what I did” […] taking out a copy of the Koran from his pocket and pointing it to the sky. “Allah and Libya,” he shouted. “They have Nato technology? This is Arab, Muslim technology. We shall not be defeated.”
I was unaware that the Koran was Gaddafi propaganda but apparently even the rebel militia realized that this claim was a bit farfetched and allegedly decided to let Warfalla go free, because, “the man is mad”.
To be fair, Amnesty International has also reported that pro-Gaddafi forces have killed detainees at two camps in Tripoli where 160 prisoners attempted to flee. Amnesty International says that they have “uncovered evidence” of this and that 23 prisoners were able to flee successfully.
A bunker in Muammar Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte came under fire from cruise missiles launched by RAF Tornado GR4 bombers, about which a rebel spokesman said, “Maybe the mercenaries there will run away.”
Again, the rebels seem to hold on to the delusion that there is no way a single Libyan could actually support Gaddafi and thus the only people still loyal to the now-underground leader are mercenaries. This is far from the truth and has been proven as such time and time again.
Even the Washington Post admitted that some of the deaths in Tripoli do not seem like normal battlefield deaths.
They report, “not all of them looked like ordinary battlefield deaths.” Speaking of the dead bodies left in the wake of the attack on Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziyah compound in Tripoli. “Two dead men lay face down on the grass, their hands bound behind their backs with plastic cuffs.”
I’m not sure how that could be anything other than a summary execution but I’m sure a rebel could come up with some legitimate explanation about how “something happened.”
The Amnesty International researcher for Libya, Diana Eltahawy told the Washington Post that many of the Sub-Saharan African detainees in Zawiyah were migrant workers who were “taken at gunpoint from their homes, workplaces and the street on account of their skin color”.
The Washington Post claims that the civilian leadership of the rebel forces are attempting to stop their forces from committing “revenge attacks” but this is just silly seeing as they continue unabated and have no sign of ending any time soon.
The fact that the attacks are largely based on skin color does not bode well, as it is not as if one day their skin color will change and they can go back to business as usual.
All of this racially based hatred among rebels is not going to go away on its own. The hypocritical treatment of these murders is just another point in case proving that NATO and the West have no interest in protecting civilians but instead are interested in regime change and putting stooges in power who will serve their Western masters like Gaddafi would not. Source
Desperate to declare NATO’s mission in Libya a victory ahead of the September 19, 2011 deadline on their contrived UN Security Council resolution, already violated in every conceivable manner possible, NATO planes in tandem with NATO special forces obliterated Tripoli ahead of swarms of Libyan rebel troops led by notorious Al Qaeda thug Abdulhakim Hasadi (aka Balhaj.) Three weeks later, NATO’s proxy Libyan representative, long-time globalist and servant of the West Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, touched down at Tripoli’s airport, one of the few enclaves held by rebels in the city, to give the impression that his “National Transitional Council” (NTC) actually controls the capital and therefore the country.
In reality, Gibril (also spelled Jabril) is in control of nothing, apparently not even his own rebel forces, and stunts such as landing in Tripoli are desperate ploys to portray a sense of strength and resolve to garner continued “international support” as NATO’s deadline quickly approaches. Libya’s rebellion, despite the corporate-media’s disingenuous presentation, is divided along tribal and ethnic lines, with most of Libya’s rebels being motivated, not by aspirations for liberal-democracy, but rather by ideological extremism cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi. As NATO enables these violent ideologues to expand their control over the country, they are systematically committing war crimes including large-scale theft and looting, exiling entire civilian populations from cities, and wholesale genocide. They are also reportedly turning their weapons on one another.
To compound Gibril’s precarious situation, the few fighters he has that are following orders are stretched thin between attempting to hold parts of Tripoli, holding other towns and cities beyond their Benghazi stronghold, and attempting to siege entire cities still standing defiantly against NATO and rebel conquest. The cities of Bani Walid and Sirte, both claimed by rebels as ripe to fall “within hours” have now entirely balked rebel advances, causing many forces to flee with reports that fighters coming back from the front lines are overwhelmed and demoralized.
Despite heavy, and quite obviously indiscriminate bombing by NATO for the better part of two weeks, resistance in these two cities is still fierce enough to keep the rebels well at bay. It is quite apparent that initial reports by Gabril’s “NTC” that only 60-150 Qaddafi fighters remained in Bani Walid, were yet another lie and that the entire city’s civilian population is putting up resistance. The number of “resisters” has gone up piecemeal as the rebel operation drags on, with the number of “Qaddafi soldiers” fighting in Bani Walid well past 1,000 now.
Bani Walid is predominately made of members of Libya’s one-million strong Warfalla tribe, and is decidedly not interested in NATO’s sponsored “Benghazi liberation.” In the wake of NATO’s bombing campaign and special forces entering Tripoli and their setting the stage for looting, torture, and genocide, and after months of reporting on the Libyan rebels’ penchant for war crimes, the London Telegraph has finally admitted in short that the rebels are in fact genocidal racists. In the Telegraph’s article “Gaddafi’s ghost town after the loyalists retreat,” it is reported that rebels have taken the city of Tawarga, where the entire civilian population was either killed, rounded up, or exiled.
