Renewal bombardment of the Military Mitiga airport in Tripoli belonging to Qatar and Misurata Dawn


Renewal bombardment of the Military Mitiga airport in Tripoli belonging to Qatar and Misurata Dawn

 

Libyan National Planes

Libyan National Planes

 

Renewed aerial bombardment on the Mitiga Militay Airport in the capital Tripoli, Libya ****(governed by Qatar and Misurata Dawn.)

Tuesday, after targeting his warplanes and heard three explosions, according to an official source, and witnesses.
According to an official source from inside the airport that the plane (did not specify the identity) dropped three missiles away from runways and aircraft, and did not cause any human and material damage, and pointed out that it was closed airspace for the airport immediately after renewed shelling.
Witnesses said they heard three explosions before you see a cloud of black fumes at the airport sky, while reports of damage in neighborhoods adjacent to the airport did not respond.

Editors Note: In the article I added the information of who is in control of this military airport which is Qatar and Misurata Dawn. It’s about time that the national Army took some action over this military base so that it can stop the importation of mercenaries/arms/hard currency for their salaries brought by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It has been established that Turkey all terrorists: Daash, Isis, Al Qaeda and any other terrorist invented name for all these extremists to be protected and assists them to recover of any heavy injuries  in their hospitals. It’s also established that Turkey has allowed in their country offices of Isis so that they can recruit mercenaries and of course with the hawk eyes of CIA’s analysts in the region. Unless you my readers wake up this will keep going on. The plan is very simple, we recruit poor people pay them a small salary force them to swear allegiance to whatever terrorist group is on a killing spree, baptize it to Extreme Islamists or Jihadists whose orders are: to kill anything that moves in two legs whether Muslim or Christian. This is the new American/Zionists cheap labour Army instead of using your sons, daughters, wives, husbands. To force the CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY to go to war against the Muslims. Check all the Western Media News everyday you will see we are bombarded by the Media on what these monsters are doing to innocent civilians. Makes you feel sick to your stomach, rage creeps up, they will keep on doing this till it comes to a point that Europe will declare war to all Arab states and then we will go into the 3WW. Its time to realise WHO BENEFITS FROM THESE MERCENARIES/JIHADISTS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM? It’s not you or me that is for sure, so who benefits out of this mess? I will be very happy to hear your views.

About these ads

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect the legitimacy of the election of the House of Representatives


The Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect the legitimacy of the election of the House of Representatives

 

عزة-المقهور-295x172

Ruseifa news - lawyer Azza Kamel oppressed February decision of the Committee set up by the former Libyan National Congress said amendments overturned on constitutional declaration of the Supreme Court that “the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court does not affect the legitimacy of the House of Representatives.”

In its first response to the judgment oppressed added that “the status quo and the consequences of judgment in appeal No. 17 against the unconstitutionality of paragraph (11) of Article 30 of the amended constitutional declaration under the Seventh Amendment has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Parliament (House of Representatives).”

The lawyer added that “the Supreme Court in its judgment did not cancel the Seventh Amendment to the Declaration, but canceled and only a single item from a (item 11), asking everyone to” return to constitutional amendments and the Declaration of the whole. “

She stressed that the oppressed, “the legitimacy of the House of Representatives depends on a package of legislation, the most important of Law No. 10 of 2014 on the election of the House of Representatives in the transitional phase, which was issued from the General National Congress (former parliament).”

It attributed lawyer legal opinion saying that “item 11, which the court ruled unconstitutional stipulates that works proposal in February to the Committee that the House of Representatives elected decisively the question of the head of state directly elected or indirectly system within a period of not more than forty-five days of his first hearing, consequently, this item is not about elections, new Council of Representatives at all. “

According to the oppressed, “the work of the February committee is divided into two parts: the first to do the constitutional amendments and the second proposal of election law, which was, introduced a proposed constitutional amendments first, who handed the Chairman of the Committee to the President of the General National Congress, a proposal which was released Accordingly seventh constitutional amendment specifically item 11 of it. “

She continued, “After that, the Commission and after the resignation of two of them to submit a proposed election law, which introduced a separate bill after the issuance of the seventh amendment has nothing to do with this amendment and therefore item 11, which abolished by the Supreme Court.”

Her “Based on the proposed (election proposal), the National Congress issued elected House of Representatives No. 10 Law for the year 2014 on 31 March 2014 and amended by Law No. 14 of 2014 ie after issuance of the amendment seventh Constitution on 11 March 2014, in the sense that the legality of the election of the Council are drawn from his election law based on Law No. 10 of 2014, which is still standing and true. “

She pointed out that “the intended proposal in February referred to in item 11 of the seventh amendment of the constitutional declaration is proposed only constitutional amendments put forward by the Commission in February, does not apply to the election of the House of Representatives No. 10 Act of 2014,” saying at the same time that the “rule unconstitutional item 11 of the Constitutional Declaration does not affect the legality of the House of Representatives, which elected its origin issued by the General Conference of the Libyan national law. “

And ruled that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in Tripoli on Thursday declared unconstitutional decisions, “committee in February” on amendments to the constitutional declaration and its decision to hold snap parliamentary elections.

The text of the court’s decision on the “unconstitutionality of paragraph 11 of the amended Article 30 of the Constitutional Declaration under the Seventh Amendment dated March 11 (March) 2014 and all the implications of it,” which means the invalidity of the parliamentary elections and then this decision is dissolved.

The words of the Supreme Court (s) of Representatives election rule does not affect the legitimacy of the commission in February Council controls Summary

الرصيفة الأخبارية – قالت المحامية عزة كامل المقهور مقرر لجنة فبراير التي شكلها المؤتمر الوطني الليبي السابق وأبطلت تعديلاتها على الإعلان الدستوري المحكمة العليا إن “حكم الدائرة الدستورية بالمحكمة العليا لا يمس شرعية مجلس النواب”.

وفي أول رد لها على الحكم أضافت المقهور أن “الوضع القائم وتبعات الحكم في الطعن رقم 17 بعدم دستورية الفقرة (11) من المادة 30 من الإعلان الدستوري المعدلة بموجب التعديل الدستوري السابع ليس له علاقة بشرعية البرلمان (مجلس النواب)”.

