From Global Research, May 16, 2011 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya The War on Libya - PART III In Part I of this text, the events which led up and set the backdrop for the present conflict in Libya were discussed. Part II examined the central role of media distortion and misinformation in justifying the NATO war on "humanitarian grounds". The following text examines US-NATO war plans and intelligence operations pertaining to Libya, prior to the onset of the insurrection in Eastern Libya and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. From the outset, the conflict in North Africa was intended to lead into an all out NATO war. The Pentagon and NATO are not only arming the Transitional Council in violation of international law, but they also had forces on the ground from the start.
Foreign Forces Were on the Ground in Libya prior to any type of U.N. Approval U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 only passed, because Moscow and Beijing abstained. This was a tactical move meant to limit the war. If the resolution had been vetoed by Russia and China, in all likelihood, the U.S., Britain, France, Italy (and the Western European members of NATO) would have resorted to “other means,” including an outright invasion. By abstaining and getting the NATO powers to vocally invest themselves to U.N. Resolution 1973 and to hide behind it, Moscow and Beijing managed to limit the options of the Pentagon and NATO. The efforts of Moscow and Beijing, however, have not hindered Washington and its NATO allies from breaching international law or U.N. Resolution 1973. Washington has casually admitted that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was on the ground supporting rebel forces. According to Washington, the involvement of U.S. intelligence agents in Libya started as soon as the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was closed. [1] February 25, 2011, is the date that the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was reported as being closed. [2] This is a casual omission that the U.S. had violated international law and was operating on the ground in Libya before any U.N. approval. Moreover, Italy had opened its military bases to use by the U.S., Britain, and France before any U.N. approval by repudiating its non-aggression pact with Libya on February 27, 2011. [3] In other words, the war against Libya had already begun. Unnamed U.S. officials even told Reuters that U.S. intelligence operations were underway in Libya before President Obama signed a secret order in March 2011 that authorized covert U.S. actions against the Libyan government. [4] The U.S. was not alone in operating in Libya. It has been reported that dozens of British agents and commandos from MI6, the Special Air Services (SAS) unit, and the Special Boat Services (SBS) units were also operating inside Libya. [5] These foreign forces in Libya were sent to prepare for the war by selecting targets to be bombed. [6] Even before the attacks were launched, both Britain and France even announced plans in November 2010 for war games that envisioned attacking Libya under the exercise codename “SOUTHLAND.” [7] The British and French military assets being mobilized for these drills ended up being used to attack Libya. [8] November 2010, according to the Italian journalist Franco Bechis of Italy’s Libero, also happened to be the time that Paris started planning for regime change in Libya. Even if the November 2010 war games and the Italian article about regime change plans are dismissed, a war with Libya was intended from the outset of the crisis. Before the assault on Libya started, the Pentagon and its NATO allies had mobilized an excessive amount of military assets that went well beyond the needs of any evacuation operations in Libya. In the words of the British Defence Minister, Liam Fox:
Days later the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged that British troops were on standby waiting to enter Libyan territory:
Under a humanitarian pretext, London has also sent military advisors to the Transitional Council. The British press reported about this in early-March 2011: “Britain is also preparing to send diplomats and specialist advisers to the eastern city of Benghazi, where the disparate Libyan opposition is based.” [11] At least one of these so-called “special advisors” was later apprehended near in the vicinity of Benghazi. In reality, London blatantly lied about sending a British diplomat and his plain clothed security to Benghazi.[12] In this case, the plain clothed security guards were undercover British commandos. The British group was arrested by rebel forces when the security team lied about not being armed. Hidden weapons and a cache of explosives were found on them. [13] Why was the so-called British diplomat and his security team not directly flown into Benghazi? The British story was very dubious and problematic from the start. Even more telling was the doubt-casting language which the BBC used to report the incident, while portraying as a mere misunderstanding. It turned out that the armed group apprehended on March 6, 2011 near Benghazi by rebel forces was in the process of conducting a British intelligence mission: the diplomat was an MI6 secret agent and the security team consisted of seven British SAS commandos. [14] At about the same time, three Dutch Marines were also caught by Libyan forces operating inside Sirte. [15] The Dutch government insisted that the Dutch troops were merely evacuating two Dutch workers. The Libyan government, however, was not informed or aware of the Dutch operation. The captured Dutch Marines were later handed over by the Libyans to the Netherlands on March 10, 2011. [16] Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi took the occasion to warn NATO not to intervene inside Libya: “We told them [meaning the Dutch], don’t come back again without our permission. We captured the first NATO soldiers, we are sending them back home. But we are still keeping their helicopter.” [17] The French also sent planeloads of what was reported to be medical aid to Benghazi. [18] In turn, Pakistani sources reported in late February that the U.S., Britain, and France had sent military advisors to Benghazi.[19] What these reports confirm is that there was a foreign military and intelligence presence in Libya before any U.N. mandate for a no-fly zone was granted. In this regard, the governments involved were in blatant violation of international law. Another Case of Double-Standards: Yesterday’s Terrorists are Today’s Allies Foreign intervention also consisted in embedding U.S., British and Saudi "intelligence assets" inside Libya. The latter consisted of Islamic paramilitaries from Afghanistan and other conflict zones, which were dispatched to Libya. These intelligence assets are what the U.S. and its allies would themselves define as “terrorist elements.” This is utter hypocrisy. acknowledged by numerous reports, the U.S. and its allies are in bed with their own so-called terrorist enemies. This should come as no surprise. Washington and its allies have created, controlled, nurtured, and unleashed Islamic terrorist fighting groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Caucasus, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon. The Wall Street Journal report on rebel training in the Libyan town of Darnah (Derna/Darna) identifies the role of US supported terrorists inside Libya:
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) has been one of the components of the Transitional Council forces. According to a study authored at the Pentagon’s West Point, the area around Benghazi and Darnah in Barqa is the place known for supplying the second largest group of foreign fighters into Iraq; these fighters are tied to the LIFG, which is currently allied to the U.S. and NATO. [21] NATO wanted a War in North Africa from the Start The New York Times (February 28, 2011) asserted that the French government was opposed to military action and that NATO would “not” be used against the Libyans. [22] This was really an act of brinkmanship intended to pave the way towards a broader war in North Africa. Steven Erlanger analyses the bogus French position as follows:
All the so-called debate within NATO and lack of enthusiasm about the alliance’s role in Libya was mere bravado and a theatrical act for the public. Gradually NATO would be presented as being involved only through a “technical role” in the war. [24] It is at this point the U.S. Defence Secretary Roberts Gates declared: “This isn’t a NATO mission. This is a mission in which NATO machinery may be used for command and control [against Libya].” [25] In reality, the project was a NATO project from the onset of the mobilization of the military forces encircling Libya. NATO was also monitoring Libyan airspace before Libya was attacked. [26] In the frankest of terms Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Obama Administration, 10 Downing Street, and the E.U. were misleading the public. It is also worth noting that Anders Fogh Rasmussen was selected to be the secretary-general of NATO as a reward for his support as Danish prime minister for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why has Operation Odyssey Dawn been Handed to NATO? NATO is an undemocratic body and is not answerable to any constituency of voters. It is through NATO and international organizations that the voting public is being bypassed. The command of the war against Libya has deliberately been reassigned from the Pentagon to NATO as a clever means to bypass public scrutiny and accountability by the U.S. government and all other governments involved in this war. Even the so-called NATO holdouts, Germany and Turkey, are supportive of this war. Berlin is sending more military resources to NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan so that the military forces of its allies can be freed up to attack Libya. Moreover, Ankara did not prevent NATO from formally taking over the military operations against Libya. While the sentiment of the Turkish people is against the war, the Turkish government has been onboard with U.S. and E.U. war against Libya. It is also worth quoting President Obama in regards to Turkey’s position on Libya:
Washington is merely trying to hide behind its Western European allies. [28] The U.S. is leading the NATO operations, just as it was working behind the scenes with its allies to launch the war by imposing a no-fly zone. The U.S. only pretended to be opposed to the no-fly zones. The U.S. government actually firmly backed a no-fly zone when it was presented to the U.N. Security Council and the Pentagon had already mobilized the military resourced needed to attack Libya. [29] Moreover, it is a U.S. flag officer that holds the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe. U.S. Admiral James G. Stravridis is the supreme commander of NATO military operations. Admiral Stravridis does he need to have the approval of anyone in NATO for many of the combat decisions he makes. As a matter of public record, this was deliberately clarified by Senator Joseph Lieberman and Admiral Stravridis at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where Libya and U.S. military operations in Europe were discussed. [30] It should also be noted, while Admiral Stravridis can operationally work independently from the oversight of the rest of NATO’s members, he is totally subordinate to the Obama Administration and the Pentagon. Turkey: A Trojan Horse? Ankara has been portrayed as siding with the Libyan regime. In reality Ankara supports the Transitional Council and the NATO war against Libya. It has been claimed that Turkey has been advising Colonel Qaddafi and his regime, but this is misleading. Ankara has been playing the role of a negotiator and go-between, but it is not impartial. Turkey is administering or running the airport in Benghazi from which the U.S., British, French, NATO, and Qatar have given covert and illegal combat support assistance to the Transitional Council. [31] It was actually NATO that assigned Ankara the airport authority role via a NATO agreement with the Transitional Council. [32] Moreover, one of NATO’s operational headquarters for the war against Libya is located in Turkey and Ankara’s naval forces are participating in the naval operations and embargo against Libya. Turkey is also a de facto combatant through its combat support role in the war. NATO works on a consensus basis and if countries like Turkey and Germany were really against the war then they could have blocked NATO from getting involved in Libya. NATO as a whole is a military combatant in Libya and therefore all NATO members are by extension to be considered combatants. When General Carter Ham was asked by Senator Sessions if Turkey was obstructing the military campaign or blocking NATO attacks as was being claimed, he confirmed that Turkey was supportive of the war. [33] General Ham is the commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the military flag officer that originally led the war against Libya until operations were transferred over to NATO. Before the NATO campaign against Libya, Ankara had been deepening its tied with Tripoli and had worked to establish a free-trade agreement between Turkey and Libya. Like its ties to Libya, the Turkish government has also been deepening its ties with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (Hamas), Russia, and several former Soviet republics. This has been presented as part of the renaissance in Turkish foreign policy, which sometimes is