The article notes “racist undercurrents” within the Libyan rebellion, a factor independent analysts have been warning about since NATO intervened in March. The report also quotes rebel leaders as saying in regards to the vast amount of property left behind by the exiled population, “the military council will decide what will happen to the buildings. But over our dead bodies will the Tawargas return.” Another rebel commender concluded, “Tawarga no longer exists.” Of course, exiling an entire civilian population from their homes and arbitrarily seizing their property is a grievous war crime, and in this particular case, a war crime done under NATO cover, with US and British diplomatic recognition of the war criminals remaining steadfast, and even many of the arms and the training used to carry out such war crimes courtesy of NATO.
With the fate of Tawarga befalling an increasingly larger number of cities and towns amidst NATO’s campaign of “liberation,” increasingly fierce resistance throughout Libya, including by the entire populations of both Sirte and Bani Walid, is not unexpected. They indeed face NATO sanctioned door-to-door genocide, exile, theft, looting, torture, and in essence everything in reality that NATO falsely accused Qaddafi of doing to justify their military intervention in the first place. Libya is turning out to be a NATO-led Hitlerian campaign of conquest, complete with collective punishment and ground troops carrying out appalling atrocities. The rebels are literally led by a US State Department and UK Home Office listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who’s commander Abdulhakim Hasadi has openly admitted to fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. What’s worse is that these facts are not revelations, but well-known inconvenient truths NATO, with the help of the corporate-media, has tried to bury, spin, or otherwise obfuscate until the point of no return in their Libyan intervention had been reached.
As NATO races to dress up their failed operation in Libya as a success so that they can escape an upcoming September 19 vote on continuing the UN mandate under which this crime against humanity is being committed, the lies will become more acute and the atrocities infinitely more brutal and widespread. Now more than ever do Libyan’s require a robust alternative media to cover the truth, “read between the lies” of the corporate-news networks, and ensure that this nation of 6 million is not buried by NATO in deception or the stark silence of public apathy. Source
The Tripoli Military Council is a Foreign Terrorist Organisation
The U.S. State Department currently designates (see link entry 26) the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), whose leader is Abdelhakim Belhadj, as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO).
Under the State Department section “Legal Ramifications of Designation” it states:
It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide material support or resources to a designated FTO.
The term material support or resources is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.
Despite the U.S. State Department’s listing of the LIFG as a terrorist group, and in spite of its own laws, NATO, which is supporting the Transitional National Council (TNC) in Libya, is knowingly supporting a known FTO called the “Tripoli Military Council” a.k.a. the “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” which is led by Abdelhakim Belhadj!
The fact that the “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” is now calling itself the “Tripoli Military Council” is irrelevant! Changing your name does NOT change your organisation! Perhaps the U.S. State Department should update its list to include aliases. The fact that the name being used is different does NOT absolve any Americans involved in NATO from committing crimes under U.S. law by providing support to this Foreign Terrorist Organisation and that includes the use of the American Air Force under NATO.
All U.S. NATO commands need to be aware of this important fact!
Crimes against humanity mounting in Libya courtesy of US and NATO
Published on August 25, 2011
“The video shows the war crimes committed by Nato, as well as those committed by the Western media, which has decided to obfuscate the casualties and human suffering of the Libyan people and uphold the humanitarian fiction of Nato’s R2P mandate.” – Professor Michel Chossudovsky
By INA ALLECO R. SILVERIO
As bombs and heavy artillery continue to fall like rain over Libyan capital Tripoli, the western media agencies have chosen to be highly selective in its reporting. Crimes against humanity are being perpetrated with impunity, but with the virtual news blackout, voices of outrage are not being heard globally.
According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of the site Global Research on Globalization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched intense attacks on Libyan civilians in the night of August 8 and in the early hours of August 9, 2011 from approximately 2:00 am to 4:00 am Eastern European Time (EET).
According to Global Research, civilians in Tripoli and many other cities in Libya were bombed indiscriminately by Nato. A large number of casualties occurred in the city of Zliten, in the district of Misurata. In Zliten, 85 people were killed including 33 children, 32 women, and 20 men as a result of NATO’s deliberate targeting of residential areas and civilian infrastructure. Many of the injured civilian victims are in critical condition and near death.
Zliten has been under constant Nato bombardment for several days. At least seven civilian homes belonging to local farmers were destroyed, killing entire families. The 20 families who were affected were the targets of the NATO bombings.
NATO’s official military spokesperson for Operation Unified Protector Colonel Roland Lavoie, NATO’s official military spokesperson for Operation Unified Protector, confirmed to US media in a press conference that the Nato did bomb Zliten on August 8 and 9, said the targets were legitimate.
Global Research posted a video on its site directly belying and condemning Lavoie and the Nato’s declarations about the bombing.
“The video shows the war crimes committed by Nato, as well as those committed by the Western media, which has decided to obfuscate the casualties and human suffering of the Libyan people and uphold the humanitarian fiction of Nato’s R2P mandate,” said Chossudovsky.
The video is titled “Make No Mistake. Nato is Committing War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in Libya” and shot and edited by Julian Teil, Mathieu Ozanon, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.