وأضافت المحامية أن “المحكمة العليا في حكمها الصادر لم تلغي التعديل السابع للإعلان الدستوري وإنما ألغت بندا وحيدا منه فقط وهو (البند 11)، مطالبة الجميع بـ”العودة للإعلان الدستوري بأكمله وتعديلاته”.

وأكدت المقهور أن “مشروعية مجلس النواب تعتمد على حزمة من التشريعات أهمها القانون رقم 10 لسنة 2014 بشأن انتخاب مجلس النواب في المرحلة الانتقالية الذي صدر من المؤتمر الوطني العام (البرلمان السابق)”.

وعللت المحامية رأيها القانوني قائلة إن “البند 11 الذي حكمت المحكمة بعدم دستوريته يقضي بأنه يعمل بمقترح لجنة فبراير على أن يقوم مجلس النواب المنتخب بحسم مسألة رئيس الدولة بنظام انتخاب مباشر أو غير مباشر خلال مدة لا تزيد عن خمسة وأربعين يوما من عقد أول جلسة له، بالتالي فإن ذلك البند لا يتعلق بانتخابات مجلس النواب الجديد مطلقاً”.

وبحسب المقهور فإن “عمل لجنة فبراير ينقسم إلى قسمين: الأول القيام بالتعديلات الدستورية والثاني تقديم مقترح بقانون الانتخاب، وهو ما كان، فقدمت مقترح تعديلاتها الدستورية أولا الذي سلم من رئيس اللجنة إلى رئيس المؤتمر الوطني العام وهو المقترح الذي صدر بناء عليه التعديل الدستوري السابع وتحديدا البند 11 منه”.

وتابعت “بعد ذلك، قامت اللجنة وبعد استقالة عضوين منها بتقديم مقترح بقانون الانتخاب وهو مشروع قانون منفصل قدم بعد صدور التعديل السابع ولا علاقة له بالتالي بهذا التعديل ولا بالبند 11 منه الذي ألغته المحكمة العليا”.

واستطردت قائلة “بناء على المقترح (مقترح الانتخابات) قام المؤتمر الوطني بإصدار قانون انتخاب مجلس النواب رقم 10 لسنة 2014 بتاريخ 31 مارس (آذار) 2014 وتعديله بالقانون رقم 14 لسنة 2014 أي بعد صدور التعديل الدستور السابع في 11 مارس (آذار) 2014، بمعنى أن مشروعية انتخاب المجلس مستمدة من قانون انتخابه استنادا للقانون رقم 10 لسنة 2014 الذي ما يزال قائما وصحيحا”.

وأشارت إلى أن “المقصود بمقترح فبراير المشار إليه في البند 11 من التعديل السابع للإعلان الدستوري هو المقترح بالتعديلات الدستورية فقط الذي تقدمت به لجنة فبراير، ولا يسري على قانون انتخاب مجلس النواب رقم 10 لسنة 2014″ مؤكدة في نفس الوقت أن “الحكم بعدم دستورية البند 11 من الإعلان الدستوري لا يمس مشروعية مجلس النواب الذي مصدره قانون انتخابه الصادر عن المؤتمر الوطني العام الليبي”.

وقضت الدائرة الدستورية بالمحكمة العليا بطرابلس يوم الخميس بعدم دستورية قرارات “لجنة فبراير” بشأن تعديلاتها على الإعلان الدستوري وقرارها بإجراء انتخابات برلمانية عاجلة.

ونص قرار المحكمة على “عدم دستورية الفقرة 11 من المادة 30 من الإعلان الدستوري المعدلة بموجب التعديل الدستوري السابع الصادر بتاريخ 11 مارس (آذار) 2014 وكافة الآثار المترتبة عنه”، ما يعني بطلان انتخابات البرلمان ومن ثم يعتبر بهذا القرار منحلاً.

كلمات دليلية العليا المحكمة النواب انتخاب حكم شرعية لا يمس لجنه فبر اير مجلس ابط مختصر

The Libyan Puzzle in the Scramble for Africa


The Libyan Puzzle in the Scramble for Africa

By Sam Muhho Global Research

 

2a9fa-arabia

 

As a new era in history has begun to dawn on humanity, new doors are being opened in both opportunities and also in the realms of potential threats and conflagrations. This reality has been noted most clearly in the developing affairs of Africa, a continent that is on the verge of transformation through both technology and evolving international interactions. In the face of potential progress driven by Africa’s lucrative natural resources and economic potential, an ominous threat looms above Africa, the threat of the neo-imperialist, globalist agenda which has scarred the face of humanity with its continual drive of global hegemony. This “globalist agenda” is a militarized corporatism in a neo-imperialist system operating from all sides of the western political spectrum and representing the corporate elite of Wall Street and London; no clearer was the nefarious nature of these interests shown than in the subversion of Libya two years ago in 2011.

Before delving into the demise of Libya, it is necessary to understand neo-imperialisms’ ambitions for Africa; its goal is the subjection of Africa into its orbit in order to serve as a critical lynchpin in the establishment of a unipolar world order (including ousting potential Chinese competition). The unipolar world order is the creating of a single center of global economic, political, and military power coupled with the control of international trade and the distribution of resources as is admittedly the agenda noted by Dr. Carroll Quigley in his Tragedy and Hope among various other publications from western corporate-financier think tanks ranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Brookings Institute. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also spoken of hegemonic ambitions on the part of the west to establish a unipolar order at a 2007 Munich conference.

As Libya again takes prominence again in the media with the increasing unrest even provokingmobilization of U.S. Marines from Spain to Italy, across from Libya, hinting a potential military involvement in the already decimated state, it is important to review the foundational history of the current Libyan dilemma before the “disinfo” echo chamber of the mainstream media begins a new full-throttle propaganda blitz. The increasing urgency for this review is news headlines even alleging a “new war” in Libya because of militia rivalries.