labelled as neo-Ottomanism. This, however, appears to also be a means of bringing these players into the orbit of Washington and the European Union. In this regards Turkey could be seen as working as a Trojan horse that is integrating these players into the imperial network of Washington’s empire. Turkey’s role in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza also appear to be part of a coordinated effort to cut them off from Iran. Arming the Rebels: The Coalition in Breach of U.N. Resolutions and the ATT The U.S. and its allies have breached international law and U.N. Resolutions 1970 and 1973 by sending weapons to the Transitional Council. U.N. Resolution 1970 specifically states that no weapons are to be shipped into Libya. Qatar’s Prime Minister Al-Thani even said that the rebels will be armed at the start of the conflict. [34] Prime Minister Al-Thani did not make these statements in isolation; he made these statements during the London Conference on Libya and in conjunction with his meetings with the U.S., the E.U., and NATO. Days later, General Abdel Fattah Al-Yunis (Al-Younis) and the Transitional Council told the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya that they had taken delivery of weapons which had been shipped into Libya from abroad. [35] A few days later, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, told CNN that Qatar was delivering weapons to the Transitional Council in Benghazi. [36] Afterwards Qatar’s Al Jazeera went on the offensive to shield Emir Al-Thani and legitimize his actions. While interviewing the Secretary-General of NATO, Al Jazeera openly reported that Qatar was arming the Transitional Council. [37] This was part of the broader effort to normalize the breaches of U.N. Resolution 1970 and international law. In a noticeably tense interview, anchorwoman Ghida Fakhry asked Secretary-General Rasmussen if NATO members were arming the rebels or aiding them with intelligence as Qatar was openly doing, but Ramussen refused to answer Fakhry’s question. [38] What Rasmussen did was avoid touching the subject by circumventing himself around it by repeating that NATO was merely enforcing U.N. Resolution 1973. [39] The question was asked on the basis of U.N. Resolution 1970, but Ramussen kept referring to U.N. Resolution 1973 and repeating that NATO was enforcing it. [40] Before the interview was over, Rasmussen was asked the question no less than four times by Ghida Fakhry. [41] The logic that NATO and its allies are trying to use to justify arming the Transitional Council is that they are sending weapons into Libya as a means of “protecting civilians.” The weapons, however, are intended to be used to fight the Libyan military and for an offensive towards Tripoli. In this context, Qatar’s actions are not in isolation from the broader war campaign being led by Washington against Libya. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) also prohibits arming the rebels, because they are not the legal government of Libya. The governments arming the rebels have tried to circumvent this legality by recognizing the Transitional Council as the legal government of Libya. [42] The U.S. Government Redefines International Law and Reality to Justify its Crimes The U.S. government is the party that has paved the way for arming the Transitional Council and unquestionably breaching U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970 and the ATT. The directive to arm the Transitional Council with weapons was passed down from Hillary Clinton to all the officials gathered at the London Conference for Libya. [43] Had it all not been an act, this would have constituted a radical change for a U.S. official who earlier was maintaining that U.S. and foreign intervention would be counter-productive. [44] Hillary Clinton has sought to justify arming the Libyan rebels through a creative interpretation of U.N. Resolution 1973: “‘It is our interpretation that (UN Security Council resolution) 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition on arms to anyone in Libya, so that there could be a legitimate transfer of arms if a country should choose to do that,’ Clinton said.” [45] The U.S. position became public at the same time that news broke out that the CIA was going to arm the Transitional Council. [46] The Washington Post was told by an unnamed U.S. official on March 30, 2011 that “President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to the Libyan opposition groups.” [47] Moreover, it would become public that Washington was sending arms into Libya through its Arab clients. The Arab Role in Arming the Transitional Council At the same time that Hillary Clinton was telling the international community that it was okay to breach the U.N. resolutions, the Pentagon was coordinating a breach of the Libyan arms embargo by giving the green light to the Egyptian military junta to arm the Transitional Council. [48] There were also reports of that Egypt was supplying arms to the rebels:
Later on, Mustafa Gheriani, a spokesperson of the Transitional Council, told the international press gathered in Benghazi that the Transitional Council has opened centres for “professional training” in combat. The New York Times is worth quoting for Ghoga’s response to a question asking if there were foreign military advisors and military instructors within these combat facilities. The New York Times reported Ghoga's response as follows: “Asked if he [meaning Gheriani] meant that foreign advisors or trainers were present, he declined to reply but winked broadly, twice. ‘We have a lot of people being trained, real professional training, that we don’t talk to the world about,’ he said.” [50] It should be noted this all happened well before Britain and France publicly acknowledged that they were sending military units to help train the Transitional Council for combat operationsa against the Libyan military. This is in contrast to what the British government publicly declared earlier when it announced that it had no intention of sending any military personnel to assist the Transitional Council. [51] Subsequently, the U.S. and Italy also held high-level bilateral meetings in Washington about arming the Transitional Council’s forces. [52] More Double-Standards: Who is Sending Mercenaries into Libya? London has put forward a plan for the Arab dictatorships, specifically the U.A.E. and Qatar, to send military units and military trainers into Benghazi and Libya. [53] Jordan, which has also been involved in the war on Libya and in the oppression of Bahrainis, will in all likelihood be involved. [54] The British plan would see Qatar and Emirati troops land in Benghazi or alternatively the hiring of former members of the British military as private military contractors. [55] The latter are not only mercenaries, they are also British soldiers that are given special leave from military service to fight in an unofficial capacity. The Daily Telegraph had this to say about the plan to send British mercenaries:
Yet, before the British government even put forward such a plan there were reports that London, alongside Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., was arming the Transitional Council’s fighters against the Libyan military. [57] Phase Two of Operation Libya: Direct Ground Intervention? During a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Admiral Stravridis was obliged by Senator John McCain into acknowledging that NATO forces would eventually move into Tripoli. [58] McCain had repeatedly demanded that Libya’s neighbours and NATO should fund the war against Libya. [59] McCain alongside Senator Lieberman had repeatedly called for the arming of the Benghazi-based forces. Both McCain and Lieberman started making these demands and calling for a no-fly zone while visiting Israel and consulting with Israeli leaders. [60] Oana Lungescu, the spokeswoman for NATO, has denied that NATO plans on sending boots on the ground to Libya, but this stands in stark contradiction to operational command statements. A foreign military presence of some form is in the cards. It will not be like the previous NATO military occupations. While President Obama has stated that no U.S. combat troops will land in Libya, the U.S. Armed Services Committee and Admiral Stravridis have clarified that NATO is considering sending soldiers into Libya as part of a “stabilization regime.” [61] In other words, an international force will be sent for so-called “peacekeeping” or “stabilization” missions similar to those in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. This is another shape and name for occupation. The Pentagon and NATO are now looking at methods to publicly side-step the U.N. in order to invade Libya. Both Cairo and Tunis are slated to play a role in NATO-sponsored ground invasion. In early-March 2011, Hillary Clinton held consultations in Tunisia and Egypt with the Libyan opposition and the governments in Egypt and Tunisia. [62] She was actually coordinating for the war on Libya with Tunisia and Egypt. Both the governments in Tunisia and Egypt are continuations of the old regimes in those countries. No authentic democratization process has taken place. The “counter-revolutionary” regimes have opened Tunisia and Egypt to further U.S. and E.U. economic control under so-called “democratic reforms” and new “foreign investment.” [63] With the launch of the war, Tunis would openly support the war while the Egyptian military junta would provide covert support. It was susequently revealed in London that there were plans to sent British ground forces to the Libyan border with Tunisia. [64] The British government was to to justify this under the pretext of helping refugees fleeing Libya. [65] A foreign troop presence, specifically under the E.U. and NATO, would be geared towards dividing Libya into a loosely-knit protectorate or trusteeships. This would probably take shape under two separate administrations respectively based in Tripoli and Benghazi. If the occupation were to occur it would also be agreed upon by at least one or both of the governments of a divided Libya with capitals respectively in Tripoli and Benghazi. The Justifications for War have Morphed: Deception of Mission Creep President Obama and his allies initially said that the war was not about regime change, but they have backtracked. While Obama was still denying that any regime change would take place, Senator McCain contradicted him and said: “Let’s be honest with ourselves and the American people. Our objective in Libya is regime change, whether the [Obama] Administration wants to call it that or not.” [66] similarly in Canada, Prime Minister Steven Harper and his defence minister confirmed that regime change was an objective. [67] All the hallmarks of deceit are present. The unstated goals in Libya have always been the same, but like in Iraq the goals stated publicly have changed. Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Cameron have now admitted in a joint letter that the mission in Libya is not over until Qaddafi is removed. [68] This means regime change. It can also be part of a strategy to get Qaddafi to agree to the partition Libya to save himself and his regime. Moving forward, Senator John McCain and Admiral Stravridis have stated that a strategic stalemate between Qaddafi and the Transitional Council in Libya is unacceptable for Washington or to the interests of the U.S. while also ironically and unwittingly mentioning that no-fly zones and U.N. sanctions “don’t succeed.” [69] If the no-fly zones and U.N. sanctions do not work in protecting civilians, then why were they imposed on Libya in the first place? The no-fly zones and sanctions imposed on Libya are not intended to protect civilians, but are intended for weakening the defences of Libya. The no-fly zones cover the whole of Libya and not exclusively the areas controlled by the Transitional Council. If the rationale of the no-fly zones was to protect civilians, the no-fly zones would have been applied to the area around Benghazi and not to Tripoli and the western portion of Libya. What this means is that the White House and the E.U. have been using the no-fly zones as a pretext for waging a war of military aggression against Libya. As President Obama stated in a televised address on March 28, 2011, the U.S. is helping the Benghazi-based Transitional Council, because it is in the interest of the U.S. government. [70] Regime change rather than protecting civilians is a stated goal of the war. The U.S. and the E.U. originally denied this, but with time have ratcheted up the talk about regime change while simultaneously racketing down denials about regime change in Tripoli. Obama has also declared this objective: “[T]here is no question that Libya – and the world – would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.” [71] The European Union has also made the preparations for deploying an E.U. military force to Libya called EUFOR Libya. [72] The German government has been a major, but subtle, backer of this. [73] This is being presented under the guise of a peacekeeping mission in Libya. This is essentially the same thing as using NATO peacekeepers, but under a different name. NATO is moving into fill the so-called “post-conflict” voids in places that the Pentagon and its cohorts wage war from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Lebanon. In Lebanon NATO wanted to send troops, but when alarm bells began to ring amongst the Lebanese and Arab peoples the name of NATO was removed. Instead NATO members did send their troops, but not under the name of NATO. In fact, General Alain Pellegrini, the former military commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed that the Pentagon had planned to launch a NATO invasion of Lebanon to help Israel and to use in NATO occupying Lebanon. The Pentagon and NATO are Prolonging the War to Deepen their Roles Over a month after his claims about Qaddafi’s attempts to use chemical weapons on civilians, General Abdul Fatah Al-Yunis also said that NATO has been slow to act in support of the Benghazi-based Transitional Council. His previous statement about chemical weapons aimed at bolstering support for foreign military intervention is an outright lie. His latest statement, however, could either be a coordinated propaganda effort aimed at shoring up demands for more NATO military intervention or a genuine sign that NATO has deliberately been using measured responses to get the Transitional Council to become more dependent on foreign support and to prolong the internal fighting in Libya. [74] It may be both. Al Jazeera had these statements to report about his press conference:
General Al-Yunis also stated: “If NATO wanted to remove the siege on Misurata, they would have done so days ago [during their attacks on the Libyan military.]” [76] In this regard, Al-Yunis is corrected. The U.S. and NATO are deliberately prolonging the war and for the time being trying to keep a strategic stalemate in Libya as part of their effort to control the entire country. This has been part of their longstanding plans to weaken Libya either through partition or soft balkanization under a new federal system. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). NOTES 1 Ken Dilanian, “CIA officers in Libya re aiding rebels, U.S. officials say,” Chicago Tribune, March 30, 2011. 2 Howard LaFranchi, “Libya: US closes embassy in Tripoli, sanctions loom,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2011; Embassy of the United States in Libya, “U.S. Embassy Tripoli Warden Message – U.S. Government Suspension of Operations,” February 25, 2011: <http://libya.usembassy.gov/wm_022511a.html> 3 Nicolas Squires, “Libya: Italy repudiates friendship treaty, paving way for future military action,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), February 28, 2011. 4 Mark Hosenball, U.S. agents were in Libya before secret Obama order,” Reuters, March 31, 2011. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Michel Chossudovsky, “When War Games Go Live: ‘Staging’ a ‘Humanitarian War’ against ‘SOUTHLAND,’” Global Research, April 16, 2011. 8 Air Defence and Air Operation Command, Southern Mistral 11: Assets Deployed, February 15, 2011: <http://www.southern-mistral.cdaoa.fr/GB/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=104>. 9 Liam Fox, “Liam Fox: Libya crisis shows why we’re right on defence reform,” The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.), February 26, 2011 10 James Kirkup and Richard Spencer, “Libya: British Army ready for mission at 24 hours’ notice,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), March 4, 2011. 11 Ibid. 12 Martin Chulov, Polly Curtis and Amy Fallon, “‘SAS unit’ captured in Libya.” The Guardian (U.K.), March 6, 2011. 13 Caroline Gammell, Nick Meo, and James Kirkup, “Libya: SAS mission that began and ended in error,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.) March 6, 2011. 14 Ibid.; Dilanian, “CIA officers,” Op.cit.; The Chicago Tribune had this to say about the British intelligence mission: “The CIA officers in Libya are part of a contingent of operatives from Western nations. The public got a hint of the activity March 6, when a group of British special forces officers, and a member of the intelligence service, were detained by rebels and released.” 15 Michael Georgy and Maria Golovina, “Libya to hand over captured Dutch marines – Gaddafi son,” Reuters, ed. Philippa Fletcher, March 10, 2011; Associated Press (AP), “Gaddafi’s forces capture Dutch marines on rescue mission,” March 3, 2011. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Steven Erlanger, “French Aid Bolsters Libyan Revolt,” The New York Times, February 28, 2011. 19 Akhtar Jamal, “US, UK, French forces land in Libya,” Pakistan Observer, February 28, 2011. 20 Charles Levinson, Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), April 2, 2011. 21 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records (West Point, N.Y.: West Point U.S. Military Academy, 2007), pp.7-12. 22 Erlanger, “French Aid Bolsters,” Op. cit. 23 Ibid. 24 David Brunnstrom, “NATO meets to decide alliance in Libya,” Reuters, March 23, 2011. 25 David Brunnstrom et al., “NATO to enforce Libya embargo, stuck on no-fly,” Reuters, ed. Paul Taylor, March 22, 2011. 26 Jamey Keaten and Slobodan Lekic, “World Leaders Meet in Paris for Critical Libya Talks,” Associated Press (AP) March 19, 2011. 27 Barack Hussein Obama, Remarks of the President in Address to the Nation on Libya (Address, National Defense University, Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2011). 28 Terri Judd, “French jets enforce no-fly zone as America plays done its role,” The Independent (U.K.), March 21, 2011. 29 Omar Karmi, “US deploys naval and air forces near Libya,” The National (U.A.E.), March 1, 2011; Ian Black et al., “Libya crisis: Britain, France and US prepare for air strikes against Gaddafi,” The Guardian (U.K.), March 17, 2011. 30 United States Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command and U.S. Strategic Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and the Future Years Defense Program, 112th Congress, 2011, 1st Session, 29 March 2011. 31 Today’s Zaman, “Turkey will run Benghazi airport,” March 29, 2011. 32 Ibid. 33 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Testimony on U.S. Transportation Command and U.S. Africa Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and the Future Years Defense Program, 112th Congress, 2011, 1st Session, 7 April 2011. 34 David Stringer, “Top envoys agree Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi must step down but don’t discuss arming rebels,” Associated Press (AP), March 29, 2011. 35 Rod Nordland, “Libyan Rebels Say They’re Being Sent Weapons,” The New York Times, April 16, 2011. 36 Ibid. 37 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Battle for Libya,” interview by Ghida Fakhry, Al Jazeera, April 8, 2011. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya “‘Operation Libya’ – Recognizing the Opposition Government Constitutes a Pretext for Military Intervention,” Global Research, March 13, 2011. 43 Nigel Morris and Oliver Wright, “Clinton: UN resolution gives us authority to arm Libyan rebels,” The Independent (U.K.), March 30, 2011. 44 Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, “No-fly zone plan goes nowhere as US, Russia and Nato urge caution,” The Guardian (U.K.), March 1, 2011. 45 Stringer, “Top envoys agree,” Op. cit. 46 Dilanian, “CIA officers,” Op. cit. 47 Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller, “In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels,” The Washington Post, March 30, 2011. 48 Giles Elgood, “Egypt arming Libyan rebels Wall Street Journal reports,” Reuters, ed. Andrew Roche, March 18, 2011. 49 Ibid. 50 Nordland, “Libyan Rebels,” Op. cit.; the Emir of Qatar also confirms this by telling CNN’ Wolf Blitzer that there would be training programs for the arms being sent to the Transitional Council from outside Libya. 51 James Kirkup, “Libya: Arab states urged to train and lead rebels,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), April 22, 2011; In this regard, James Kirkup writes: “The British government has made clear it will not publicly participate in any training operation inside Libya, believing any ground-level intervention must be seen to done by Arab states.” 52 Atul Aneja, “Opposition allies mull ‘political solution’ in Libya,” The Hindu, April 8, 2011; Quoting Bloomberg, Aneja reports: “Unsurprisingly, the United States and Italy are each seriously considering arming Libyan opposition forces, following closed-door talks in Washington between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and visiting Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, Bloomberg reported.” 53 Kirkup, “Libya: Arab states,” Op. cit. 54 Jordan Times, “’Jordanian fighters protect aid mission,’” April 2, 2011. 55 Kirkup, “Libya: Arab states,” Op. cit. 56 Ibid. 57 Scott Peterson, “Italy rejects Qaddafi, recognizes Libyan rebel government,” Christian Science Monitor, April 4, 2011; Elgood, “Egypt arming Libyan,” Op. cit. 58 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command, Op. cit. 59 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Transportation Command, Op. cit. 60 Jackson Diehl, “McCain: U.S. ‘making up reasons’ to avoid action on Libya,” The Washington Post, March 1, 2011. 61 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command, Op. cit.; Admiral Stravridis also told the U.S. Armed Services Committee that they should realize that NATO has a tradition of stationing troops in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan as a precedent for Libya. 62 Nicole Gaoutte and Viola Ginger, “Clinton will Travel to Egypt, Tunisia, Meet With Libyan Opposition Leaders,” Bloomberg, March 10, 2011. 63 Ibid. 64 Nigel Morris, “British troops could be deployed to Tunisia,” The Independent (U.K.), April 28, 2011. 65 Ibid. 66 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Transportation Command, Op. cit. 67 Mark Kennedy, “Canada joins UN coalition aerial mission on Libya,” Edmonton Journal, March 19, 2011; Agence-France Presse (AFP), “Canada wants Kadhafi out but will keep to UN mandate,” March 22, 2011. 68 The Daily Mail (U.K.), “MPs rebel over Libya mission creep as Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy promise to keep bombing until Gaddafi regime is gone,” April 15, 2011. 69 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command, Op. cit. 70 Barack H. Obama, Remarks of the President, Op.cit. 71 Ibid. 72 Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review, “EU deploys to Libya despite UN concern as rebels welcome US drones,” April 22, 2011. 73 Der Spiegel, Change of Course? Berlin Open to Humanitarian Involvement in Libya,” April 8, 2011. 74 For example the statements made by General Yunis have been used to push for increased military escalation by Senator McCain at the U.S. Senate Arms Services Committee. 75 Al Jazeera, “Libyan rebels ‘disappointed’ by NATO, April 5, 2011. 76 Borzou Daragahi, David S. Cloud, and Ned Parker, “Rebel leader in Libya demands more of NATO,” The Los Angeles Times, April 5, 2011. | |||||
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya | |||||
Latests:
May 16, 2011
NATO's Secret Ground War in Libya
Bitcoin P2P Currency: The Most Dangerous Project We've Ever Seen
From Launch.is, Sunday, May 15, 2011 :
After month of research and discovery, we’ve learned the following:
1. Bitcoin is a technologically sound project.
2. Bitcoin is unstoppable without end-user prosecution.
3. Bitcoin is the most dangerous open-source project ever created.
4. Bitcoin may be the most dangerous technological project since the internet itself.
5. Bitcoin is a political statement by technotarians (technological libertarians).*
6. Bitcoins will change the world unless governments ban them with harsh penalties.
What Are Bitcoins?
=========
Bitcoins are virtual coins in the form of a file that is stored on your device. These coins can be sent to and from users three ways:
1. Direct with peer-to-peer software downloaded at bitcoin.org
2. Via an escrow service like ClearCoin
3. Via a bitcoin currency exchange
Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
The benefits of a currency like this:
a) Your coins can’t be frozen (like a Paypal account can be)
b) Your coins can’t be tracked
c) Your coins can’t be taxed
d) Transaction costs are extremely low (sorry credit card companies)
You can watch a simple video here: http://jc.is/jlcte0
Where Do Bitcoins Come from?
=========
Bitcoins are created by a complex algorithm. Only 21M can be made by the year 2140. Your desktop bitcoin software can make bitcoins, but at this point the electricity and time it would take to produce a bitcoin is larger than the actual value of a bitcoin (your laptop might take five years to make one, and they currently trade at $6.70 per bitcoin [ seehttps://mtgox.com/trade/buy for the latest exchange rate ].
Bitcoin miners use super cheap GPUs (not CPUs) to create the coins, but as more people come online to make them, the algorithm adjusts so that one block can only be made every 10 minutes.
Who Invented Bitcoins?
=========
An individual with the name -- or perhaps handle -- of Satoshi Nakamoto first wrote about bitcoins in a paper called Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. This person has stepped back from the project and trusted Gavin Andresen to take charge as the project’s technical lead.
How Does One Buy and Sell Bitcoin?
=========
Currently Paypal and credit card companies are making it illegal to sell bitcoins. Why? Simple: PayPal’s terms of service prohibit "currency exchange."
CoinPal had its account frozen, details here.
Given that you can’t whip out your Paypal account and buy them, and that it will become harder and harder to get them, bitcoins will be bartered for services in the real world.
For example, a Hacker News community member named Nicholas Carlson just boasted that he is being paid for a programming project in bitcoins.
Bitcoins in Real Life
============
In the next year you’ll hear about people in casinos in Vegas buying and sell bitcoins for cash and casino chips.
