Shocking Revelations: The Horrifying Truth About Libya
by: Bobby Powell
The “revolution” in Libya was anything but a popular uprising. The “protestors” that overthrew Moammar Gadaffi were in fact al-Qaeda terrorists that had been unleashed on the country by the CIA under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama, and I prove this in this latest episode of The Truth Is Viral.
Even more shockingly, you will hear an exclusive TTiV interview with a NATO spokesman who states, for the record, that the reason Obama had given for intervening in Libya was an utter lie. Obama had claimed that Gadaffi was about to use chemical weapons on the “protestors,” when in fact he had been dispossessed of any WMD capability as early as 2003. NATO not only knew this, they were the ones who had been helping Gadaffi get rid of those weapons.
Barack Obama, however, is not one to let a few facts get in his way when it comes to implementing whatever evil agenda he wishes. Under orders from a cabal of international bankers Obama, who has been doing whatever he can to support radical Islamists across the Middle East, the CIA trained and equipped al-Qaeda terrorists and set them on a path of revolution that ended with a new Libyan Central Bank and the black flag of al-Qaeda flying over the Benghazi courthouse.
Assisted by NATO forces and Qatari Army Soldiers, and supplied with weapons by the Qataris, these al-Qaeda terrorists succeeded in removing the Libyan leader from power before brutally murdering him.
Now, the very same al-Qaeda terrorists Obama has been supporting since he lied during his first inauguration when he swore to support and defend the United States are tear-assing around Syria, wiping out entire Christian villages. Christians are being beheaded and crucified for their faith, their children forced to watch as the evil scum Obama loves so much use the heads of their parents as soccer balls before being dismembered and killed themselves.
And your tax dollars are supporting that horror.
Please share this episode of The Truth Is Viral in every way you can. Particularly, send it to every talking head you can think of at FOX news. At least they won’t have the excuse that they didn’t know. They know, believe me. We just have to let them know that WE know, hopefully shaming them into covering this story properly. Of course, since FOX News is more than 40% owned by the Saudi royal family (also sponsors of al-Qaeda,) that may be too much to hope for.
But we have to try.
God bless and Semper Fi,
The Libyan Puzzle in the Scramble for Africa
By Sam Muhho Global Research
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 provoking a mobilization 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 Benghazi, even 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 Cost” documented 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 Magazine, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The 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.
Caught on video: The horrifying proof that Libya‘s freedom fighters have turned into brutal torturers
Film shows three men tying up blood-spattered man before whipping him with cables and touching him on his skin with electric wires
Man, suspected by rebels of having supported Gaddafi, told: ‘Blood will come from your eyes and nose until you admit what you have done’
Video handed to Mail on Sunday in Tripoli refugee camp
A terrified Libyan man is beaten and tortured with electric shocks by youths who appear to be former revolutionary fighters.
The images, taken from a video handed to The Mail on Sunday in a Tripoli refugee camp, will be seen as fresh evidence that those who deposed Colonel Gaddafi with the help of the West are adopting methods as brutal as the dead tyrant’s.
The film shows three men tying up the blood-spattered man before whipping him repeatedly with cables, touching him on his skin with electric wires and taunting him as he pleads for mercy.
The film shows three men tying up the blood-spattered man before whipping him repeatedly with cables, touching him on his skin with electric wires and taunting him as he pleads for mercy
The men, one of whom is wearing combat trousers and is armed with a knife, tell the man that ‘blood will come from your eyes and nose until you admit what you have done’
The men, one of whom is wearing combat trousers and is armed with a knife, tell the man that ‘blood will come from your eyes and nose until you admit what you have done’.
The new video images follow growing protests about abuse and torture in parts of the country.
Doctors from the aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) have pulled out after refusing to deal with the results of such brutality in their clinics.
According to sources, the youths in the video were former rebels who refused to surrender their weapons at the end of the civil war in October – and are intent on revenge on those they suspect of having supported Gaddafi.
They are said to have driven in armed trucks into the al-Fellah ‘internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camp in a suburb of Tripoli, firing at crowds and searching homes until they found men on their list of ‘suspects’.
Their victim, seen on the video, was Saleh Barhoun Gersh, who had run a general store in Towerga – which was loyal to Gaddafi during the conflict until the town was ransacked by fighters from nearby Misrata city.