On Aug. 8 when Libyans and the rest of the Muslim world marked the breaking of the Ramadan fast, Nato launched its “Operation Mermaid Dawn” against Libya. According to reports, a Nato warship sailed up and anchored just off the shore at Tripoli, delivering heavy weapons and debarking rebel forces, who were led by Nato officers.Killing civilians left and rightThe United Nations Security Council has given the task to Nato to protect civilians in Libya. Consequent reports have been proving that instead of protecting civilians, however, Nato forces have been killing them left and right and justiiying them as part of their offensives against the government of Muamar Ghadafi. Nato drones and aircraft have been shown on mainstream media reports to conduct bombing attacks in all directions while Nato helicopters strafed the streets with machine guns.In news media in the US, reports about Nato’s operations in Libya have given attention to the mounting casualties but without mentioning who precisely are to blame for the civilians killed. Reports have also focused on the activities of “rebel forces” who have conveniently been described as freedom fighters instead of fighters sent, trained and supported by Nato and its member countries.In the New York Time’s editorial last August 22, it said that “There is little doubt that the rebels would not have gotten this far without Nato’s air campaign and political support from President Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain. When critics in Washington and elsewhere declared Libya a quagmire, these leaders refused to back away.”Already, the New York Times mentioned what it thinks should be done in Libya if and when Quadafi is removed from power.“As we learned at a very high cost in Iraq, all parties must have a role in building a new political order or those excluded will turn to violence. Decision-making — including how to restart damaged oil wells and share oil revenues — must be transparent,” it said.
CNN media withholding facts about Nato’s operations in Libya
In another report by Nazemroaya who is a Canadian research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), it was stated that in the second round of bombing, NATO targeted the same homes once more when local residents had arrived to the rescue of those who had been bombed.
“Dismembered bodies were recovered from the ruble throughout the day. According to a Libyan eyewitness, a pregnant woman was killed with her dead unborn child exposed out of her torn body,” he wrote.
According to Nazemroaya, the only members of the international press that reported the damage of the bombings in detail were Russia Today (RT), TeleSUR, Chinese Central Television (CCTV), and independent journalists.
CNN was present taking footage, but essentially released nothing and distorted the facts,” he wrote.
In various photographs posted on Global Research, dead civilians were shown piled in Zliten Hospital like cardboard and next to them a cameraman identified with CNN was in the background. The said cameraman was seen taking video footage, but no report was released by the CNN.
Nazemroaya also said many of the journalists from NATO countries also held meetings on how to disseminate the news.
“Nato claims categorically that the areas bombed were ‘legitimate’ military targets and that there is no evidence of civilian casualties. Nato bombed areas in Zliten and Majer for strategic reasons. The bombing of civilian areas is tied to the planning of NATO’s offensive against Tripoli. The Libyan clans in these areas have made it clear that they would fight the Transitional Council should its forces try to move westward against Tripoli from their position in Misurata. Nato deliberately bombed these areas “to clear the way” towards Tripoli, ” he said.
In other pictures, it was seen that thousands of people came out to attend the funerals of the victims of the NATO attacks.
“Jamahiraya Satellite Channel was also bombed by Nato. This was part of Nato’s efforts to contain information from coming out of Libya regarding the realities of the war,” said Nazemroaya. “Nato’s killing of civilians is intended to force the Libyan population into surrendering. The “Responsibility to Protect” is an utter shame. A few days earlier Nato left another boatload of migrants and refugees die in the Mediterranean Sea,” he said.
HRW appeals to all sides to uphold human rights
In a related development, the independent Human Rights Watch has sent a team to Tripoli from its head office in New York, which has pushed for a settlement between the Benghazi-based Transitional Council and the Libyan government. The HRW is known to liaise with the US State Department.
In its August 22 statement, the HRW said forces loyal to Gaddafi, forces of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and Nato allies should ensure that they take all feasible steps to avoid harming civilians. It said the NTC supported by Nato should instruct its forces not to engage in acts of revenge.
“The pro-Gaddafi forces, fighters of the National Transitional Council, and NATO must do everything feasible to protect civilians caught in the fighting,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at HRW. “NTC forces should not carry out reprisals against those who fought for or supported the Gaddafi government.”
Nato’s secret plan after Ghadafi’s ouster
Another contributor to Global Research Jason Ditz in his article “alleged that a 70-page plan detailing the United States and Nato forces’ designs for the occupation Libya after the planned ouster of President Muamar Ghadafi has been leaked. The said plan was, Ditz said, approved by political leadership of the rebel Transitional Council in East Libya and it “paints a grim picture of the new regime Nato is planning on installing after the war.”
According to Ditz, the Nato plan includes keeping large portions of the Gadhafian security apparatus intact, with a number of the leaders of the brutal regime’s crackdown left in position on condition of loyalty to the new, pro-West regime.
“Even more controversial will be the ‘Tripoli task force,’ a 15,000-man force operated by the United Arab Emirates which will, after Gadhafi is out of power, occupy the capital city of Tripoli and conduct mass arrests of Gadhafi’s top supporters. The arrests won’t stop there, as of course they never do for a regime looking to stifle dissent,” he said.
Ditz also said the plan includes discussion of a new state radio network that will broadcast orders to the public to support the new government, and warning anti-Gadhafi factions that haven’t endorsed the new regime to stand down.