Libya has recently been ravished by increasing internal strife and ethno-tribal divisions that was the continuation of NATO’s systematic destruction of the nation-state in 2011. In  Dr. Webster Tarpley’s “Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen”, it was explained that four primary factors contributed to the Libyan “revolution” in 2011 with the primary one being racist and monarchist elements among the eastern Libyan Harabi and Obeidat tribes found in the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor who had historically resented Gaddafi for toppling the western-backed King Idris which hailed from that region. This would explain why many of the protestors in eastern Libya were photographed carrying pictures of King Idris. That is not to say that all participants in the opposition were negative elements but it cannot be denied that negative elements had been pervasive as pawns of the western subversion and even culminated in the wide presence of Al Qaeda flags in Benghazieven atop the Benghazi courthouse, reflecting the prominent role of radical Islamist militias that will be discussed below. It is not to be forgotten that insurrectionary activity is not new in this region as Gaddafi had witnessed continuous waves of strife and militarized opposition, often propped up by the west for geopolitical purposes, and this was reflected during an Islamist insurgency in the 1990s, often with racial overtones. Tony Cartalucci in “Libya at Any Costdocumented the censored history of unrest in Libya driven by western interests:

1980′s: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.

1990′s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden’s assistance.

1994: LIFG kills 2 German anti-terrorism agents. Qaddafi seeks arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden in connection to the attack but is blocked by MI6 who was concurrently aiding the LIFG.

2003: Upon Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD programs, Libya’s collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group. Ironically this information would give Western nations an entire army to rebuild and turn against Qaddafi in 2011.

2005: NFSL’s Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.

2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan “Day of Rage,” beginning the “February 17th revolution.”

2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO’s Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing “unarmed protesters” with warplanes.

2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.

2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya

2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from “protecting civilians” to “ousting Qaddafi.” Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington’s full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda’s ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.

2011: Late April; Documented evidence is revealed that Libya’s rebels are conducting a barbaric campaign, employing extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate military force, child-soldiers, landmines, and torture. New York Times blames a lack of support.

2011: Late April, early May; Followed by calls to assassinate Qaddafi, ordnance crash into his son’s home killing him and 3 of Qaddafi’s grandchildren. NATO concurrently seeks a new UN resolution authorizing ground troops while aggressor states seek to release seized Libyan assets to the rebels

This tribally-based resentment that categorized much of the violence in 2011 contributed to racially-driven atrocities committed against Libyan blacks that make up a third of the Libyan population and inhabit the western regions including the Fezzan tribes of the Libyan southwest. Dr. Webster Tarpley also documented the prominent role of Al Qaeda mercenaries in the Libyan conflict whose nest in eastern Libya had been a world-leading nurturing ground for extremism according to the US Military Academy at West Point’s “Combating Terrorism Center” (CTC) 2007 reports on foreign fighters in Iraq. The key rebel city of Darna, for example, was commandeered by a rebel terrorist triumvirate featuring Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, formerly of the Al Qaeda-tied “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” (LIFG), who fought against NATO forces in Afghanistan. At his side were Sufian bin-Kumu, Osama bin Laden’s former chauffeur and an inmate at Guantánamo Bay for six years, as well as al-Barrani who is also a devoted member of LIFG.

Tarpley does an excellent job in demonstrating how such figures were not atypical but were the norm in a region that was the world’s “terrorist capital” according to the CTC. It is also disturbing to note the desperate attempts at damage control by the CTC in the wake of NATO’s disastrous intervention where previously documented facts were purposefully obscured and spun to cover NATO’s illegitimacy. Tarpley also documented the role of western assets such as the Libyan National Salvation Front as well as the French-assisted defection of top-Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari in 2010 who would later collaborate with the west in fomenting military mutinies against Gaddafi in northeast Libya.

Being the only African nation to rank as “high” on the Human Development Index and boasting a highly developed infrastructure, Libya under Gaddafi has become the globalists’ geopolitical gateway into Africa. To the detriment of all free humanity, this gateway has been trampled down by the illegal NATO war on Libya which revolved around verified propaganda regarding Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi’s alleged atrocities, a misrepresentation of the Libyan rebels, and a complete media blackout regarding geopolitical forces at play. These claims would culminate in international myths spun around Gaddafi who was claimed to be bombing his people, hiring African mercenaries, and staging mass rapes to terrorize opposition as the official dogmas justifying NATO’s aggression.

 Integral to the narrative justifying NATO’s intervention revolved around painting Gaddafi as a brutal tyranny launching a bloody crackdown against a “peaceful” movement with a host other atrocities ranging from hiring African mercenaries, using the air force against protestors, staging mass rapes, and threatening “genocide” against Benghazi. The NATO narrative of the revolution being the noble Libyan masses rising up against Gaddafi and his mercenaries was painted most clearly in the early March 14, 2011 Reuters article titled, “Libyan jets bomb rebels, France pushes for no-fly zone.” In this typical mainstream media report, rhetorical justification is given for the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine in sanctioning a no-fly zone in Libya based on the tired narrative of Gaddafi using air power to brutally suppress what is seen as an indigenous uprising, seeming to be heading down the pathos becoming a “tragedy for Libya.” A warning for an upcoming bloodbath against Gaddafi was sounded. Interestingly, even the “Independent” would later publish an article debunking this, pointing out the unreliability and factually-depraved basis for this propaganda among other accusations levied against Gaddafi. This baseless propaganda, already having poisoned western perception of what happened in Libya, would later be supplemented with reports involving the role of alleged mercenaries and mass rapes to whip up justification for intervention.

 In reality, such a narrative was factually bankrupt as masterfully documented by Maximillain Forte in his “Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya” which directly nails the illegitimacy of the NATO campaign. While Gaddafi is certainly no saint and while many groups did have legitimate grievances against him, he nonetheless had a solid support base in Libya while the rebels were overall lacking legitimacy and were being driven by Islamist radicals, exiled politicians with globalist ties, and decades of ethnically-based tension. Gaddafi had invested heavily into the infrastructure and the social structure of his country, bringing the country to nearly eradicating illiteracy and also combating homelessness which had previously been a constant problem. Women rights were also championed as women in Libya were allowed to study and work where they desired as even BBC noted.