Before Gaddafi was killed, the rebels had been under siege from his forces for weeks in Misurata – a port 150 miles east of Tripoli.
When some of the Misurata rebels arrived at the camp, Mr Gersh was so frightened he wore women’s clothes to disguise himself.
In the film he cries out as he is whipped and is told: ‘You are from Towerga, you dog. You say you did nothing in Misurata, so why are you in disguise? We found weapons in every house in Towerga. Your hand is bleeding and we hope it is paralysed.’
The men chant as they reach for live electric wires: ‘Everyone we catch is innocent, they say.
‘Well, blood will come from your eyes and nose until you admit what you have done. We’ve caught 60 of you so far and none of you did anything.’
It is not clear when the footage was taken or what happened to Mr Gersh.
Camp manager Mohamed al-Mabruk, who handed over the footage, said: ‘The fighters from Misurata have kept their weapons and vowed to capture everyone who supported Gaddafi.
‘They come on regular raids to our three camps in Tripoli and take anyone they want. They beat them and torture them to get them to confess to rape and murder.’
Locals said Towerga residents were known supporters of Gaddafi and are among 8,500 people believed to be held in secret camps all over the country.
Mr al-Mabruk is helpless to stop the raids. He said: ‘You can do nothing against the Misurata militias.
‘We are all terrified of them. The government, the police and the army cannot stop them.’
Attacks are often filmed by the fighters for amusement to post on YouTube.
The abuse of Mr Gersh was captured on a mobile phone left behind in the chaos of a raid. Libya’s interim government has admitted it is largely powerless to prevent this collapse of law and order. It comes at a time when doubts are being raised about Nato’s support for the uprising.
Britain spent about £300 million on bombing raids to help secure the victory that ousted the Gaddafi regime four months ago.
But local militias are hell-bent on revenge against their former enemies. They also frequently clash with rival militias.
Thousands of fighters have commandeered schools, halls and sports centres as detention facilities for ‘suspects’ they capture from their homes or the street.
The Misurata brigades are considered the most hostile, with thousands of untrained youths carrying out the aggressive interrogation. In other footage collected by the camp manager, more than 30 armed trucks are shown on an early morning raid into the camp.
Women scream that they are being attacked in their beds and that some family members are sick. ‘Is this the new revolution. Is this the justice we all fought for?’ they shout.
Last month, 14 badly injured detainees were sent to Medecins Sans Frontieres doctors, three of them needing hospitalisation.
Claudia Evers, Misrata co-ordinator for MSF, said: ‘The militia refused to let us take them to hospital. We’ve reported two deaths. No action has been taken and our doctors refuse to continue.’
Amnesty International has documented thousands of cases of abuse and torture, and handed photographs to The Mail on Sunday. Senior crisis response adviser Donatella Rovera has protested to the National Transitional Council (NTC) without success.
‘I have seen people who have been beaten with iron bars and rubber pipes, some hardly able to walk,’ she said.
‘Men are hung by handcuffs from a door frame and attacked with electric wires. Tasers are applied to their ears and genitals, and finger and toenails are torn out.’
She has evidence of 12 deaths. No investigations have been carried out by the authorities. ‘There is not a single case where anyone has been brought to justice,’ she said. ‘There is a total lack of accountability.’
At al-Huda prison centre in Misurata, Sheikh Fathy Daraz heads an Islamic charity for inmates’ welfare.
But he is at the mercy of the militia, who regularly take men away for questioning.
‘We see their bruises and their broken limbs when they return but we can do nothing,’ he said. ‘There is no effective police force or national army yet.’
Nearby at the city’s al-Head sports centre, the tennis courts and gym were deserted. A group of 25 brigades have taken over.
Commander Mohamed al-Deaka is a former construction engineer. He was defensive about abuse by his men. ‘Yes it happens here, but it’s everywhere in Libya,’ he said.
‘We have to use force to make prisoners give answers. Our city was destroyed in the fighting. Now we want to know who carried out the destruction, who raped our women and stole our property.’
Khaled Ben Ali, head of LibAid, an umbrella organisation for humanitarian agencies, said that NTC ministers told him they were powerless: ‘The Prime Minister told me he had issued written orders for the surrender of weapons and the militias tore them up.
‘They fought for freedom and now they think they are free to do what they like. What they like is revenge. There is no effective judicial system. Maybe we need the UN Security Council to find new ways of protecting our civilians.’