” The assumption in the report is that these factions, termed a “fifth column,” would also be arrested. The new state media will of course be necessitated all the more by the NATO attacks on the existing media. The Transitional Council confirmed the authenticity of the report, and while the rebel ambassador to the United Arab Emirates expressed ‘regret’ that the truth had come out. He said it is ‘important that the general public knows there is an advance plan,’” Ditz said.
According to independent journalist, the Nato plan won’t likely sit well with the Libyan people who are demanding democratic reform.
“Neither will it go well with those NATO members who acquiesced to the war on the assumption that it was doing something other than swapping brutal regimes in Libya,” he said.
Carve up Libya’s oil fields
Political analyst William Engdahl in an interview with told RT.com said that a regime change in Libya will suit Western oil interests. He said Libya is gong to face a period of prolonged chaos.
“What emerges from that, I think it suits some of the Western oil interests, especially the British and the French, who are fighting like piranhas over grabbing the most juicy oil fields for their own companies,” said Engdahl to RT.com.
Engdahl is the author of “Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.’
According to the analyst, the what’s happening in Libya and major efforts of the US and Nato forces to pour at least US$1 billion into the so-called Transitional National Council.
“It’s rival tribal clan warfare that is going on in Libya. This is not a democracy movement by any stretch of the imagination.”
Engdahl told Rt.com that the rebel protests in Libya is actually an insurgency that’s being supported covertly by US-financed armed shipments to the rebels. He said US and Nato want to “carve up the oil fields and get them into Western hands, rather than in Libyan state hands, which Gaddafi held firmly on to.”
Humanitarian needs in Libya
In an email sent to Bulatlat.com, the international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, or MSF) said it is preparing to expand its medical response in western Libya to meet urgent humanitarian needs.
MSF is an international medical humanitarian organisation that has been working in Libya since February 25th 2011. It relies solely on private financial donations to fund its activities in Libya and does not accept funding from any government, donor agency, nor from any military or politically affiliated group. The MSF team in Libya is made up of 44 Libyan staff and 30 international staff.
“Due to an increase in wounded admissions to the MSF-supported hospital in nearby Yefren, MSF has sent medical teams to assess the frontline area south of Zawiyah. Today, MSF has sent another team inside Zawiyah town to support the general hospital which has also seen an influx of newly wounded and to assess conditions in the town,” it said in a statement dated August 22, 2011.
Mike Bates, MSF head of mission in Libya said health structures in the area have been overwhelmed with high numbers of surgical cases and health personnel are completely exhausted.
In the area of Tripoli, several medical facilities report serious shortages of materials and staff, according to MSF’s emergency coordinator, Jonathan Whittal, who has been present in the Libyan capital city since the beginning of August.
Whital said some hospitals have run out of life-saving medication and equipment. There is little electricity and insufficient fuel to run ambulances and some crucial equipment.
“The current fighting in the city will put strained medical facilities under even more pressure,”he said. Source
This week GRTV talks to Mahdi Nazemroaya, a research associate of the Center for Research in Globalization who spent two months in Libya before escaping after the rebel siege of Tripoli. We discuss what really happened in Libya, including the war crimes perpetrated by NATO in support of the rebels, and how the media helped to enable those war crimes by covering up for the perpetrators.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has “carpet bombed” the entire neighborhoods in Libya.
Sep 7, 2011
NATO war crimes in Libya
Jul 5, 2011
Milovan Drecun, with the decades-long journalistic experience from war zones, went to Libya in June to report what is going on there.
“Gaddafi’s billions” Where is money of Libyans?
Libyans accounts frozen by UN were not stolen by or owned by Gaddafi.
NATO’s War Crimes in Libya : Who Grieves for the Fallen Heroes?
September 10 2011
by Prof. James Petras
The conquest and occupation of Libyan is first and foremost a military victory for NATO. Every aspect of the military offensive was spearheaded and directed by NATO air, sea and ground forces. The NATO invasion of Libya was basically a response to the “Arab spring” : the popular uprisings which spread from North Africa to the Persian Gulf . The NATO assault formed part of a general counter-attack designed to contain and reverse the popular democratic and anti-imperialist movements which had ousted or were on the verge of overthrowing US-client dictators.
Political and military considerations were foremost in motivating the NATO invasion: As late as May 2009, the U.S. and European regimes were developing close bilateral military, economic and security agreements with the Gaddafi regime. According the British daily, the Independent (9/4/2011), official Libyan documents found in its Foreign Office described how on December 16, 2003, the US CIA and British MI6 established close collaboration with the Gaddafi government. The MI6 provided Gaddafi with details on Libyan opposition leaders exiled in England and even drafted a speech for him as he sought rapprochement with the outside world.
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton presented Mutassin Gaddafi to the Washington press during a visit in 2009 stating, “I am very pleased to welcome Minister Gaddafi to the State Department. We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya . We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our co-operation and I am very much looking forward to building on this relationship.”(examiner.com 2/26/2011).
Between 2004-2010 the largest oil and petroleum service multinational corporations, including British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Marathon Oil joined with military-industrial giants like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and Fluor and signed enormous investments and sales deals with Libya (examiner.com op cit).