Imagine a bachelor party comes to Vegas and STNY (someone that’s not you) gives $550 to a guy at a bar and he takes out his laptop or tablet and ships 100 bitcoins to STNY’s phone. STNY then goes to Craigslist and ships some bitcoins to an escort and a drug dealer, who then show up in person to provide goods and services.
The Drug Underground and Bitcoin
============
Last month folks were buzzing about an online drug marketplace called SilkRoadMarket, which was reportedly trading in, well, all kinds of drugs: marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy and DMT.
Of course, since bitcoin transactions are untraceable, you would have zero recourse if you sent a dozen bitcoins to someone for a couple of tabs of LSD. Just like you might lose your $10 if you gave it to a kid in the school yard for a dime bag and he never came back.
Let’s Make Some Predictions
============
We are 100% certain that governments will start banning bitcoins in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, we’re certain bitcoins will soar in value and a crush of folks will flood the system and start using them.
Currently there are 6M coins at $6.70 each for a total economy of about $40M. Bitcoin speculation and hoarding will also cause a massive spike in bitcoin value. For example, if 10M people find out about bitcoins in the next year and want to buy $100 worth, $1B will be infused into the bitcoin economy.
Finally, there will be massive breakage in bitcoins. If your laptop crashes and you didn’t back up your bitcoins, well, you’re SOL. If someone steals you laptop that has 10,000 bitcoins on it you won on Bitcoin Poker, you’re SOL. Lost your USB drive with 500 bitcoins on it after a night out on the town? You’re SOL.
Sites like 99designs, eLance and oDesk will start accepting bitcoins for payment. If they don’t, they will face competition from folks who do.
Bottom line: The world is going to be turned over by bitcoins unless governments step in and ban them by prosecuting individuals.
This is about to get really interesting, everyone.
* We made this term up to describe the “good people” of the internet who believe in the fundamental rights of individuals to be free, have free speech, fight hypocrisy and stand behind logic, technology and science over religion, political structure and tradition. These are the people who build and support things like Wikileaks, Anonymous, Linux and Wikipedia. They think that people can, and should, govern themselves. They are against external forms of control such as DRM, laws that are bought and sold by lobbyists, and religions like Scientology. They include splinter groups that enforce these ideals in the form of hacktivism, such as the takedown of the Sony Playstation Network after Sony tried to prosecute a hacker for unlocking its console.
-----------------
TWIST Bitcoin episode
============
Full show here.
Gavin explains the fundamentals of Bitcoin - clip
Who is Satoshi, the mysterious bitcoin founder? clip
The million-dollar bitcoin question: Can the system be hacked? clip
Jason sets his software to generate bitcoins and Gavin explains why that's a bad idea - clip
-----------------
About LAUNCH
LAUNCH Media covers and celebrates new products, services and technology in two ways: an email newsletter and an in-person conference. LAUNCH was founded by a serial entrepreneur, former journalist and now angel investor we’re tired of promoting.
http://www.launch.is
About the LAUNCH Newsletter
Our newsletter is compiled in a collaborative fashion by a half-dozen writers, researchers and industry pundits we invite to our Google Docs from time-to-time. Our conflicts are many, but our insights and facts are always well-researched, honest and to the point. We’re blunt to a fault -- by design.
http://www.launch.is/newsletter
About the LAUNCH Hackathon
We're looking for the perfect location for a 72-hour hackathon this fall. We need a 10K to 20K square-foot space with killer internet in San Francisco/Silicon Valley. Suggestions: hackathon@launch.is.
About the LAUNCH Conference
The LAUNCH Conference rocked. That’s really all you need to know. Catch it all here if you missed it.
And we’ll have another one next year, maybe sooner.
Support real tech journalism -- not smarmy gossip posing as such -- by advertising in LAUNCH: sales@launch.is.
LAUNCH Coda
#61: Money changes everything if you let it.
L019: Bitcoin P2P Currency: The Most Dangerous Project We've Ever Seen
by Jason Calacanis and the LAUNCH team
A month ago I heard folks talking online about a virtual currency called bitcoin that is untraceable and un-hackable. Folks were using it to buy and sell drugs online, support content they liked and worst of all -- gasp! -- play poker.
Bitcoin is a P2P currency that could topple governments, destabilize economies and create uncontrollable global bazaars for contraband.
I sent the 30 or so producers of my show This Week in Startups out to research the top players, and we did a show on Bitcoin on May 10. Since that time the number of bitcoin stories has surged.
by Jason Calacanis and the LAUNCH team
A month ago I heard folks talking online about a virtual currency called bitcoin that is untraceable and un-hackable. Folks were using it to buy and sell drugs online, support content they liked and worst of all -- gasp! -- play poker.
Bitcoin is a P2P currency that could topple governments, destabilize economies and create uncontrollable global bazaars for contraband.
I sent the 30 or so producers of my show This Week in Startups out to research the top players, and we did a show on Bitcoin on May 10. Since that time the number of bitcoin stories has surged.
After month of research and discovery, we’ve learned the following:
1. Bitcoin is a technologically sound project.
2. Bitcoin is unstoppable without end-user prosecution.
3. Bitcoin is the most dangerous open-source project ever created.
4. Bitcoin may be the most dangerous technological project since the internet itself.
5. Bitcoin is a political statement by technotarians (technological libertarians).*
6. Bitcoins will change the world unless governments ban them with harsh penalties.
What Are Bitcoins?
=========
Bitcoins are virtual coins in the form of a file that is stored on your device. These coins can be sent to and from users three ways:
1. Direct with peer-to-peer software downloaded at bitcoin.org
2. Via an escrow service like ClearCoin
3. Via a bitcoin currency exchange
Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
The benefits of a currency like this:
a) Your coins can’t be frozen (like a Paypal account can be)
b) Your coins can’t be tracked
c) Your coins can’t be taxed
d) Transaction costs are extremely low (sorry credit card companies)
You can watch a simple video here: http://jc.is/jlcte0
Where Do Bitcoins Come from?
=========
Bitcoins are created by a complex algorithm. Only 21M can be made by the year 2140. Your desktop bitcoin software can make bitcoins, but at this point the electricity and time it would take to produce a bitcoin is larger than the actual value of a bitcoin (your laptop might take five years to make one, and they currently trade at $6.70 per bitcoin [ seehttps://mtgox.com/trade/buy for the latest exchange rate ].
Bitcoin miners use super cheap GPUs (not CPUs) to create the coins, but as more people come online to make them, the algorithm adjusts so that one block can only be made every 10 minutes.
Who Invented Bitcoins?
=========
An individual with the name -- or perhaps handle -- of Satoshi Nakamoto first wrote about bitcoins in a paper called Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. This person has stepped back from the project and trusted Gavin Andresen to take charge as the project’s technical lead.
How Does One Buy and Sell Bitcoin?
=========
Currently Paypal and credit card companies are making it illegal to sell bitcoins. Why? Simple: PayPal’s terms of service prohibit "currency exchange."
CoinPal had its account frozen, details here.
Given that you can’t whip out your Paypal account and buy them, and that it will become harder and harder to get them, bitcoins will be bartered for services in the real world.
For example, a Hacker News community member named Nicholas Carlson just boasted that he is being paid for a programming project in bitcoins.
Bitcoins in Real Life
============
In the next year you’ll hear about people in casinos in Vegas buying and sell bitcoins for cash and casino chips.
Imagine a bachelor party comes to Vegas and STNY (someone that’s not you) gives $550 to a guy at a bar and he takes out his laptop or tablet and ships 100 bitcoins to STNY’s phone. STNY then goes to Craigslist and ships some bitcoins to an escort and a drug dealer, who then show up in person to provide goods and services.
The Drug Underground and Bitcoin
============
Last month folks were buzzing about an online drug marketplace called SilkRoadMarket, which was reportedly trading in, well, all kinds of drugs: marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy and DMT.
Of course, since bitcoin transactions are untraceable, you would have zero recourse if you sent a dozen bitcoins to someone for a couple of tabs of LSD. Just like you might lose your $10 if you gave it to a kid in the school yard for a dime bag and he never came back.
Let’s Make Some Predictions
============
We are 100% certain that governments will start banning bitcoins in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, we’re certain bitcoins will soar in value and a crush of folks will flood the system and start using them.
Currently there are 6M coins at $6.70 each for a total economy of about $40M. Bitcoin speculation and hoarding will also cause a massive spike in bitcoin value. For example, if 10M people find out about bitcoins in the next year and want to buy $100 worth, $1B will be infused into the bitcoin economy.
Finally, there will be massive breakage in bitcoins. If your laptop crashes and you didn’t back up your bitcoins, well, you’re SOL. If someone steals you laptop that has 10,000 bitcoins on it you won on Bitcoin Poker, you’re SOL. Lost your USB drive with 500 bitcoins on it after a night out on the town? You’re SOL.
Sites like 99designs, eLance and oDesk will start accepting bitcoins for payment. If they don’t, they will face competition from folks who do.
Bottom line: The world is going to be turned over by bitcoins unless governments step in and ban them by prosecuting individuals.
This is about to get really interesting, everyone.
* We made this term up to describe the “good people” of the internet who believe in the fundamental rights of individuals to be free, have free speech, fight hypocrisy and stand behind logic, technology and science over religion, political structure and tradition. These are the people who build and support things like Wikileaks, Anonymous, Linux and Wikipedia. They think that people can, and should, govern themselves. They are against external forms of control such as DRM, laws that are bought and sold by lobbyists, and religions like Scientology. They include splinter groups that enforce these ideals in the form of hacktivism, such as the takedown of the Sony Playstation Network after Sony tried to prosecute a hacker for unlocking its console.
-----------------
TWIST Bitcoin episode
============
Full show here.
Gavin explains the fundamentals of Bitcoin - clip
Who is Satoshi, the mysterious bitcoin founder? clip
The million-dollar bitcoin question: Can the system be hacked? clip
Jason sets his software to generate bitcoins and Gavin explains why that's a bad idea - clip
-----------------
About LAUNCH
LAUNCH Media covers and celebrates new products, services and technology in two ways: an email newsletter and an in-person conference. LAUNCH was founded by a serial entrepreneur, former journalist and now angel investor we’re tired of promoting.
http://www.launch.is
About the LAUNCH Newsletter
Our newsletter is compiled in a collaborative fashion by a half-dozen writers, researchers and industry pundits we invite to our Google Docs from time-to-time. Our conflicts are many, but our insights and facts are always well-researched, honest and to the point. We’re blunt to a fault -- by design.
http://www.launch.is/newsletter
About the LAUNCH Hackathon
We're looking for the perfect location for a 72-hour hackathon this fall. We need a 10K to 20K square-foot space with killer internet in San Francisco/Silicon Valley. Suggestions: hackathon@launch.is.
About the LAUNCH Conference
The LAUNCH Conference rocked. That’s really all you need to know. Catch it all here if you missed it.
And we’ll have another one next year, maybe sooner.