While Gaddafi had invested in infrastructure, the globalists sought to offset this by asserting their presence in Libya through both the destruction of its infrastructure and seeking to bring Libya into their economic orbit. There was a concerted effort to undermine Gaddafi’s agenda of building a united, strong, and self-sufficient African community and strengthening African multilateral institutions. Furthermore, Libya provided a gateway into Africa for the Pentagon’s “AFRICOM” to undermine and oust Chinese economic interests on the African continent which were a major challenge for western corporate interests’ access to resources and economic hegemony. Another key point was Gaddafi’s goal of creating a single, gold-based, African currency called the “gold dinar”with which he planned to trade African oil for. This would have conflicted directly with western corporate and banking interests and their international fiat monetary system upon which the IMF and their “casino economy” is built. Countries’ purchasing power would be determined by the amount of gold they had as opposed to fiat paper currency that made no substantial backing.

 Regarding the specific claims of Gaddafi’s atrocities as parroted by the mainstream media, Forte gives many insights that help dismantle the myths behind the “humanitarian” war. For example, the claims of air strikes by Gaddafi are noted to have been a fabrication peddled by the BBC and Al Jazeera. The claims were completely unfounded and based on fake claims. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen would admit during a Pentagon press conference that they had seen no confirmation of such reports. David Kirpatrick of the New York Times would be cited by Forte as admitting that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories…and making vastly inflated claims about his [Gaddafi’s] behavior”.

 The claims of African mercenaries, integral to portraying Gaddafi as being on one side against Libya as a whole, were perhaps the most atrocious and racist of the myths, sprung from the rebels’ own tribal animosities towards indigenous Africans in Libya and migrant African workers that were common throughout the country. Human Rights Watch would claim that it found no evidence at all of African mercenaries in eastern Libya where the rebellion and fighting were centered and even noted that Gaddafi had attempted to end discrimination against these people, contradicting, as Forte noted, the rabid claims made throughout the mainstream press including Time MagazineThe Telegraph, Al Jazeera and Al ArabiyaThe Los Angeles Times also found no evidence of such mercenaries with the New York Times even pointing out the “racist overtones” involved in the conflict and the disinformation they helped spread. Amnesty International would later confirm that “mercenaries” put on display by the rebels had been undocumented African migrant workers and noted things like rampant discrimination and disproportionate detention of black Libyans in Az-Zawiya. Mainstream media and Al Jazeera would attempt to cover its crimes by pointing out, though briefly, the reality that Africans in Libya were being subjected to lootings, abduction, and killing by the rebels. All of this, of course, in light of the fact that Africans were an integral part of Libyan society, making up 33% of the population. A severe crime never to be forgotten is the ethnic cleansing of the beautiful black Libyan town of Tawargha, previously inhabited by 35,000 people, expelled by racist militants calling themselves,the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”Another crime was the systemic slaughter of blacks in western Libya by the eastern rebels advancing on Tripoli (see here as well).

Another hysteria peddled by the media revolved around Gaddafi’s alleged planning of mass rapes, often blamed on nonexistent “mercenaries, which was then used by the media to help garner sympathy to the rebels. The source for these claims, also adequately exposed by Forte, began with Al Jazeera, a propaganda outlet for the Wall Street-London backed Qatari regime, claiming that Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops and ordered them to use rape against those who opposed him. These claims were then redistributed throughout the media and found their way to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo would later fraudulently claim that Gaddafi had ordered the rape of hundreds of women and that Gaddafi had personally ordered Viagra to be distributed. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton would also make these allegations (see Forte’s article).

In reality, a UN rights inquiry in Libya headed by Cherif Bassiouni would find these claims a baseless “mass hysteria.” Bassiouni told of a woman to “claimed to have sent out over 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse.” Bassiouni would ask to see these questionnaires, but never receive them, casting doubt on the narrative. It was pointed out that it seems improbable that 70,000 questionnaires were sent out in March considering the fact that the postal service wasn’t working. Bassiouni whose team would uncover only 4 cases of sexual abuse in their study. The boxes of Viagra that Gaddafi supposedly distributed were found fully intact right next to burnt-out tanks, indicating staged propaganda (Forte). Further confirming this is Amnesty International and who further shamed the imperialist establishment and thoroughly shattered this lie. According to the “Independent”, “Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising, says that “we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped”.

The most disingenuous claim peddled by the media to justify the Libyan war was the “save Benghazi” crusade. While it is true that Gaddafi had employed “overblown” rhetoric threatening to fight from house to house and “squash the cockroaches”, the media emphasizing these claims admits the radical-extremists nature of the hordes fighting among the rebels. The same media would also disregard Gaddafi’s “overblown” rhetoric when it was convenient to do so but attached to the Benghazi narrative as it seemingly gave justification for NATO to intervene. There is no evidence that Gaddafi had genocide planned as he only made the charges to the armed groups causing upheaval in the east of the country and even offered them amnesty and an open passage into Egypt across the border to avoid bloodshed. Professor Alan J. Kuperman exposed the propaganda talking-points of this argument, citing as evidence for the fact that Gaddafi had no genocide planned the reality that he did not perpetuate it in areas that he had captured fully or partially from the rebels including Zawiya, Mistrata, and Ajdabiya.

 The very actions of NATO itself would discredit the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine employed to justify NATO’s intervention as NATO would be directly responsible for the deaths of countless civilians. NATO would gun down civilians in the central square of Zawiya and “taking a fairly liberal definition of command and control” facilities by targeting a residential district, killing some of Gaddafi’s family members and three of his grandchildren. NATO was also responsible for targeting Libya’s state television, killing three civilian journalists and earning condemnation by international journalist federations (see Forte’s article).

 NATO oversaw the death of 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya by sea, mostly sub-Saharan Africans, the same people who were baselessly demonized as mercenaries. NATO would ignore their distress calls even though refugees would make contact with vessels belonging to NATO members. NATO also would launch numerous unjustifiable strikes against Libya furthering the damage toll. Above all, NATO was giving cover to rebels who were perpetuating verifiable genocide against cities, such as Sirte, with NATO backing and airstrikes to order, cutting off electricity, food, and water and using bombardment against civilians. Under this blueprint of destruction, scores of people would die in multiples of what was happening initially in Benghazi against armed rebel gangs which Gaddafi was fighting making a mockery out of the pre-text used to justify their globalist, faux-humanitarian war in the first place (Forte).