In 2009, the U.S. State Department awarded a $1.5 million dollar grant to train Libyan civilian and government security forces. The White House budget for 2012 included a grant for training Libyan security forces. General Dynamics signed a $165 million dollar deal in 2008 to equip Libya ’s elite mechanized brigade (examiner.com ibi).
On August 24, 2011 Wikileaks released US embassy cables from Tripoli , which described the positive assessment a group of leading Republican senators had made of US-Libyan relations in during their visit in late 2009. These cables highlighted ongoing security training programs involving Gaddafi’s police and military, as well as the US’ strong support for the regime’s repression of radical Islamists, many of whom are now leading the NATO-backed ‘rebel forces’ now occupying Tripoli.
What caused the NATO countries to shift abruptly from a policy of embracing Gaddafi to launching a brutal scorched-earth invasion of Libya in a matter of months? The key is the popular uprisings, which threatened Euro-US domination. The near total destruction of Libya , a secular regime with the highest standard of living in Africa, was meant to be a lesson, a message from the imperialists to the newly aroused masses of North Africa, Asia and Latin America: The fate of Libya awaits any regime which aspires to greater independence and questions the ascendancy of Euro-American power.
NATO’s savage six-month blitz – over 30,000 air and missile assaults on Libyan civil and military institutions – was a response to those who claimed that the US and the EU were on the “decline” and that the “empire was in decay”. The radical Islamist and monarchist-led “uprising” in Benghazi during March 2011 was backed by and served as a pretext for the NATO imperial powers to extend their counter-offensive on the road to neo-colonial restoration.
NATO’s War and the Phony “Rebel Uprising”
Nothing is more obvious than the fact that the entire war against Libya was in every strategic and material fashion NATO’s war. The casting of the rag-tag collection of monarchists, Islamist fundamentalists, London and Washington-based ex-pats and disaffected Gaddafi officials as “rebels” is a pure case of mass media propaganda. From the beginning the ‘rebels’ depended completely on the military, political, diplomatic and media power of NATO, without which the de facto mercenaries would not have lasted a month, holed up in Benghazi.
A detailed analysis of the main features of the conquest of Libya confirms this assault as a NATO war.
NATO launched brutal air and sea attacks destroying the Libyan air force, ships, energy depots, tanks, artillery and armories and killed and wounded thousands of soldiers, police and civilian militia fighters. Until NATO’s invasion the mercenary ‘rebel’ ground forces had not advanced beyond Benghazi and could barely ‘hold’ territory afterwards. The ‘rebel’ mercenaries ‘advanced’ only behind the withering round-the-clock air attacks of the NATO offensive.
NATO air strikes were responsible for the massive destruction of Libyan civilian and defensive military infrastructure, bombing ports, highways, warehouses, airports, hospitals, electrical and water plants and neighborhood housing, in a war of ‘terror’ designed to ‘turn’ the loyalist mass base against the Gaddafi government. The mercenaries did not have popular backing among Libyan civilians, but NATO brutality weakened active opposition against the ‘rebel’ mercenaries.
NATO won key diplomatic support for the invasion by securing UN resolutions, mobilizing their client rulers in the Arab League, procuring US mercenary trained ‘legionnaires’ from Qatar and the financial backing of the rich rabble in the Gulf. NATO forced ‘cohesion’ among the feuding clans of self-appointed ‘rebel’ mercenary leaders via its (“freezing”) seizure of overseas Libyan government assets amounting to billions of dollars. Thus the financing, arming, training and advising by “Special Forces” were all under NATO control.
NATO imposed economic sanctions, cutting off Libya ’s income from oil sales.. NATO ran an intensive propaganda campaign parading the imperial offensive as a “rebel uprising”; disguising the blistering bombardment of a defenseless anti-colonial army as ‘humanitarian intervention’ in defense of ‘pro-democracy civilians’. The centrally choreographed mass media blitz extended far beyond the usual liberal circles, to convince ‘progressive’ journalists and their newspapers, as well as intellectuals to paint the imperial mercenaries as ‘rebels’ and to condemn the heroic 6-month resistance of the Libyan army and people against foreign aggression. The pathologically racist Euro-US propaganda published lurid images of Libyan government troops (often portrayed as ‘black mercenaries’) receiving massive quantities of ‘Viagra’ from Gadhafi while their own families and homes were, in fact, under aerial assault and blockade by NATO.
The main contribution of the mercenary ‘conquerors’ in this grand production was to provide photo opportunities of rag-tag ‘rebels’ waving rifles in Pentagon-style Che Guevara poses riding around in pickup trucks arresting and brutalizing African migrant workers and black Libyans. The mercenary ‘liberators’ triumphantly entered Libyan cities and towns, which were already scorched and devastated by the NATO colonial air force. Needless to say the mass media ‘adored’ them.
In the aftermath of NATO’s destruction, the ‘rebel’ mercenaries showed their true talents as death squads: They organized the systematic execution of “suspected Gadfafi supporters” and the pillage of homes, stores, banks and public institutions related to the defeated regime. To “secure” Tripoli and snuff out any expression of anti-colonial resistance, the ‘rebel’ mercenaries carry out summary executions – especially of black Libyans and sub-Saharan African workers and their families. The “chaos” in Tripoli described by the mass media is due to the ‘self-styled liberation’ forces running amok. The only quasi–organized forces in Tripoli appear to be the Al Qaeda-linked militants, NATO’s erstwhile allies.