Support real tech journalism -- not smarmy gossip posing as such -- by advertising in LAUNCH: sales@launch.is.
LAUNCH Coda
#61: Money changes everything if you let it.
49 CommentsThe War on Libya: The media misinformation campaign behind the war
From Voltairenet, 
16 MAY 2011
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya*
Part 2
[1] Cyrenaica is a name that is being used more frequently now by the press and governments in North America and the European Union, including the U.S. government. It was a name used for Eastern Libya from antiquity. It was last officially used in Libya in the era of the monarchy.
[2] Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), February 18, 2011, p.6.
[3] Thus, citizens have the right to take up arms against any illegitimate authority that uses violence to maintain control over them, whether this is an occupying power or an oppressive regime. It is under the umbrella of this principle that resistance movements carry arms and that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was created. The protesters in Benghazi could be understood as exercising a natural right in achieving their emancipation. To justify this, however, their motives and their intent have to be known. If chaos or emancipation were goals has to be questioned and if the riot started due to external actors must also be taken into play.
[4] This does not justify the action of any governments or authorities, but it has to be acknowledged that it is standard practice.
[5] Nicole Gaouette, “Clinton Says Arab League Vote for No-Fly Zone Changed Minds,” Bloomberg, March 16, 2011.
[6] [United Nations Security Council, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970 (Peace and Security in Africa), 6491st Meeting, February 26, 2011, S/RES/1970 (2011): the selection and wording of the name for Resolution 1970 was used as a means to disguise the violation of Libyan sovereignty.
[7] Ibid., pp.2-3.
[8] Jonathan Swaine, “Libya: African mercenaries ‘immune from prosecution for war crimes,’” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), February 27, 2011.
[9] Blachard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit, p.14.
[10] Alice Johnson, “Fox Defend’s West’s arms sales to Libya,” Gulf News, April 3, 2011.
[11] David Barrett and Rebecca Lefort, “Britain trains 100 members of Gaddafi’s feared police,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), March 6, 2011.
[12] David Stringer, “Top envoys agree Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi must step down but don’t discuss arming rebels,” Associated Press(AP), March 29, 2011.
[13] Ibid.; United States Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command and U.S. Strategic Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and the Future Years Defense Program, 112th Congress, 2011, 1st Session, 29 March 2011.
[14] Stringer, “Top envoys agree,” Op. cit.
[15] To Sell A War, Martyn Gregory (Thames Television. 1992).
[16] Ibid.
[17] Daniel Bombay, James Blitz, and Roula Khalaf, “West casts military net around Libya,” Financial Times, March 1, 2011.
[18] “‘Airstrikes in Libya did not take place’ – Russian military,” News,Russia Today (RT) (Moscow: March 1, 2011); the RT report was made by journalist Irina Galushko.
[19] British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News, “Iraq probe into soldier incident,” September 20, 2005.
[20] Alexander Lawler, “Libya top oil official says still in office,”Reuters, March 31, 2011.
[21] Ibid.
[22] During the times of the reports, this was verified as incorrect through personal accounts from within Libya.
[23] On a personal note, personal internal contacts in Libya tried to get the images of the pilots, which Libyan state-television had aired, and their information, but Libyan broadcasters would not release it. Security reasons were used to justify the decision. Libyan state-television also directed the personal contacts to the Intelligence Ministry, which would not release any of the information or the images. This was all preposterous, because the images were already aired and presented to the public in Libya.
[24] David Zucchino, “The voice of Libya’s rebellion is up and spinning,” The Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2011.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Hopes for a Qaddafi Exit, and Worries of What Comes Next,” The New York Times, March 21, 2011.
[28] Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), “All five Russian journalists set free by Libyan rebels,” April 8, 2011; ITAR-TASS, “FM insists Russian journalists observe security rules in Libya,” April 9, 2011.
[29] Kirkpatrick, “Hopes for a Qaddafi Exit,” Op. cit.
[30] Liam Fox, “Liam Fox: Libya crisis shows why we’re right on defence reform,” The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.), February 26, 2011.
16 MAY 2011by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya*
Part 2
The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor has announced that he is seeking the arrest of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi for crimes against humanity, purporting to have evidence of his "widespread and systematic attacks on unarmed Libyan civilians". In the second chapter of his study on the War on Libya, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya dismantles the double standards and media fabrications that helped to sell the war, the same ones which are now likely to constitute the "evidence" for the ICC charges being brought against Gaddafi.
(Previous Part 1 here: The war on Libya and the coming imperial re-division of Africa, 27 April 2011)
For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $350,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding for Libya to “support education and training of Libyan security forces, creating vital linkages with Libyan officers after a 35-year break in contact.” Participation in the IMET program also makes the Libyan government eligible to purchase additional U.S. military training at a reduced cost. The Bush Administration’s FY2009 request for IMET funding indicated that “the Government of Libya would pay for additional training and education with national funds.” However, no IMET funding was provided in FY2009, according to State Department budget documents. The Obama Administration also requested Foreign Military Financing assistance for Libya for the first time in FY2010, with the goal of providing assistance to the Libyan Air Force in developing its air transport capabilities and to the Libyan Coast Guard in improving its coastal patrol and search and rescue operations. FY2011 FMF assistance is being requested to support Libyan participation in a program that assists countries seeking to maintain and upgrade their U.S.-made C-130 air transport fleets. [9]
Frattini had said earlier that he hoped some nation would offer a proposal.
The Fabricated Jet Attacks on Civilians Who is behind the Massacres and Acts of Brutality in Libya? The Racist Victimization of Black Libyans by the Mainstream Media Misinformation about the Momentum of Anti-Qaddafi Protests
No discussion of tribes or tribalism. (There is only one tribe: Libya.)
The Violence in Benghazi
The starting epicentre of the violence in Libya was Benghazi, which is located within the boundaries of the coastal region of Cyrenaica or Barqa. [1] According to the U.S. government’s own sources:
On the evening of February 15, [2011] the […] demonstrations began when several hundred people gathered in front of the Benghazi police headquarters to protest the arrest of attorney and human rights activist Fethi Tarbel. As the February 17 [2011] “day of rage” neared, protests escalated in Benghazi and other cities despite reported police attempts at dispersion with water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons. There were multiple reports of protestors setting police and other government buildings on fire. [2]
The maelstrom irrupted in Benghazi after a group of protesters rushed a local barrack to take the weapons in the armoury. When this happened, the Libyan forces in the local garrison reacted by firing upon the protesters. From there the situation in Benghazi and Libya escalated and things spiralled out of control.
A pause is in order and has to be taken here. This is where critical analysis is needed. There are two ways to perceive the events in Benghazi. One perspective is from the standpoint of a revolutionary and the other is from the perspective of the state and the soldiers. If all biases are put aside both perspectives will have their adherents.
It must be stated that the Libyan authorities for years have oppressed political opposition and that all humans have a natural right to resist tyranny. [3] On the other hand it has to be understood that in any country, including the United States and Britain, soldiers and security forces will fire on any of their own citizens that attack a military or police compound with the intention of taking its arms. [4] In this sense the events in Libya and Egypt, as well as the reaction of the U.S. and the E.U., can also be contrasted against one another.
The legitimacy of these actions can be argued over and questioned from both sides. The point here is not the legitimacy of what happened. The point here is that it must be emphasized clearly that all the governments that criticized Tripoli are hypocritical. These governments are hypocritical, because they would respond very similarly, if not identically, had this occurred in one of their states. These same governments would also support any country that would have reacted like this had that country been a proxy or ally. This is why the violence in Bahrain, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia are ignored and Israel is given a green light for its crimes against humanity.
There is no monopoly on violence at the level of the state. The Kent State University Massacre of May 4, 1970, when peaceful anti-war student protesters in Ohio were killed by the U.S. National Guard, is proof of this. One only needs to look at the reactions of the White House, London, and the E.U. towards the atrocities in Bahrain against an unarmed civilian population fighting for elementary human rights to see how phony their crocodile tears and postures are. It is also the U.S. that arranged for the Al-Sauds to intervene militarily into Bahrain and to militarily suppress the Bahraini people.
Double-Standards about Libya and Bahrain and other Arab Dictatorships
In Egypt, the U.S. and the E.U. called for restraint from both the protesters and the Mubarak regime and asked for both sides to negotiate with one another. The calls for restraint were pure hypocrisy. The U.S. and the E.U. made the calls for restraint to both sides even though the Egyptian protesters were unarmed and peaceful and the Mubarak regime was the side that was using violence and was the solely armed party for most the conflict. Calls of restraint should have been made only to the Egyptian regime and not to the predominately peaceful unarmed protesters. The cases in Bahrain and Tunisia are not much different either.
A totally different attitude has been applied by the U.S. and the E.U. to Libya than the attitude that has been applied to Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the corrupt Palestinian Authority. No sanctions were applied against the authorities in Bahrain by the U.S. and the E.U. when the Bahraini military without warning blatantly attacked peaceful protesters in Manama’s Pearl Square. The Bahraini protesters were completely peaceful, but this did not stop the ruling Al-Khalifas from ordering indiscriminate live firings on the crowds of Bahraini protesters.
In Bahrain a reign of terror and murder has been unleashed on the Bahraini people by the Al-Khalifas and the Al-Sauds, which has merely been ignored by the E.U. and Washington. A whole population is being systematically terrorized by an unwanted, hated, and foreign-imposed ruling family. Hospitals and children have been brutally attacked. Doctors and union leaders have been killed. Mosques have been bulldozed to the ground and an entire population has been put into detention. Bahrain is a second Palestine. Ironically, the Al-Khalifas have been thanked by Washington, NATO, and the leaders of the E.U. for joining the coalition against the Libyans. The Al-Khalifa regime has also been presented by the U.S. and the E.U. as a model Arab government.
In a blatant act of hypocrisy, the regimes of the Arab petro-sheikhdoms, which pushed forward an Arab League demand for a no-fly zone over Libya, have been presented as stewards and representatives of the Arab masses by Hillary Clinton and E.U. leaders. [5] How are they representatives of the Arab peoples, Arab choices, or even Arab popular opinion? The Arab Gulf (Khaliji) emirs are the anti-thesis of popular representation.
In reality these Arab sheikhdoms are a few individuals who act as they like and are not representative of any of the views of their own citizens in any way. So it is extremely phony and two-faced when Hillary Clinton, Monsieur Sarkozy, and David Cameron present these Arab sheikdoms as representing the Arab people and of Arab positions. These Arab despots are not the representatives of the sentiments of Arabdom, they only represent themselves and repress real Arab sentiments.
In contrast to the verbal condemnations and sanctions against Libya, no actions were taken against the Al-Khalifas in Bahrain. While the jet attack claims against Libyans were fabricated, the evidence of indiscriminate firing on protesters – including by tanks – were verified by video footage from within Bahrain and by human rights groups. The reactions to Bahrain and Libya and the media reports about both Arab countries have been diametrically opposed.