NATO and the globalist war on Libya was one bankrupt of any moral grounding or political justification. It was a war born of compromised interests that sought not the liberation of an oppressed people but rather the pillages of Libya which would later serve as a gateway into the heart of Africa. While the globalists attempt to sell their wars as moral and for the betterment of the world, they are at heart driven only by a desire to spread hegemony and consolidate control, with the ultimate goal being global hegemony. Any attempt to invoke a moral cover should be shunned in light of the barrage of fake atrocities attributed to Gaddafi and complementing crimes by NATO, best captured in the lies regarding Gaddafi massacring his people, hiring mercenaries, and staging mass rapes among other echo chamber distortions. Only when we tear down the media’s curtain of deception can we better understand the events at play and position ourselves intellectually to combat globalist imperialism which seeks to subvert us all.

NATO's work

NATO’s work

Before and Now

Before and Now

libye(8)

Matthew Vandyke

Matthew Vandyke say’s that his a journalist but in reality he was fighting with rebels its said that he has connections with CIA

MERCENARIES

Matthew Vandyke the journalist really?! So now we can say that the ratverments had paid Mercenaries and not the Qaddafi regime

BOMBINDG child

NATO BOMBED A VILLA IN SOURMAN THIS IS THE OUTCOME OF THE BOMBING THE WHOLE FAMILY DIED EXCEPT THE FATHER

 

TARGET LIBYA Behind the politics and dirty tricks that demonised Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi


TARGET LIBYA

Behind the politics and dirty tricks that demonised Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi

By David Guyatt

“It’s an easy hit.” The voice of Lester Coleman, former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) operative and joint author of the explosive book Trail of the Octopus, echoed hollowly down the line. Lester answered my question in four simple words. I had asked him why the US continues blaming Libya’s Qadaffi for all the woes in the world. Since his enforced “exile,” Lester has become something of an expert on Libya.

“Listen David,” he continued, “It’s all domestic politics.” Libyan skulduggery plays to the “Red-necks” who inhabit middle America. Lester, an accomplished linguist launched into a humorous back-woods drawl to emphasise his point. Most Americans believe anything they’re told about “Ay-rabs” he said, particularly at politically sensitive times or during an election year. One reason, perhaps, why the US had threatened to use a nuclear weapon against Libya in spring of 1996.

Conservative Sir Teddy Taylor in British parliament

I was told this latter piece of gossip by Sir Teddy Taylor, Conservative Member of Parliament. Sir Teddy had consented to an interview to provide background on the assassination of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and also on the downing of Pan Am flight 103, over Lockerbie. The MP had a special interest in both cases. Somehow, I had missed picking up the US nuclear threat on the news. When Sir Teddy mentioned it, my jaw dropped with a jowl-shuddering “clunk.” I later confirmed the story from American media sources. In the event it was just bluster. 1996 has proved a peculiarly good year for Libya. For the second time in a decade, it got shunted into the political back woods by Presidential warlords. Instead the mad Ayatollah’s of Iran took centre-stage as America’s arch-demon in this election year. But by all accounts it was touch and go whether Libya or Iran would be awarded the honour of the black boot this time around.

Les Coleman is the first DIA operative to have gone public and blown the whistle. His book blew the lid on the Lockerbie story. Because of his inside knowledge, he was inundated with death threats from the intelligence community and fled with his family to Europe for safety. Originally given temporary political asylum in Sweden, two years later he was forced to move on. Most recently he was residing in Spain.

When I spoke to him, he was planning his return to the US after years of exile. Now penniless and unsettled, we spoke about his chances of arrest on an old charge of obtaining a passport in a false name – something he did under DIA instruction as a field operative. In any case, Les hoped the forthcoming Presidential election might insulate him from prosecution, but was going to return “home” no matter what. His family had, understandably, grown tired of their nomadic life and missed “home”.

Unsurprisingly, word of his return to the USA had leaked out. A short while before finalising his flight plans he was attacked by four men and beaten to a pulp. He arrived in the US in a wheelchair on 17 October 1996, arrested and placed in custody on Federal charges. His book, due to be published in the US has been now been suppressed. US distributors for Signet Books, say the publication date is “indefinitely postponed.”

Les was one of many people I spoke to in an attempt to get a clear understanding of the nonsensical US position on Libya. For the better part of twenty years Libya and its leader Muammar Qaddafi has been hoisted atop America’s most hated nation list. It was a form of political vilification that Europe didn’t share, until the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, to which I shall return.

Upon taking power, the Reagan administration immediately commenced a bitter campaign against Qaddafi, principally under the guidance of Director of Central Intelligence, Bill Casey – a gruff, no nonsense financial street-fighter who’s lack of political eloquence was matched by a well used black-jack. Casey had been Ronald Reagan’s Campaign Manager and carried Reagan to victory on the back of the “October Surprise” issue of 1980. President Carter’s re-election chances were dashed by the intransigence of both the Iranians and US officials who – unknown to him – had concluded a secret deal to delay the release of US hostages, held by Tehran, in exchange for battlefield weapons. Reagan romped home to a landslide victory and immediately announced that the hostages would be released. It is now clear that Casey was one of the central architects who negotiated the deal with the Iranian Ayatollahs.

A virulent pro-market, anti-Communist, Casey shared his views with British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher – a close personal friend. Thatcher was one of the few Prime Ministers who took an active interest in the machinations of the intelligence community. She went out of her way to attend Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) meetings and insisted on being regularly briefed. Her interest in these exotic areas may have been whetted by many of her ardent supporters, like Airey Neave, who possessed intelligence backgrounds.

Casey also had a “thing” about Qaddafi, who he saw as a lowlife rebel-rouser who bankrolled the globe’s terrorists. Along with other administration hard-liner’s, Casey set out to destabilise Libya and over-throw Qaddafi in true CIA fashion.

Within months of taking office, President Reagan authorised a battle fleet to sail along Libya’s coastline. Announced to the media as a “naval exercise,” the manoeuvre was designed to challenge Libya’s recently announced sovereignty over the Gulf of Sidra - a move that extended Libya’s territorial claims well beyond the internationally recognised twelve mile coastal boundary.