A government source said: ‘This is the result of our legacy from Gaddafi – brutalised people enacting revenge. But it must stop.’
****(this has nothing to do with Gaddafi or his legacy, they tend to forget that the ratverments let free all jailers who were rapists, murderers etc. and they formed these MILITIAS who were financed and trained by F.UK.US)
NATO’s “Humanitarian War” on Libya: Prelude to a Humanitarian Disaster
by Greg Shupak
The Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations, but it may usher in decades of more war.
Liberal interventionists thought they had this one. Their doctrine had seemingly triumphed in Libya. Not only were the usual suspects, the Christopher Hitchenses, the Bernard-Henri Levys, peddling the notion that NATO could be a global constabulary for the enforcement of human rights, but more careful commentators like Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar had also backed Western intervention. If NATO’s war in Libya has now lost some of its initial luster, it is primarily because the murder of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans brought worldwide attention to the nature of the forces the war unleashed and to the chaotic state in which Libyans now find themselves.
But the shine was, from the start, an illusion, as Maximilian Forte proves in his important new book,Slouching Towards Sirte. Forte thoroughly chronicles NATO’s bombing of Libya and the crimes against humanity for which NATO is responsible. The author takes us on a tour of Sirte after it had been subject to intense NATO bombardment by chronicling journalists’ impressions of the city in October 2011. Reporters observed, “Nothing could survive in here for very long,” that the city was “reduced to rubble, a ghost town filled with the stench of death and where bodies litter the streets,” that it was a place “almost without an intact building,” whose infrastructure “simply ceased to exist,” and resembled “Ypres in 1915, or Grozny in 1995,” or postwar “Leningrad, Gaza or Beirut.”
Forte describes numerous NATO operations which, he argues, rose to the level of war crimes. For example, he discusses a NATO strike on a farming compound in the town of Majer on 8 August 2011. A Human Rights Watch investigation concluded that NATO fired on the compound twice, the second time killing 34 civilians who had come to look for survivors —a tactic familiar to those who follow US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—and found no evidence that the target had been used for military purposes. In its examination of five sites where NATO caused civilian casualties, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) found that at four of those sites NATO’s characterization of the targets as “‘command and control nodes’ or ‘troop staging areas’ was not reflected in evidence at the scene and witness testimony.” In view of these and other killings of civilians by NATO, Palestinian lawyer Raji Sourani remarks that the Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya of which he was a part has “reason to think that there were some war crimes perpetrated” by NATO. Through this method, Forte shows the fundamental contradiction of humanitarian wars: they kill people to ensure that people are not killed.
One lesson liberal interventionists should draw from the Libyan war is that the mere fact of opposing a tyrant does not indicate that a given rebel group values human rights. Forte persuasively demonstrates that the thuwar – the anti-Qadhafi fighters – had no such standards. On October 21 2011, 66 bodies were found at the Mahari Hotel, at least 53 of whom were executed by a rebel militia. An undetermined portion of these were Qadhafi loyalists who had been captured along with Qadhafi himself. Those killed at the hotel were shot with rifles and many had their hands tied behind their backs and some can be seen on video being abused before their execution. NATO plainly shares responsibility for these crimes because before NATO bombing commenced, the insurgents were on the verge of defeat and could not have won the war without NATO air cover, arms, money, and diplomatic support.
The most serious indictment of NATO’s rebel allies is their violent treatment of black Libyans and migrant workers from countries in southern Africa. For instance, when Tripoli fell to rebels in August 2011, a reporter for The Independent visited a makeshift hospital controlled by the insurgents and found the decomposing bodies of 30 men, many of whom had their hands bound behind their backs and almost all of whom were black. Hostility towards these groups has its origin in the rumor that Qadhafi employed large numbers of mercenaries from southern Africa, a notion popularized early in the rebellion, and spread throughout Western media and the pro-intervention Al-Jazeera English. On this aspect of the war Forte quotes Jean Ping, chair of the African Union, as saying that the “NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries….They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them.”
Other evidence confirms Forte’s account. For example, an Amnesty International report notes that the rebels “have ‘arrested’” many suspected African mercenaries “although such ‘arrests’ are better described as abductions.” The UNHRC report notes, “From the beginning of the uprising in February 2011, dark-skinned migrant workers were targeted – including being killed” [sic]. It appears no mercenaries were used by Qadhafi, and even if he had used such fighters, it would not justify widespread discriminatory practices or pigment-based violent attacks. In any case, as Forte points out, executing captured mercenaries is prohibited by international law.