Double-Standards about Mercenaries
Most of the forces used by the Al-Khalifahs in Bahrain are foreigners and mercenaries. This includes foreign military personnel from both Jordan and Saudi Arabia. As mentioned earlier, the Al-Sauds even sent military reinforcements to Bahrain to crush the civilian protests. Yet, there has been a systematic and exaggerated emphasis placed on Qaddafi’s foreign mercenaries. Has the use of foreign mercenaries in Bahrain been highlighted? The answer is no.
Moreover, the U.S., Britain, France, and their allies are no in any position based on moral grounds to criticize Tripoli for using mercenaries. All these powers actively and openly use and employ mercenaries – far more than Libya – under the terminologies of private contractors or security firms. Britain even has a whole brigade of mercenaries, the Brigade of Gurkhas, which even trains with U.S. forces. The French Foreign Legion is also a group of foreign soldiers employed by Paris. Washington itself is the largest employer of mercenaries and bounty hunters on the planet.
This is also the reason that the sixth section of the U.N. sanctions resolution 1970 (Peace and Security in Africa) passed against Tripoli by the U.N. Security Council specifically prevents mercenaries from countries that are not signatories to the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) from being prosecuted. [6] Additionally, this is tied to British and U.S. plans to send an army of mercenaries into Libya as part of their future ground operations. Resolution 1970’s Article 6 states:
Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State[.] [7]
The Daily Telegraph in Britain has also pointed this out too in an informative news commentary that exposes the double-standards being applied under the name of international justice and humanitarianism. It is as follows:
The key paragraph said that anyone from a non-ICC country alleged to have committed crimes in Libya would “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country. It was inserted despite Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, saying that all those “who slaughter civilians” would “be held personally accountable”.
Speaking to reporters outside the council chamber, Gerard Araud, the French UN ambassador, described the paragraph as “a red line for the United States”, meaning American diplomats had been ordered by their bosses in Washington to secure it. “It was a deal-breaker, and that’s the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the council,” said [Gerard] Araud. [8]
Resolution 1970 also puts an arms embargo on Tripoli and makes a whole set of demands from Libya that none of the other Arab states that are oppressing their populations have been asked to comply with. Even when reports of killings by government forces were being made, nothing of the sort was applied to Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, or Bahrain.
In another case of double-standards and a mockery, the Arab League has also suspended Libya from the pan-Arab organization due to the use of violence. The majority of the members of the Arab League, from the Palestinian Authority to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have brutally used violence against peaceful protesters even while they were criticizing Libya. When other Arab leaders are also using force to suppress their own citizens they are being given a platform by the U.S. and the E.U. to spurn Libya. Using a phrase used by Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis to describe the behaviour of the Arab sheikhdoms and presidential dictatorships against there countries, it can be said that another “Arab conspiracy” is taking place. Libya is being betrayed, just as the corrupt heads of the members of the Arab League betrayed Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.
Fuelling the Flames: Arming Both Sides
In Libya, the U.S. and its E.U. partners are fanning the flames of sedition. A prolonged civil war is in their interest. It allows them to weaken Libya as a state and it has allowed them to manipulate global public opinion in a managed discourse favouring interventionism. Both deception and the tactics of divide and conquer are at play. Simply stated, the U.S. and the E.U. are playing both sides. They have provided material support to both sides. They first supported Qaddafi through military hardware and training that lasted up until the start of 2011, while they now support the forces opposed to Qaddafi. If they refer to Libya as a “killing field” then it should be pointed it out that it is a “killing field” that they created and made possible.
Washington has had a hand in all of the violence in Libya. Neither the Bush Jr. Administration nor the Obama Administration have shied away from training the Libyan military:
For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $350,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding for Libya to “support education and training of Libyan security forces, creating vital linkages with Libyan officers after a 35-year break in contact.” Participation in the IMET program also makes the Libyan government eligible to purchase additional U.S. military training at a reduced cost. The Bush Administration’s FY2009 request for IMET funding indicated that “the Government of Libya would pay for additional training and education with national funds.” However, no IMET funding was provided in FY2009, according to State Department budget documents. The Obama Administration also requested Foreign Military Financing assistance for Libya for the first time in FY2010, with the goal of providing assistance to the Libyan Air Force in developing its air transport capabilities and to the Libyan Coast Guard in improving its coastal patrol and search and rescue operations. FY2011 FMF assistance is being requested to support Libyan participation in a program that assists countries seeking to maintain and upgrade their U.S.-made C-130 air transport fleets. [9]London’s arms sales to Qaddafi’s government have also been significant: “According to the Department for Business Innovation [and] Skills (BIS), £181.7 million (Dh1.09 billion)-worth of arms export licences were granted from [Britain] to Libya in the third quarter of 2010 — up from £22 million in second quarter.” [10] On the basis of the agreements between Tony Blair and Colonel Qaddafi, Britain was even training members of the Libyan police force, including a major and a brigadier, at Huddersfield University in West Yorkshire during the start of the conflict in Libya. [11]
The double-standards being applied by these powers are visible in every nuance and fabric of their actions. TheAssociated Press (AP) unwittingly points this out in a report summing up the London Conference on Libya:
- Muammar Gaddafi and Franco Frattini in friendlier times.
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said negotiations on securing Gadhafi’s exit were being conducted with “absolute discretion” and that there were options on the table that hadn’t yet been formalized.
“What is indispensable is that there be countries that are willing to welcome Gadhafi and his family, obviously to end this situation which otherwise could go on for some time,” he said.Frattini had said earlier that he hoped some nation would offer a proposal.
But the Italian diplomat insisted there was no option of immunity for Gadhafi. “We cannot promise him a ‘safe-conduct’ pass,” he stressed. [12]
While condemning Qaddafi, saying that he will have no “immunity,” they also are talking about a “safe-haven” where he will be immune. Furthermore, while the British have said that they know very little about the Transitional Council in Benghazi, Admiral James Stavridis has told the U.S. Armed Service Committee that he is, either as the head of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) or NATO, very well aware of the composure of the opposition. [13] This is contradictory; in this case London says one thing, but the head of military operations for NATO says something else.
At the same time the U.S., Britain, and their allies have left open an option to even betray the Transitional Council. This is typical foreign policy behaviour for London, Washington, and their allies. William Hague has hinted about this: “‘We [meaning Britain, the U.S., and their allies] must never be complacent about the way events like this could turn out,’ Hague said. ‘If things go wrong in the region on a sustained basis, there could be new opportunities for terrorism or extremism.’” [14] Thus, the spectre of Al-Qaeda and its ties to the Transitional Council is starting to emerge in the picture and discourse.
The Propaganda War: Media Distortion about Libya
Perception management has been used to start the war against Libya and to garnish support for the aggression against Libya. This is part of a tradition that the Pentagon and NATO have followed. All the major wars the U.S. has fought in have involved major media lies. In Vietnam there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in Yugoslavia the claims of ethnic genocide, in Afghanistan the tragic events of 9/11 (September 11, 2011), and in Iraq the lies about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and cooperation between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. The mainstream media has been the first line of attack in these wars of aggression.
In regards to Iraq, the U.S. government brought a false witness to the U.S. Congress who while pretending to be a Kuwaiti nurse testified that Iraqi soldiers threw 312 Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to die. [15] This was used to galvanize public opinion in the U.S. in order to go to war with Iraq in 1991. The infamous Nurse Nayirah testimony was given by Nijrah (Nayirah) Al-Sabah the daughter of the Kuwaiti envoy to Washington. She was even given acting lessons by a public relations (P.R.) firm before her false testimony, which George H. Bush Sr. referred to when justifying going to war with Iraq. [16]
The Fabricated Jet Attacks on CiviliansAt the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was demonized after he put down rebellions that were instigated by the U.S. and its allies. Now Qaddafi is presented like Saddam Hussein as a monster killing his own people. The justification for establishing the no-fly zones over Libya, which in effect was a smokescreen for launching an undeclared war, were the media claims that Libyan military jets were attacking civilian protesters. The Financial Times is worth quoting to illustrate how the media claims were used to argue for military intervention by NATO leaders:
“We must not tolerate this regime using military force [referring to the the jet attacks] against its own people,” David Cameron, [the British] prime minister, said. “In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.” [17]
U.S. and E.U. officials made hard verbal condemnations against Colonel Qaddafi when these reports about jets firing on protesters were made. There is nothing that corroborates this. The reports turned out to be false like the claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These types of criminal fabrications should not be allowed to go unpunished either.
The Russian military was monitoring Libya from space and saw no signs of jet attacks on civilians. [18] No satellite evidence even showed damage caused by jets. Nor was one piece of video evidence produced about this, while all sorts of footage had been coming out of Libya. The Pentagon, the E.U., and NATO all had access to the same satellite technology and intelligence to verify if such attacks were made, which means that they knew the reports were false.
Libyan military planes only got involved later on during the conflict during missions to bomb ammunition depots to prevent the rebels from getting arms. This was fairly later in the conflict and after the media claims were made that jets were firing on protesters. Libyan air power was also virtually non-existent before and after the foreign intervention. Admiral Locklear, who is the U.S. Navy commander that led the attacks at the onset of the war, even told reporters that “[Libya’s] air force before coalition operations was ‘not in good repair,’ and that [Libya’s] tactical capability consisted of several dozen helicopters.” Despite this reality, Libyan air power was systematically portrayed as a major threat to Libyan civilians.
Who is behind the Massacres and Acts of Brutality in Libya?Stories were also presented that Libyan forces were killing individuals from within their own ranks that refused to fight. Video evidence from within Libya actually proved that video footage presented alongside these reports about Libya was spun. It was not the Libyan forces that killed these men, but elements within the Libyan opposition. Videos showing torture and brutal treatment of civilians, including a small boy, by elements from within the rebel fighters are also appearing.
The Salvador option is being used in Libya. Speculatively, these elements were probably working as foreign agents. Footage has surfaced of a small boy in a Libyan hospital being helped by doctors after he was tortured. The doctors are looking at the little boy who has a thin pole shoved through his body, going through from near his penis all the way through to his left shoulder. The video demonstrates something very important. What happened to the little boy was not the work of any laymen. These were individuals who had to be trained in torture, because of the way the pole was sent through the body of the little boy who was not killed by the incision. This points to actors outside of Libya. These cases of torture resemble the brutal cases and murders that were being carried out in El Salvador and later in Anglo-American occupied Iraq.
- British "undercover soldiers" caught driving booby trapped car - Basra (Iraq), 19 September 2005.
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....
It has to also be emphasized that Britain sent commandos into Iraq that were disguised as local Arabs to bomb local mosques and areas with civilians in order to create sectarian fighting amongst the Iraqis. [19] It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this is also being replicated amongst the Libyans and other Arab peoples in order to divide them and to fuel civil strife. Nor should the doctored pictures made by Britain and the U.S. about Iraqis greeting Anglo-American forces as liberators be forgotten either.
The Racist Victimization of Black Libyans by the Mainstream MediaAlthough Qaddafi has used mercenaries from Europe and Africa, racist and exaggerated reports about mercenaries were inseminated globally about the so-called “African mercenaries.” Many members of the Libyan military and the Libyan general population were presented as foreigners from other African countries. In reality, many Libyans are black-skinned.