Ordinarily, a territorial dispute of this nature would typically be subject to international diplomacy and discussion. In the event the Reagan administration saw it as a perfect excuse to buckle on the hip-holsters and start blasting away with a set of Texan six-guns. Qadhafi was about to get a taste Reagan’s gung-ho, go-get-‘em diplomacy – the first in a series of “police actions” that were later to lead to the invasion of Granada and Panama.

On August 19, 1981, two US Navy F-14 “Tomcats” patrolling thirty miles inside the disputed territorial waters were attacked by Libyan jets. In the melee that followed two Libyan jets were shot down. A delighted Ronald Reagan mimicked his old western movie days – for the benefit of his close aides – by drawing two imaginary six-guns and peppering an equally imaginary Qaddafi with numerous bullets. It was pure “boy’s own” stuff but backed by multi-megaton muscles.

Over the following months, numerous intelligence briefings reported that Qaddafi had ordered a revenge attack against President Reagan and other high administration officials. Quickly shown to be unfounded, the fabricated report was traced to Manucher Ghorbanifar – a shadowy Iranian arms dealer who had helped to broker the arms for hostages deal. Despite this, the “false” death threat gave Casey and other administration insiders the ammunition they needed to wage a protracted campaign against the Libyan leader.

By November, a top secret National Security Planning Group (NSPG) chaired by the President (who was known to sleep through Cabinet meetings) authorised planning for ” a military response against Libya in the event of further Libyan attempts to assassinate American officials or attack U.S. facilities.” Soon drafted, the Top Secret memo “counter-terrorist planning towards Libya” recommended the President to “immediately direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ready assets to carry out military action against Libya in self-defence, following a further Libyan provocation.” A number of retaliatory “graduated” responses were planned. Out of the main five options, four centred on air strikes against Libyan targets. Fear-stricken at these developments, Qaddafi reacted by sending an envoy to Washington, pleading that the whole thing was pure bunkum. The strategy proved successful… for the time being.

There followed a hiatus in US activity against Libya, as the CIA and Casey focused most of its resources on the Nicaraguan situation. But Qaddafi was not to be forgotten. In a tour of European Capitals in early 1984 – a US Presidential election year – US officials seeking allied co-operation against Libya returned home in bleak mood. The picture they presented of European attitudes to Qaddafi was not encouraging. The Libyan leader was generally well regarded. First he did a lot of business with Europe; he wasn’t a fundamentalist, and; a large number of European ex-pats lived and worked in Libya. Collectively, the Europeans wouldn’t sanction US hostilities. Hardly surprising when the bulk of Libya’s crude oil – almost 80% – is exported to western Europe – principally Italy, Germany, Spain and France.

With administration insiders concluding that Qaddafi would be just the “ticket” leading to a Reagan victory at the upcoming election in November, something had to be done to modify European public opinion. Within months, “fate” seemed to lend a helping hand.

Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher was on duty outside London Libyan people’s Bureau, on 17 April 1984. Located in the fashionable and serene St. James Square, the Libyan Bureau building huddles in a corner of the square. It’s address is No. 5. On that day a hail of automatic gunfire disturbed the tranquillity, sending Pigeons flying in all directions. The eleven round burst – fired by a 9mm Sterling sub-machine gun – from the first floor of the Libyan building, felled a number of anti-Qadaffi demonstrators protesting outside. WPC Fletcher was killed outright. The slaying caused uproar and hit the headlines around the world. Condemned in the worlds media and Parliament, all Libyan diplomats were expelled by a furious Home Secretary. The only problem with the Home Secretary’s understandable indignation was that the Libyan gunman didn’t shoot Yvonne Fletcher.

The Fletcher killing occurred out-of-the-blue and singularly changed British political and public opinion overnight. Open season was declared on Qaddafi and Libya by the US, and most importantly, was supported by Britain. The rest of Europe kept silent and sulked – having been out manoeuvred. With the aid of a single bullet, the Reagan administration’s “destabilisation” plan against Qaddafi was back on track.

Eighteen months after Fletcher’s assassination, 40 US warplanes screamed across the night sky above Tripoli and Benghazi. Of those, eight F111 bombers had launched from bases in East Anglia, England – with the blessing of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and a still enraged British population. Each bomber carried four 2000-pound laser-guided “smart” bombs. In all, 32,000-pounds of high explosive ordnance were explicitly targeted to kill Qadaffi. Miraculously, he escaped unhurt. His fifteenth-month old daughter was killed and two adopted sons badly injured.

The Reagan administration loosed the warplanes on Libya following the bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in West Berlin, nine days earlier. One US serviceman and a young Turkish woman had been killed outright, and 230 people injured. The Disco was a known hangout for off-duty US servicemen.

President Reagan claimed he had irrefutable proof of Libyan sponsorship for the atrocity. Despite this claim, no evidence has been submitted by the Reagan administration to support their allegations. A host of well informed individuals and “sources” doubt any proof ever existed – except in the fevered imagination of CIA boss, Bill Casey. Conservative MP, Sir Teddy Taylor, regards the American allegations as “total rubbish.”

In April 1996, Britain’s Channel Four “flagship” documentary programme Dispatches – in a massively researched broadcast – revealed that Fletcher had been murdered by elements of British and American intelligence. The purpose of the slaying, as outlined earlier, was to “shape” public opinion and, importantly, pre-empt Parliamentary indignation for the later bombing of Tripoli by British based US warplanes. Disgracefully, these astonishing revelations went unreported by the media.

The film, made by the highly regarded Fulcrum Productions, was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on 8 May 1996. MP’s Sir Teddy Taylor and Tam Dalyell, demanded the government initiate a full inquiry. Responding for the government, Home Office Minister of State, David MacClean, described the Dispatches programme as “preposterous trash.” In doing so, he called into question the reputations of leading ballistics experts and gun-shot specialists – and carefully avoided reference to information provided to the documentary team by well placed, and knowledgeable, intelligence sources. It was a white-knuckle statement that will hopefully, one day, boomerang back on him.