Forte pays particular attention to the experience of the black residents of Tawergha, a town adjoining Misurata. Insurgents from Misurata depopulated Tawergha of virtually all of its 10,000-30,000 predominantly black residents and looted and vandalized their homes. The officer in charge of the rebel garrison in the town said, “We gave [the Tawergha] thirty days to leave. We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.” The UNHRC supports Forte’s account. It found that “thuwar have extra-judicially executed, otherwise unlawfully killed and tortured to death Tawerghans,” that they have “arbitrarily arrested Tawerghans in locations across Libya,” that “the continuing destruction of Tawergha in the post-conflict period has been done with the intent of . . . preventing the return of displaced Tawerghans,” that these activities constitute “a war crime” and that “the facts indicate crimes against humanity have taken place.”
A Propaganda Campaign
To the extent that the enduring conservative justification for militarism is that every world leader opposed to Western interests is another Hitler, the equivalent for liberal interventionists is the notion that any party to a conflict that they both side with, and deem likely to lose, are the next Rwandan Tutsis. The latter group is cast as an innocent, helpless and defenceless people who can only be saved by the might of benevolent and disinterested Western militaries. Thus the residents of Benghazi were put forth as the Tutsis in the Western imaginary – a claim with little basis in fact.
Hysterical claims that Qadhafi was on the verge of carrying out a genocide rang out in the Western press. However, these had little basis. Forte quotes Alan J. Kuperman, noting that, “The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya.” During his 42 year rule, Qadhafi faced numerous coup attempts and armed revolts. Though he typically dealt with the alleged perpetrators in a brutal fashion, at no point did his regime behave in a genocidal manner.
Furthermore, the ground for instituting a no-fly zone over Libya through UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was the assertion that Qadhafi was bombing protestors from the sky. Yet, as Forte demonstrates, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that he had no confirmation that Qadhafi fired on Libyans from the air. Similarly, Al-Jazeera English, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, and then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton circulated the claim that Qadhafi had fed his military Viagra so as to facilitate mass rape. While it is clear that Qadhafi’s forces committed acts of sexual violence, Forte draws on Amnesty International and other sources to demonstrate that the dissemination of Viagra no more took place than did the Iraqi military’s killing of babies in Kuwaiti incubators in 1991.
The Legitimacy of Political Violence
Underlying Forte’s accounts of the use of force are vital questions about the legitimacy of political violence. Forte rightly questions why the “international community” permits NATO to carry out a brutal counter-insurgency that is designed to keep Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s undemocratic regime in power instead of a ruthless insurgency but is indignant at the prospect of Qadhafi’s undemocratic regime doing the same to keep itself in power and ward off a ruthless insurgency. Liberal interventionists apparently believe that all violence enacted by NATO militaries or anyone on their side is legitimate, whereas the opposite is true for the violence of NATO’s antagonists. Part of what’s at play here is the question of how social change takes place.
Even in view of the troubles of “democracy” imposition in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal interventionists seem to assume that the best way that dark-skinned peoples in the global South can achieve “freedom” is under the tutelage of NATO bombs: “This is a bleak vision of humanity that has been erected by the ‘humanitarians,’” as Forte writes, “one at odds with history, sociology, and anthropology, which are rich with countless cases of people who have been able to fight, resist, and practice multiple forms of self-protection; indeed, local actors struggling for change often prefer their own solutions over those imposed by outsiders.”
Yet, on the question of the legitimacy of political violence, one could argue that Forte at times ensnares himself in a parallel trap. Hostile readers of his book may come away with the impression that Forte believes Libyans had no right to undertake armed struggle against Qadhafi’s dictatorship under any circumstances – or perhaps even that he views the very idea of a Libyan uprising as something that is, even apart from NATO involvement, to be opposed. What is needed is for debates about the legitimacy of political violence and intervention to be based on a consistent application of coherent principles and scrupulous attention to the particular details of each conflict, for there are no simple, one-size-fits-all answers to questions about the legitimacy of the use of political violence.
And while in the early stages of the Libyan conflict there was no guarantee that a protracted war would solve the issues under contestation, it should have been clear to any observer that prolonging combat would displace, kill and maim large numbers of civilians and destroy infrastructure.