Being an Arab does not ascribe one to any particular phenotype or physical look, because it is the use of the Arabic language that defines the Arab identity. Arabs can be black-skinned or of a Mediterranean complexion or of a fair-skinned complexion with blond hair. The same is true about being a Berber. This is also very true of all Libyans and other North Africans.
- Black Libyan soldier murdered by the rebels.
In Libya many Libyans are black-skinned. They are not foreigners or mercenaries. Amongst the Negroid Libyans are the Haratins (Harratins) and the Tuareg people (Kel Tamajaq or Kel Tamashq) in the south. These Libyans are as Libyan as the other inhabitants of the country. Although there are foreign mercenaries in Libya, what the outside media managed to do was present footage of some of these black-skinned Libyans serving in the Libyan military and police forces under the label of foreign mercenaries. This was done to demonize Qaddafi and to create an atmosphere for intervention, because Qaddafi was presented as killing his people with a massive army of African mercenaries. In additions, the plight and murder of the scores of “Black Libyans” or foreign workers from sub-Sahara(n) Africa, which in many cases were barbarically decapitated and mutilated, have been ignored and not even covered by the same media outlets that talked about Qaddafi using African mercenaries.
Misinformation about the Momentum of Anti-Qaddafi ProtestsLeading up to the war on Libya, all sorts of inaccurate reports were made by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sky News, CNN, and other major networks. For example Al Jazeera reported that Shokri Ghanem, a top energy official in Libya, had fled Libya, but Reuters confirmed that this was not true. [20] Ghamen protested to Al Jazeera’s misreporting in an interview with Reuters: “‘This is not true, I am in my office and I will be on TV in a few minutes’ Ghamen said by telephone.” [21]
At the very outset of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the North America media almost daily that U.S. tanks were at near the gates of Baghdad. Something similar has been reported about Libya in regards to the anti-Qaddafi protests. Incorrect reports were also made about cities that had fallen, but in reality old videos were being aired or footage of other Libyan cities were being shown on network television.
Other reports claimed that there was major fighting in Tripoli and parts of it had fallen, when Tripoli was actually peaceful for days. Later on, the words “claim” and “claimed” were systematically used when these reports were made in an effort to vindicate distorted or incorrect information. On February 26, 2011 reports were made claiming that all the main Libyan cities where no longer under the control of the Libyan government. This was false. Cities like Sabha (in central Libya), Sirte/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli), and Tripoli itself were all under the control of Qaddafi’s government. [22] Overall the original coverage of the events in Libya grossly blew the violence out of proportion in order to justify the agenda of foreign intervention. Like the case of Iraq, with time the people of the world will realize this, but will there those who helped create these fabricated reports be held accountable for starting and supporting a war?
The Propaganda War within Libya
It should, however, be cautioned that a propaganda war is being fought by multiple sides. The U.S. and its allies have not held the solitary monopoly on propaganda. There are four major sides to the media war. The Libyan government in Tripoli and the Benghazi-based Transitional Council have also been involved in “perception management.” Aside from the foreign-based mainstream media there are two distinct sides of the media war within Libya. At the start of the NATO intervention in North Africa, the Libyan government in Tripoli reported that French and Qatari fighter jets were shot down. The Libyan government exhibited on Jamahiriya News what it claimed were three downed French and two downed Qatari pilots. The news came during the opening salvos of the war and it was brief and was never discussed afterward. [23] Additionally, the Libyan government and the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporationalso tried to present the capture of an Italian civilian vessel as a military victory by Libya against Italy and NATO.
The Transitional Council too has been waging an intense propaganda war. With the help of Qatar the Transitional Council has established its own television and news channel. [24] This is how the Los Angeles Times described the news sources run by the Transitional Council:
"It’s not exactly fair and balanced media. In fact, as [Mohammed G.] Fannoush [the former librarian who runs the media for the Transitional Council] helpfully pointed out [in his own words], there are four inviolate rules of coverage on the two rebel radio stations, TV station and newspaper:
"No pro-[Qaddafi] reportage or commentary (at least until the tyrant in Tripoli is deposed).
No mention of a civil war. (The Libyan people, east and west, are unified in a war against a totalitarian regime.)No discussion of tribes or tribalism. (There is only one tribe: Libya.)
No references to Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. (That’s [Qaddafi’s] propaganda.)" [25]
Moreover, Fannoush himself as the head of the opposition media acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times that the media in Benghazi serves as a mouthpiece for the Transitional Council. [26] The New York Times, which has predominately been supportive of the Transitional Council has been more blunt about the Transitional Council’s credibility: “[L]ike the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric [acts].” [27]
The Transitional Council’s forces have even detained and interrogated Russian journalists. This is because of the generally unfavourable coverage of the NATO war in Libya by Russian journalists. Two reporters from Komsomolskaya Pravda and three television journalists from NTV, which is owned by Gazprom, were abducted and released in early-April 2011 by the Transitional Council. [28]
The Transitional Council Leadership Always Supported Military Intervention
Contradicting statements are not only being made by the U.S. government and Western European governments. The self-appointed figures of the Benghazi-based Transitional Council opposed to Qaddafi are also making contradictory statements. The Transitional Council has been described as being similar to Qaddafi’s regime, because “the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties.” [29] Moreover, the Transitional Council’s claims against Qaddafi are also similar to those made by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress against Saddam Hussein.
Take for example the position of General Abdul Fatah Al-Yunis (Al-Younis), Qaddafi’s interior minister who defected. General Al-Yunis has said: “[H]e believed that the [W]est should be ready to launch airstrikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s palace in Tripoli to prevent him [from] attacking the Libyan people with chemical weapons or causing terrible casualties in some other way. He [also said that he] was also in favour of establishing an international no-fly zone as soon as possible.” [30]
More importantly, there is a huge divide between the Transitional Council and the Libyans they purportedly represent. In Benghazi and its environs there were English posters and signs in English intended for foreing media cameras, saying “No Foreign Intervention,” “Libyan People Can Manage it Alone,” and “No To Foreign Military Intervention” as a message representing popular sentiment amongst the Libyan people on the anti-Qaddafi side. Wide sentiment against the U.S. and Britain in particular also existed in Benghazi and the region of Barqa.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Libya
Despite what media sources from outside Libya were claiming at the outset of the revolt in Libya, Qaddafi’s back was not against the wall. He controlled most the country and a majority of the population, specifically in the western and southern parts of Libya, still supported him for a multitude of reasons. Hereto, Qaddafi still has wide support within the security and military apparatus of his country, not to mention his own tribe, militias, and the common people of Tripoli.
- According to this author, the media has also distored Qaddafi’s latest message about being "in a place they can’t reach him." He was not referring to a physical place; he was talking about the hearts of the Libyan people.
What the war against Libya has done is widen Qaddafi’s base of support. Patriotism has been a huge factor. Many good people who opposed Qaddafi at one point or another have united and locked ranks with Qaddafi and his regime. They have done this, because they believe that they have to stand united to save Libya from falling prey to the U.S. and its coalition and becoming a new and divided colony. To them Qaddafi is not the real target; Libya and Africa are the real targets.
In a manner of speaking the good, the bad, and the ugly have been united under the Libyan regime’s ranks. This is also one of the reasons that the Pentagon and Brussels are working to make sure that internal divisions in Libya are continuously fuelled. They will use the Libyan people against one another to divide Libya.
The Libyan people have been led into a trap and they are being misled. It must also be pointed out that the good, the bad, and the ugly have also gathered together on the Benghazi-based opposition side led by the Transitional Council.
The enemy’s of genuine freedom and of the Libyan people have taken advantage of the situation in Libya. There is plenty of blame to go around in Libya, but its people must not fight one another. Libya collectively and as a whole lost the moment violence started. Nor can the Libyans let foreigners settle their differences. Any solution must be an internal one without any foreign interference.
| Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Canadian-based sociologist and scholar. Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), specializing in geopolitical and strategic issues. This author's articles  To send a message  |
[1] Cyrenaica is a name that is being used more frequently now by the press and governments in North America and the European Union, including the U.S. government. It was a name used for Eastern Libya from antiquity. It was last officially used in Libya in the era of the monarchy.
[2] Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), February 18, 2011, p.6.
[3] Thus, citizens have the right to take up arms against any illegitimate authority that uses violence to maintain control over them, whether this is an occupying power or an oppressive regime. It is under the umbrella of this principle that resistance movements carry arms and that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was created. The protesters in Benghazi could be understood as exercising a natural right in achieving their emancipation. To justify this, however, their motives and their intent have to be known. If chaos or emancipation were goals has to be questioned and if the riot started due to external actors must also be taken into play.
[4] This does not justify the action of any governments or authorities, but it has to be acknowledged that it is standard practice.
[5] Nicole Gaouette, “Clinton Says Arab League Vote for No-Fly Zone Changed Minds,” Bloomberg, March 16, 2011.
[6] [United Nations Security Council, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970 (Peace and Security in Africa), 6491st Meeting, February 26, 2011, S/RES/1970 (2011): the selection and wording of the name for Resolution 1970 was used as a means to disguise the violation of Libyan sovereignty.
[7] Ibid., pp.2-3.
[8] Jonathan Swaine, “Libya: African mercenaries ‘immune from prosecution for war crimes,’” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), February 27, 2011.
[9] Blachard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit, p.14.
[10] Alice Johnson, “Fox Defend’s West’s arms sales to Libya,” Gulf News, April 3, 2011.
[11] David Barrett and Rebecca Lefort, “Britain trains 100 members of Gaddafi’s feared police,” The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), March 6, 2011.
[12] David Stringer, “Top envoys agree Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi must step down but don’t discuss arming rebels,” Associated Press(AP), March 29, 2011.
[13] Ibid.; United States Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. European Command and U.S. Strategic Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and the Future Years Defense Program, 112th Congress, 2011, 1st Session, 29 March 2011.
[14] Stringer, “Top envoys agree,” Op. cit.
[15] To Sell A War, Martyn Gregory (Thames Television. 1992).
[16] Ibid.
[17] Daniel Bombay, James Blitz, and Roula Khalaf, “West casts military net around Libya,” Financial Times, March 1, 2011.
[18] “‘Airstrikes in Libya did not take place’ – Russian military,” News,Russia Today (RT) (Moscow: March 1, 2011); the RT report was made by journalist Irina Galushko.
[19] British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News, “Iraq probe into soldier incident,” September 20, 2005.
[20] Alexander Lawler, “Libya top oil official says still in office,”Reuters, March 31, 2011.
[21] Ibid.
[22] During the times of the reports, this was verified as incorrect through personal accounts from within Libya.
[23] On a personal note, personal internal contacts in Libya tried to get the images of the pilots, which Libyan state-television had aired, and their information, but Libyan broadcasters would not release it. Security reasons were used to justify the decision. Libyan state-television also directed the personal contacts to the Intelligence Ministry, which would not release any of the information or the images. This was all preposterous, because the images were already aired and presented to the public in Libya.