Fulcrum had learned that British and US intelligence had established a major surveillance post – adjacent to the Libyan People’s Bureau – at No. 8 St. James Square. This post had been “active” for at least six weeks prior to the shooting, with up to 40 individual intelligence officers present. On the morning of the shooting, the post was abandoned. Moreover, Dispatches also learned that the demonstration outside the Libyan Bureau was a phoney. The demonstrators belonged to a CIA front organisation.

Two additional facts were discovered: British and American intelligence knew that Col. Qaddafi had sanctioned his London Bureau to shoot at the demonstrators – they had intercepted the secret message granting authorisation. Secondly, the CIA and MI5 knew precisely the calibre of weapon to be used. Both intelligence agencies had “penetrated” the Bureau and had Libyan “sources” supplying information to them.

Crucially, Fulcrum Productions learned, beyond doubt, that the bullet that killed Fletcher had been fired from the upper floor of No. 8 St. James Square – the location of the surveillance post. Ballistics experts consulted by the documentary team, confirmed the bullets entry track to have come from No. 8. The team also learned that the bullet was adapted to fire with “Terminal Velocity.” This technique – a speciality of SAS “shooters” - is achieved by removing some of the explosive propellant from the cartridge. The result is a quieter shot – similar to using a silencer. A side effect of a bullet fired in this manner is that it flies slower and “tumbles” as it strikes the target - wrecking havoc as it rips through soft tissue. In every respect it is a “killer” shot – where chances of survival are so slim as to be negligible. The information on the bullet’s “Terminal Velocity” characteristics were also confirmed by independent experts.

A well-placed and reliable “source” interviewed by this writer, explained why WPC Fletcher was targeted. Intelligence operatives knew Qaddafi had authorised a “hitman” to let loose with a sterling automatic weapon against CIA funded demonstrators gathering outside the London Bureau. This information was gleaned with the aid of signals intercepts and human intelligence (HUMINT) sources inside the Bureau itself. The great worry amongst the secret cabal who planned the assassination, was that random killing of Arab protesters would not be sufficient to force the British Home Secretary to expel all Libyan diplomats. It was argued that a targeting a British “Bobby,” especially a Police Woman would do the trick.

Such appalling cynicism is the hand-maiden to the intelligence community as well as heartless politicians who believe the end justifies the means. The “source” also explained that it was an “off the books” hit, and that “elements” inside the British and American intelligence community were “out of control.” But the suspicion remains that someone with power and influence gave a “nod and a wink” to the operation. It is just not credible to suppose otherwise. The key to this convoluted reasoning was the cabal’s fear that the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, would not act as required, without immense public and political pressure to jog him along. This is the rationale of someone with a developed sense of political reality.

After the shooting, Brittan immediately ordered an investigation, which has remained under lock and key ever since. Not long afterwards, sordid stories began to circulate amongst the British media that the Home Secretary had unusual sexual appetites. The rumours were fed to the satirical magazine, Private Eye, who recognised the handiwork of the security service and refused to publish the allegations. However, within a year, Leon Brittan was forced from office for his part in the Westland helicopter debacle.

With Western European objections so neatly taken care of, Qadaffi’s demonisation went in to full gear. The anachronistic Bedouin was rapidly elevated from “useful” to “primary” middle east “scapegoat.” At the same time, European governments learned as a result of the Libyan bombing, just how “hard” the US were prepared to play in pursuit of domestic politics and wider foreign policy. Tarring Qadaffi as the world’s bad boy suited the selfish interests of the political power elite in the US, and was an added bonus when other illegal CIA middle east “covert ops” went belly-up. One such operation was the CIA protected Heroin pipeline operating from the middle east to the USA.

A recurring problem for President Reagan was his inability to rescue the US hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Hanging like a dark cloud over his otherwise successful term of office, the hostage problem was turned over to Lt. Colonel Oliver North to resolve. North, a medium ranked military officer with close personal ties to the CIA’s Bill Casey, was the administrations global Mr. Fixit. He, in turn, called on the services of his old friend, Manzur El-Khassar – a Syrian born “big-time” narcotics and arms trafficker. Earlier, the Syrian had assisted North in his time of need, by brokering a large shipment of weapons to the CIA backed, Nicaragua’s Contra’s. It earned him a lot of kudos inside the administration.

Lebanon’s Bekka Valley is a fertile and productive area specially suited to growing Opium poppies. Rifat Assad, the brother of Syria’s President Hafez Assad was widely known to have been in charge of Syria’s narcotics enterprise. As the “Supremo” of the Bekka Valley’s massive Opium industry, he was also a paid “asset” of the CIA and was being “groomed” to succeed his elder brother as Syrian President. He was also an extremely close friend to El-Khassar. It is widely believed that the influx of 30,000 Syrian troops in to the Bekka Valley during the eighties, had as much to do with protecting the lucrative Opium fields as with separating Lebanon’s warring factions.

El-Khassar agreed to negotiate on behalf of the US for the release of the US hostages. His side of the deal was to get an agreement that the US would protect the Syrian drugs pipeline that shipped through Frankfurt airport to the USA. The CIA allegedly established a group – known as “CIA One” – who would oversee and protect the drugs route. If publicly discovered, the response was to say that the “protected” drugs shipments were part of a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) “sting” operation, dedicated to tracking distribution networks inside the USA.

Unknown to North and his cahoots, there was also a secret five-man Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) team working in Lebanon. The team, headed by Major Charles “Tiny” McKee was independently tasked with locating and rescuing the US hostages. During the course of his work, McKee, stumbled across El-Khassar’s “CIA One” protected Heroin network. Reporting his “discovery” to CIA HQ at Langley, and outraged at the lack of response, McKee booked his team on a flight home. At this point, El’Khassar learned of McKee’s activities and was also informed of his flight plans. Anxious that McKee would put a stop to his activities, he contacted his CIA One handlers who, in turn, communicated with their “control” in Washington.