Consequences of the NATO Conquest of Libya
According to ‘rebel’ mercenary technocrats, NATO’s policy of systematic destruction will cost Libya at least a ‘lost decade’. This is an optimistic assessment of how long ‘reconstruction’ will take for Libya to regain the economic levels of February 2011. The major petroleum companies have already lost hundreds of millions in profits and over the decade are expected to lose billions more due to the flight, assassination and jailing of thousands of experienced Libyan and foreign experts, skilled immigrant workers and technical specialists in all fields, especially in view of the destruction of Libyan infrastructure and telecommunication systems.
Sub-Sahara Africa will suffer a huge set-back with the cancellation of the proposed ‘Bank of Africa’, which Gaddafi was developing as an alternative source of investment finance and the destruction of his alternative communication system for Africa . The process of re-colonization involving imperial rule via NATO and UN mercenary ‘peace keepers’ will be chaotic given the inevitable strife among hostile armed Islamist fundamentalists, monarchists, neo-colonial technocrats, tribal warlords and clans as they carve up their private fiefdoms. Intra-imperial rivalries and local political claimants to the oil wealth will further enhance the ‘chaos’ and degrade civilian life, in a nation which had once boasted the highest per capita income and standard of living in Africa. Complex irrigation and petroleum networks, developed under Gaddafi and destroyed by NATO, will remain in shambles. As the example of Iraq has vividly proven, NATO is better at destroying than constructing a modern secular state rooted in a modern civil bureaucracy, universal free public education, secular judicial system and modern health services. The US policy of rule and ruin reigns supreme in NATO’s juggernaut.
Motivation for the Invasion
What motivated NATO to initiate a massive, six-month long aerial bombardment of Libya , followed by invasion and crimes against humanity? Civilian deaths and the widespread destruction of Libyan civil society by NATO flies in the face of its claims that the air assaults were meant to “protect civilians” from imminent Gaddafi-led genocide, ‘rebel’ claims which were never substantiated. Bombing Libya ’s critical economic infrastructure allows us to categorically conclude that the NATO assault has little to do with ‘economic rationality’ or any such consideration. The primary motivation for NATO’s actions can be found in earlier policies related to a spring counter-offensive against the mass popular movements that overthrew US-EU puppets in Egypt and Tunisia and were threatening client regimes in Yemen , Bahrain and elsewhere.
Despite the fact that the US-NATO were already engaged in several colonial wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia) and Western public opinion had been demanding withdrawal in light of the costs, Western imperial leaders felt too much was at stake and calculated that losses could be minimized. NATO’s overwhelming mastery of the air and sea made short work of Libya ’s puny military defense capability, allowing them to bomb the cities, ports and vital infrastructure with impunity and enforce a total economic blockade. They calculated that massive bombing would terrorize the Libyan people into submission and bring about a quick colonial victory without any NATO military losses, the prime concern of Western public opinion, and permit a triumphant ‘rebel’ mercenary army to march into Tripoli .
The Arab popular rebellions were the central concern and the motor force behind NATO’s destruction of Libya . These mass popular uprisings had toppled the long-standing pillars of US-Israel-EU dominance in the Middle East . The fall of the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his Tunisian counterpart Ben Ali sent tremors through the imperial foreign offices. These successful uprisings had the immediate ripple effect of inspiring similar movements throughout the region. Bahrain, housing the key naval base for the US navy in the Middle East and neighboring Saudi Arabia (the US key strategic ally in the Arab world), witnessed a prolonged massive uprising of civil society, while Yemen ruled by the US- puppet Ali Saleh, faced mass popular movements and militant resistance. Morocco and Algeria were experiencing popular demands for democracy. The common thread in the Arab peoples’ movements was their demands to end EU , US and Israeli domination of the region, an end to massive corruption and nepotism, free elections and a solution to wide-spread unemployment via large-scale job programs. As anti-colonial movements grew in breadth and intensity their demands radicalized from political to social democracy, from a democratic to an anti-imperialist foreign policy. Workers’ demands were enforced by strikes and calls for the prosecution of repressive police and internal security and military officials guilty of crimes against their citizens.
The U.S. , E.U. and Israel were caught by surprise – their intelligence agencies so deeply embedded in the smelly crevices of their clients’ secret police institutions failed to detect the popular explosions. The popular uprisings came at a critical and inopportune moment, especially for the US where domestic support for NATO wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had declined sharply given the economic crises and major social cutbacks to pay for these wars. Moreover, in Iraq and Afghanistan the US-NATO troops were losing ground: The Taliban was, in effect, the real ‘shadow government’. Pakistan , despite its puppet regime and compliant generals, faced overwhelming popular opposition to the air war against its citizens in frontier villages and towns. The US drone strikes killing militants and civilians were answered with the sabotage of vital transport supplying the occupation forces in Afghanistan . Faced with the deteriorating global situation, the NATO powers, decided that they needed to counter-attack in the most decisive and visible manner by destroying an independent, secular regime like Libya and thereby re-affirming their global supremacy, countering the image of defeat and retreat and, above all, re-energizing the “declining imperial power”.