[24] David Zucchino, “The voice of Libya’s rebellion is up and spinning,” The Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2011.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Hopes for a Qaddafi Exit, and Worries of What Comes Next,” The New York Times, March 21, 2011.
[28] Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), “All five Russian journalists set free by Libyan rebels,” April 8, 2011; ITAR-TASS, “FM insists Russian journalists observe security rules in Libya,” April 9, 2011.
[29] Kirkpatrick, “Hopes for a Qaddafi Exit,” Op. cit.
[30] Liam Fox, “Liam Fox: Libya crisis shows why we’re right on defence reform,” The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.), February 26, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Most Popular Posts of the Week:
- UKIP's Godfrey Bloom Blasts Fractional Reserve Lending as Fraud; Says Central Bankers Should be Tried for Financial Crimes
- The Prison System Expands at Frightening Pace Following Declaration of War on Drugs
- Black Eagle Fund, the Shadow CIA and the relationship to Sept. 11th
- An Even Bigger Scandal: Why Are IRS Audits Being Used To Punish Obama’s Political Enemies?
- Michel Chossudovsky: The Anti-Globalization Movement and the World
- THE SATURDAY ESSAY:What else are they manipulating?
- THE COLLAPSE OF FIAT MONEY BY A FALLING ENERGY SUPPLY
- Social Mood Darkens in Europe, Especially France, as Eurozone Economy in Freefall
- Europe's EUR 500 Billion Ticking NPLTime Bomb
- Just Say Non To The New "Sick Man Of Europe" - Support For EU Plunges In France And Most European Countries
Labels
"backyard"
"bank holiday"
"Change"
"Jewish Achievements"
1st Amendment
2nd amendment
4GW
4th Reich
7/7
9/11
abiotic oil
abuses of power
ACTA
Afghanistan
AfPak
Africa
AFRICOM
agenda 21
al-CIAduh
alternative currencies
American revolution
anarchy
apocalypse
Argentina
ARTICHOKE
Asia
Asian Energy Security Grid
assassinations
asteroids
austerity
AWOL ballistic missiles
B/S
backfire
bad cops
bailout
bailout scam
bank nazionalization
banksters
big oil
big pharma
Bilderberg
Bin Laden
biofuels
biological warfare
biological weapons
biological weapons research
bioterrorism
bird flu
bitcoins
black ops
Blackwater
Brazil
BRICs
Brzezinski
bubbles
cap and trade
capitalism
carbon credits
carbon tax
carbon trade
cash nexus
cass sunstein
casus belli
CDS
Central Asia
central banks
CFR
Cheney
China
CIA
CIA assets
civil wars
class conflicts
class structure
class warfare
climategate
COINTELPRO
collapse
Color revolutions
COMEX default
communism
community currencies
Congo
conspiracies
conspiracy theories
Constitution
Copyright
corporate "personhood"
corporate law
corporatocracy
corruption
countercoup
counterinsurgency
Coup D'etat
covert agents
covert operations
covert ops
covert war
covert warfare
coverup
crazy lone gunmen
crimes against humanity
currencies
currency war
dancing israelis
David Kelly
dead microbiologists
death squads
debt
debt bondage
debt bubble
debt monetization
debtors' prisons
deep politics
default
deficit
deflation
deglobalization
deindustralization
deja vu
delocalization
democracy
depleted uranium
depopulation
depression
deregulation
derivatives
detentions
Detroit
devaluation
devolution
dictatorship
Dimitri Khalezov
dirty tricks
dirty wars
disaster capitalism
disaster management
discovery
disinformation
dissent
diy
diy currencies
DMCA
drones
drugs trade
DU
dystopias
eastern europe
ECB
eco-fascism
economic cycle
economic hitmen
economic warfare
Egypt
electromagnetic weapons
electronic surveillance
elite consensus
elitist propaganda
Ellen Brown
emerging markets
end game
energy
engineered clusterfuck
Ethiopia
EU
EU666
eugenics
euro
eurocracy
eurocrats
europe
fake bonds
fake democracy
fake gold
fake revolutions
fake terrorism
false flags
fascism
fascism 2.0
FED
FEMA
FEMA death camps
fiat money
Finance Capitalism
forecasts
ForeclosureGate
foreclosures
FOREIGN TRADE ZONES
Fort Detrick
fractional reserve banking
France
fraudclosures
fraudonomics
frauds
Free books
free money
free speech
freedom
Fukushima
funny money
G20
gatekeepers
Gaza
genocides
geoengineering
Geopolitics
Germany
Ghana
ghost towns
Gladio
global currency
Global warming hoax
globalization
GMO
gold
gold manipulation
gold standard
Goldman Sachs
golpe
google
Grand Chessboard
great depression 2.0
great game
Greece
Green shoots
greenbackers
Guantanamo
Gulf of Tonkin
gun ban
gun control
Guns
H.R. 45
HAARP
habeas corpus
hackers
Haiti
Halliburton
happiness
health
health care bill
health care reform
hemp
heroin
high frequency trading
historical cycles
history
hitler
hoaxes
Honduras
House Bill 1796
how-to
human organs trafficking
human rights
Hungary
hunger
hyperinflation
ICC
Iceland
Illuminati
IMF
imf riots
immigration
imperialism
incoherence
income distribution
income tax
India
inequalities
infiltration
inflation
inflationary depression
information war
insider trading
insolvency
instability
insurgency
intelligence
International Criminal Court
international political economy
internet censorship
internet warfare
ior
IP
IPCC
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
IRS
Israel
israeli assets
Israeli firsters
Israeli killers
israeli lobby
Israeli Organ Harvesting
israeli terrorism
italy
Ivory Coast
jesuits
jews
JFK
Jim Willie
JPM
k-waves
Kazakhstan
Keynesianism
Kissinger
kleptocracy
Kosovo
Krugman
KUBARK
Kurt Sonnenfeld
Kyrgyzstan
Land Grab
Large Hadron Collider
Larry Summers
Latin America
LBMA
Lee Harvey Oswald
legitimacy crisis
legitimation
lesser evilism
Libya
lies
Limited Hang Out
Lincoln
Lisbon Treaty
lobbying
local currencies
Lockerbie
Logan Act
lol
looting
lsd
mafia
Mali
Manchurian candidates
Mandatory vaccinations
maquiladoras
market manipulations
martial law
Martin Armstrong
Medicare
meltdown
MENA
Mend
mercenaries
Mexico
MI5
Michael Chertoff
Michael Hudson
Middle East
migrations
Military Industrial Complex
military research
military spending
military tribunals
militias
mind control
mind tricks
Minerva Research Initiative
Minot missing nukes
missile defense
missing pathogens
MKDELTA
MKNAOMI
MKSEARCH
MKULTRA
money
money as debt
money laundering
money supply
Mongolia
monsanto
Montenegro
morgellons
mossad
msm
Mumbai
narco-states
narcodollars
narcotics
national debt
National Emergencies Act
national emergency
native Americans
NATO
NDAA
neo-Malthusians
neocolonialism
neocons
neofeudalism
neuroscience
NGOs
Nigeria
NLP
Non-lethal Weapons
Noriega
North Korea
Norway
NSA
NSPD-51
nuclear demolition
nukes
NWO
odious debt
Oil
OKLAHOMA CITY bombing
oligarchy
OOTW
Operation Ajax
operation CONDOR
Operation Fast and Furious
operation Mockingbird
Operation Northwoods
operation paperclip
Operation Strange Man
opium
Orwell
outrages
p2p currencies
Pakistan
Palestine
Panama
Panarin
pandemics
paper money
Paraguay
paranoia
paranoia pimping
patents
Patriot Act
patsies
pauperization
peak oil
pearl harbor
Pennsylvania
pensions
Pentagon
persuasion
Peru
pervs
philippines
Phoenix program
piigs
pimping
Pipelinestan
piracy
Pirates
plagues
planned disasters
Plum Island
plutocracy
PMCs
PNAC
poison pills
Poland
police state
political economy
political fakeries
polls
ponzi schemes
pork
Posse Comitatus Act
pot
poverty
poverty business
power elite
pr0n
predictive programming
prepping
primitive accumulation
prison industrial complex
prison population
private debt
privatizations
problem-solution
prohibitionism
Project Artichoke
Project Bluebird
Project Censored
Project MK/NAOMI
Project Mockingbird
project monarch
Prompt Corrective Action Law
propaganda
prostitution
protests
provocateurs
psy-ops
psycho-police
psychotronic warfare
Ptech
public policies
qe
qe2
R2P
rabbis crackdown
real wages
regime change
regulations
relative disadvantage
religion
renditions
renewable energy
reserve currency
resistance
revolution
revolution (how to)
revolutions
riots
robots
Rockfeller
Roman Empire
Rothschilds
Rumsfeld
Rupert Murdoch
Russia
Rwanda
s510
sabbateans
Salvador Option
samson option
saudi arabia
sayanim
SCADs
scams
scandals
scares
schemes
SCO
SDR
secrecy
secret algorithms
Secret services
sedition
self-employment
self-reliance
serial killers
sex scandals
sheeple
shock capitalism
SHTF
silver
sixties
slavery
slums
social conflicts
social currencies
social movements
social research
Social Security
social spending
socialization of costs
somalia
Soros
sound money
South Africa
South Caucasus
South Korea
Southern Poverty Law Center
Sovereignty
Sovereignty Resolutions
spain
special economic zones
spin
spyware
stagflation
state of exception
state secrets
state terrorism
statistics
stimulus
stuxnet
submarines
subprime
Sudan
suicides
superbugs
superimperialism
suppressed technologies
supremacist racist genocidal apocalyptic cults
surveillance
Survivalism
SVADs
sweden
Swine Flu
syria
Taliban
Tamiflu
TAPI
taxes
tea party
technocracy
Tennessee
TEOTWAWKI
terrorism
Thailand
The Fourth Turning
the left
The Mogambo Guru
Thirdworldization
TIPS
tiranny
torture
totalitarism
toxic assets
toxic waste
trade deficit
trade war
treason
Treasuries Bubble
Tri-Border Area
Trickle down
trolls
tsa
tunisia
Turkey
uganda
UK
Ukraine
UN
underclass
upper class
US $
US army
US bonds seized
US debt
US elections
US gulags
US hunger
US secessionists
US Treasuries
US666
useful idiots
vaccines
VAT
vatican
Venezuela
vets
vietghanistan
Vietnam
violent conflicts
virii
Voodoo
war
war crimes
WAR CRIMINALS
war on drugs
war party
war pimps
war propaganda
warfare
warfare state
wars
water
WB
wealth distribution
web bot
weed
Weimar
weird
welfare
white collar criminals
White phosphorous
WHO
who rules
Wikileaks
wikipedia
witch hunt
WMD
working poors
world bank
world economy
world hegemony
world reserve currency
world trade
WTF
WTO
WW3
xe
Xinjiang
Yemen
Yuan
Yugoslavia
Zimbabwe
zionism
zionist trolls
zious