Against this insidious backdrop, other, unrelated covert plans were being hatched. Following the July 1988 shoot-down of an Iranian Airbus by the US Navy battle-cruiser Vincennes, hard-line Iranian Ayatollah’s demanded swift retaliation for the 290 lives lost. They hired the Syrian based Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command (PFLP-GC) for a tit-for-tat attack. Led by Ahmed Jibril – and with a $10 million Iranian bounty – the PFLP-GC searched for a suitable target. An expert at bombing aircraft, Jibril soon learned of El-Khassar’s Frankfurt based dope pipeline and persuaded El-Khassar to place a bomb inside the Heroin laden suitcase. Pan Am flight 103 was scheduled for destruction.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Federal Police, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), received a warning that a bomb was to be substituted for the dope shipment aboard flight 103. They alerted CIA One, who passed the information on to their Stateside “Control.” The reply came back: “Don’t worry about it. Don’t stop it. Let it go.” On December 21st 1988, Pan Am’s Jumbo 747 “Maid of the Seas” exploded high above the Scottish village of Lockerbie. All 259 passengers perished. A further eleven people died as wreckage from the aircraft hurtled down to earth.

Within hours, a host of CIA agents arrived at the crash scene. It is thought that the CIA search team arrived via helicopter from a US Special Forces facility located at Machrihanish, on the Mull of Kintyre. The speed of their arrival suggests they had foreknowledge of the bombing. In any case the CIA agents, dressed in Pan Am overalls, set about ransacking the crash sight in a desperate search for incriminating evidence. For two days they searched for the luggage of the dead DIA team and frantically sought the suitcase containing the heroin shipment. One suitcase was recovered, flown out and later returned empty, to be “re-discovered” by the forensic team scouring the wreckage. It belonged to Major Charles McKee. Curiously, one unidentified body was snatched from the wreckage and never returned.

Les Coleman believes it would be wrong to blame the CIA in to for the Lockerbie atrocity. Intelligence outfits do not work as cohesively as many outsiders believe. There is a great deal of rivalry and fragmentation at work. DCI Bill Casey, had plenty of detractors inside the monolith he directed. Some worked hard feeding unattributed information to their favourite journalists that was designed to damage him and, hopefully, lead to his removal. Others are known to operate as part of small and secretive core that has variously been identified as the “Enterprise” or the “Octopus.” The latter is said to operate with organised crime and leading politicians who covertly traffic in guns, drugs laundered money and any other commodity that can generate massive profits. Whether the proceeds of these illegal activities are siphoned back into the “black” budgets of the CIA, or fill the pockets of participants – or both – isn’t entirely clear.

Despite Coleman’s caution, the CIA’s infamous history – stretching over fifty years – clearly suggest that US foreign policy and private gain “coalesce” in to a game-plan that benefits various parties. Some intelligence “watchers” point to the wealth of some long-term CIA officers and ask how they amassed their fortunes based on salaries of $60,000 a year? It is a valid question that can be equally addressed to former and serving politicians and senior government bureaucrats.

By attributing the responsibility of Lockerbie on Qaddafi, the US administration was following in the well-worn foot-steps of many predecessors in similar situations. It’s a technique as old as the hills. Caught virtually red-handed in massive illegality, the first thought is to cast round for a suitable scapegoat. As Lester Coleman said when I first spoke to him, Qaddafi is an easy target. Independently minded and unwilling to align himself with US middle eastern policy, he became a target in the US. His past bankrolling of “terrorist” causes – and one-time expansionism – also did him no favours. It’s a case of if you’re not for us, you’re against us.

Sitting on vast reserves of oil is also a significant factor for Libya’s treatment at the hands of the US. The fact that most of this oil flows to western European oil companies, clearly doesn’t cut much ice with the US. Rivalry between the European and US business elite is as intense as ever. US oil companies can’t be pleased that they are effectively out of the picture. In that sense Qaddafi was, as Les Coleman said, an “easy hit.”

Perhaps more telling than anything else, British support for the US anti-Libyan “campaign” clearly demonstrates the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the British political process. That those in power manipulated the British judicial system and continue to lie to the families of the Lockerbie victims is sinister enough. That they not only tolerated, but connived in the murder of an innocent woman police officer – to further American political designs – says more than any party political manifesto could begin to utter. All power corrupts, but the continued exercise of raw, unadulterated power of this magnitude is the very antithesis of a participatory democracy.

In researching this article I spoke with many different individuals. Some agreed to speak on the record, whilst others requested anonymity. One well placed and knowledgeable source summed up the situation with these words: “There is no democracy. There is no free press.” That source remains a leading Member of Parliament.

ENDS
NUJ

©1996 – David Guyatt

source: plane-truth.com

Quote

SAS troopers help co-ordinate rebel attacks in Libya

The serving soldiers have joined British special forces and have been acting as forward air controllers and advising on tactics

SAS badge

A detail from the badge of the SAS, who have been assisting the rebels in Libya. Photograph: PA

 

The Guardian has learned that a number of serving British special forces soldiers, as well as former SAS troopers, are advising and training rebel forces, although their presence is officially denied.

The Guardian has previously reported the presence of former British special forces troops, now employed by private security companies and funded by a number of sources, including Qatar. They have been joined by a number of serving SAS soldiers.

They have been acting as forward air controllers – directing pilots to targets – and communicating with Nato operational commanders. They have also been advising rebels on tactics, a task they have not found easy.

For the SAS it is a return to old stamping grounds. In one of their first successful missions in the second world war, they attacked airfields in Libya, destroying 60 aircraft. SAS battle honours include Tobruk in 1941 and a raid on Benghazi in 1942.

They returned to Libya in February this year, even before the UN mandate urging states to protect civilians from Gaddafi‘s forces. Shortly afterwards, a group of SAS soldiers were seized, though quickly released, by nervous rebels south of Benghazi when their Chinook helicopter landed two MI6 officers with communications equipment.

SAS soldiers later advised Misurata-based rebel forces who secured the port city and helped to pass on details of the locations of Gaddafi’s forces to British commanders in the UK and the Naples headquarters of Canadian commander of Nato forces, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard.

In what is hoped to be the endgame in the Libyan conflict and the fight to oust Gaddafi, a number of SAS soldiers are now advising the rebels as they storm the capital, Tripoli.

France is understood to have deployed special forces in Libya and Qatari and Jordanian special forces are believed to have also played a role.

source: The Guardian

 

SAS troopers help co-ordinate rebel attacks in Libya