The Imperial Counter-Attack
The US led the way in its counter-offensive in Egypt , by backing the power grab by the military junta led by Mubarak loyalists, who then proceeded to disperse and repress the pro-democracy and workers movements and to end all talk of restructuring the economy. A pro-NATO collective dictatorship of generals replaced the personal autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak. The NATO powers provided “emergency” billions to float the new regime and ‘derail’ the Egyptian people’s march to democracy. In Tunisia a similar process took hold: The EU, especially France and the US , backed a reshuffling of the ousted regime bringing to the fore a new/old cast of neo-colonial politicians. They plied them with funds, insuring that the military-police apparatus remained intact despite continued mass discontent with the conformist policies of the ‘new/old regime.
In Bahrain and Yemen , the NATO powers followed a dual track, unsure of the outcome between the massive pro-democracy movements and the pro-imperial autocrats. In Bahrain, the West called for ‘reform’ and ‘dialogue’ with the majority Shia population and a peaceful resolution, while continuing to arm and protect the Bahraini royalty – all the while looking for a pliant alternative if the incumbent puppet was overthrown. The NATO-backed Saudi invasion of Bahrain in support of the dictatorship and the subsequent wave of terror effectively showed West’s true intentions. In Yemen the NATO powers continued to support the brutal Ali Saleh regime.
Meanwhile the NATO powers were exploiting internal discontent in Syria by arming and providing diplomatic support to the Islamic fundamentalists and their minority neo-liberal allies in an effort to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad regime. Thousands of Syrian civilians, police and soldiers have been killed in this simmering civil war, which NATO propaganda presents as a case of state terror against ‘peaceful civilians’, ignoring the killing of soldiers and civilians by armed Islamists and the very real threat to Syria’s secular population and religious minorities.
The Counter-Offensive and NATO’s Invasion of Libya
The destruction and invasion of Libya reversed seven years of accommodation and co-operation with Gaddifi. There were no ‘incidents’ in Libya or elsewhere that had threatened the NATO countries’ economic and military interests. Libya was still an independent country, pursuing a pro-African agenda which had spearheaded and funded the establishment of an independent regional bank and communications system designed to bypass IMF and World Bank control. Libya ’s close ties to all the major NATO oil companies and to Wall Street investment banks as well as its ongoing bilateral military programs with the US did not shield it from the NATO’s attack. Libya was deliberately destroyed by a 6-month campaign of relentless bombing by NATO air and naval forces to serve as an example to the Arab popular movements: NATO’s message to the Arab pro-democracy movements was that it was prepared to launch new offensive wars with the same devastating consequences as the Libyan people just endured; the imperial powers were not in decline and any independent anti-colonial regime would suffer the same fate. NATO’s message to the African Union was clear: There will be no independent regional bank organized by Gaddafi or anyone else. There is no alternative to imperial banks, the IMF or the World Bank.
Through the devastation of Libya, the West was telling the Third World that, contrary to the pundits who chattered about ‘the decline of the US empire’, NATO was willing to use overwhelming and genocidal military power to establish puppet regimes, no matter how backward, vicious and regressive the puppets, because they will ultimately obey NATO and answer to the White House.
NATO’s invasion and destruction of a secular modern republic, like Libya , which had used its oil wealth to develop Libyan society, was a stern message to democratic popular movements. Any independent Third World regime can be rolled back; colonial puppet regimes can be foisted onto a devastated people; the end of colonialism is not inevitable, imperial rule is back.
NATO’s invasion of Libya sends a message to freedom fighters everywhere: There is a high cost to independence; acting outside of imperial channels, even if only to a limited degree, can bring swift destruction. Moreover, the NATO war on Libya demonstrates to all nationalist regimes that making concessions to Western economic, political and military interests– as Gaddafi’s sons and their neo-liberal entourage had pursued full accommodation—does not offer security. In fact concessions may have encouraged imperial penetration. The West’s burgeoning ties with Libyan officials facilitated their defections and promised an easy victory over Tripoli . The NATO powers believed that with a regional uprising in Benghazi , a handful of defectors from the Gaddafi regime and their military control of the air and sea, Libya would be an easy victory on the way to a widespread rollback of the Arab Spring.
The “cover” of an orchestrated regional military-civilian “uprising” and the imperial mass media propaganda blitz against the Libyan government was sufficient to convince the majority of western leftist intellectuals to take up the cudgels for the mercenary ‘rebels”: Samir Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Lowy, Juan Cole and many others backed the mercenary “rebels” … demonstrating the irrelevance and bankruptcy of the remnants of the old left.
The Long Term, Large Scale Consequences of NATOs War
The invasion and conquest of Libya marks a new phase in Western imperialism’s drive to reassert its primacy in the Arab-Islamic world. The ongoing offensive is clearly evident in the mounting pressures, sanctions, and arming of the Syrian opposition to Bashar al-Assad, the ongoing consolidation of the Egyptian military junta and the demobilization of the pro-democracy movement in Tunisia . How far “backwards” the process can be pushed depends on the revitalization and regrouping of the pro-democracy movements, currently in ebb.