For these reasons, the right position on the situation faced by Libyans in February-March 2011 would have been to seek the earliest possible end to armed hostilities. Ample opportunities for a negotiated settlement to the Libyan conflict existed, and Forte shows how NATO and its allies scuttled all attempts to facilitate a peaceful solution to the war. Qadhafi’s five ceasefire offers were rejected out of hand, including one that was offered hours after the passage of UN Resolution 1973 authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. The African Union’s (AU) attempt at facilitating a ceasefire and negotiations in April was obstructed by NATO and its allies and in June a derivative of this plan was put forth by US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who later revealed that a peaceful settlement was on the verge of realization but officials in the US State Department deliberately de-railed it.
The blockage of the AU plan is crucial because it offers some insight into the question of why the West fought its war in the Jamahiriya. As Forte’s book clarifies, NATO’s war in Libya was at least in part a war for power and control in Africa, one which has hastened the militarization of the continent. At the centre of what Forte calls a “new scramble for Africa” is the United States’ Africa Command (AFRICOM), an organization based in Germany, and in charge of US military relations with 53 African states. The Qadhafi regime’s opposition to AFRICOM is a context in which NATO’s decision to intervene on the side of anti-Qadhafi forces must be understood.
Citing cables from the US embassy in Tripoli, Forte documents American frustration with African governments, “mostly notably…Libya,” who prevented the U.S from establishing a base for AFRICOM operations in Africa and who viewed AFRICOM as a vehicle for “latter-day colonialism.” While the organization claims that its command is “indirect” and that it will collaborate with civilian agencies, Forte quotes AFRICOM commander General Ham as saying that this “does not mean we simply wait for others to ask for our support. I expect our Command to actively seek and propose innovative and imaginative approaches through which we may apply the considerable military capability of the United States to its best advantage.”
The rise and fall of the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) is another key context. CEN-SAD is a Tripoli-Based regional body, formed in 1998 to promote trade, free movement, telecommunications, and security among its member countries. The organization, which included approximately half of the population and territory of Africa, was a building block of and a source of competition with the AU. Under Qadhafi, Libya was a major player in CEN-SAD as shown by the country’s launching and funding of the Sahel-Saharan Bank for Investment and Commerce (BSIC) and its establishing the Fund for Assistance and Support to Women, Children and Youths. In 2007, CEN-SAD issued a statement “categorically rejecting” AFRICOM and any foreign military presence in any member state. Because of this, US officials were irritated by CEN-SAD, and misrepresented it as a solely Libyan organization. What CEN-SAD represented was an organization of African states that collectively had the potential to curtail US influence and to chart an independent path for much of the continent.
In view of this, it will come as no surprise that in the month of Qadhafi’s murder, the U.S announced it was sending troops to the Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. With Qadhafi’s regime gone, AFRICOM announced before Libya could have an election that a new military relationship had been established between AFRICOM and a post-Qadhafi Libyan government that was appointed by the NTC. Furthermore, the U.S established an Office of Security Cooperation at the U.S Embassy in Tripoli to “help coordinate security assistance, international military education and training and other security cooperation.” CEN-SAD, meanwhile, is all but defunct.
Another key background point to the war on Libya is China’s ongoing competition with Western interests for access and influence in Africa. In 2009, China surpassed the U.S. as Africa’s largest trading partner. The continent supplied China with a third of its imports and was its second largest source of oil. Africa is a continent rich with not only oil but also strategic minerals. The U.S is heavily import-dependent on materials such as columbium, chromium, and cobalt for its weapons manufacturing. Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Congo are major sources of these. Consider in this context Forte’s account of the African Oil Policy Initiative Group, an organization involving Congressional representatives, oil industry lobbyists, and members of the military. As far back as 2002, this group was calling for an increased American military presence in Africa as a means of securing control of resources, and it identified China and Libya as barriers to this goal.
As NATO’s war in Libyan played out, it was primarily understood within two narratives – a humanitarian one, as well as that of the so-called Arab Spring. Both conceptions suffer from their lack of understanding of the war’s African contexts, which suggest that the continent is at risk of again becoming a global hotspot over which foreign powers battle. Self-described humanitarians would do well to consider how their advocacy of the Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations but may prove to have helped usher in decades of more war in this continent.