Unfortunately, NATO’s victory over Libya will strengthen the arguments of the militarist wings of the US and EU ruling class who claim that the ‘military option’ brings results, that the only policy that “the anti-colonial Arabs” understand is force. The Libyan outcome will strengthen the hand of policymakers who favor a continued long-term US-NATO presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and promote a military offensive against Iran and Syria . Israel has already capitalized on NATO’s victory against Gaddafi via its expansion of huge colonial settlements in the West Bank, increasing bombing and missile raids on Gaza , a major naval and army build-up in the Red Sea region adjoining Egypt and confrontational posturing toward Turkey .
As of early September, members of the African Union, especially South Africa , have yet to recognize the mercenary “transition” regime imposed by NATO on Libya . Aside from the Libyan people, Sub-Saharan Africa will be the biggest immediate loser in the overthrow of Gaddafi. Libya ’s generous aid, grants and loans, bought the African states a degree of independence from the harsh conditions of the IMF, World Bank and Western bankers. Gaddafi was a major sponsor and backer of regional integration – including the African Union. His large scale development programs, especially oil and water infrastructure and construction projects, employed hundreds of thousands of sub-Saharan African immigrant workers and specialists who remitted billions to their home countries, helping the balance of payments and reducing deficits and poverty at home. In place of Gaddafi’s positive economic contribution, Africa now faces Tripoli transformed into a colonial outpost, fortifying US military command in Africa and a new push to strengthen military ties with the empire.
However, beyond the present-day celebrations of their imperial military success in Libya , the war only exacerbates the weakening of Western economies by diverting scarce domestic resources to wage prolonged wars with no decisive victories. Ongoing social cuts and harsh austerity programs have undercut any ruling class efforts to whip up phony mass chauvinist celebrations for “democratic victories over tyrants”. The naked aggression against Libya has heightened Russian, Chinese and Venezuelan security concerns. Russia and China will veto any UN Security Council sanctions on Syria . Venezuela and Russia are signing new multi-billion dollar military co-operation agreements, strengthening Caracas ’s military defense in the wake of the Libyan invasion.
For all the ruling class and mass media euphoria, the ‘win’ over Libya , grotesque and criminal in the destruction of Libyan secular society and the ongoing brutalization of black Libyans, does not solve the profound economic crises in the EU-US. It does not affect China ’s growing competitive advantages over its western competitors. It does not end US-Israeli isolation faced with an imminent world-wide recognition of Palestine as an independent state. The absence of left-wing western intellectual solidarity for independent Third World nations, evident in their support for the imperial-based mercenary “rebels” is more than compensated by the emergence of a radical new generation of left-wing activists in South Africa, Chile, Greece, Spain, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere. These are youth, whose solidarity with anti-colonial regimes is based on their own experience with exploitation, “marginalization” (unemployment) and repression at home.
Is it too much to hope that a War Crimes Tribunal could be organized to prosecute NATO leaders for crimes against humanity, for genocide against the people of Libya ? Can the brutal link between costly imperial wars abroad and increasing austerity and domestic decay lead to the revival of an anti-imperialist peace movement based on withdrawal of imperial troops abroad and public domestic investments for jobs, health and education for the working and middle class?
If the destruction and occupation of Libya marks a time of infamy for the NATO powers, it also establishes a new awareness that a people can struggle and resist 6 months of intense, massive bombings from all the NATO powers. Perhaps when their heroic example becomes clear and the fog of media propaganda is lifted, a new emerging generation of fighters can vindicate the battle of Libya, as a continuation of the struggle for the definitive emancipation of the Afro-Arab and Islamic peoples from the yoke of Western imperialism.
Be sure to pass this on.
What you can do to stop the NATO Genocide in Libya
Sep 11, 2011
Please paste the following addresses into the recipient box of your “Stop the War in Libya” e-mail:
The e-mails in blue should work for sure. The others should be ok.
Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations Email at site
UN Security Council
Member States of the United Nations
You can check all e-mail addresses here if any of the above addresses don’t work.
In the e-mail’s subject box:
PLEASE PUT A STOP TO NATO WAR IN LIBYA – APPEAL TO NON-BELLIGERANT UNSC MEMBERS
“PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THE NATO WAR ON LIBYA!”
WE APPEAL TO NON-BELLIGERENT MEMBERS
OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL
• to put an end to the misuse of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to influence the internal affairs of Libya through warfare, by revoking it, and
• to press for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Libya, backing the African Union’s central role in this context.
We thank those countries that have tried, and are still trying, to work towards peace.
Our appeal is based on the following:
• the military intervention in Libya undertaken by some NATO members has now gone far beyond the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1973, and is based on hyped-up accounts of defenseless citizens being massacred by their government, while the truth is that, in Libya, there is an on-going and intense internal armed conflict;
• we are aware of the economic and geo-strategic interests that lie behind the war in Libya and, in particular, behind NATO support of one of the two armed factions;
• NATO military intervention in Libya has killed (and is continuing to kill) countless civilians, as well as harming and endangering the civilian population, including migrants and refugees, in various other ways;
• the belief, at this stage, that only non-belligerent countries — and particularly those with U.N. Security Council voting rights — can successfully bring a peaceful end to the conflict through negotiations and by implementing the opening paragraph of UNSC Resolution 1973, which calls for an immediate ceasefire.
Name (or association)