Results of Western intervention in Libya

Results of Western intervention in Libya


A picture taken on October 22, 2014 in Libya’s Benghazi shows smoke billowing from buildings after the Libyan air force, loyal to former general Khalifa Haftar, pounded the buildings reported to be used for storing ammunition belonging to Ansar al-Sharia.

A picture taken on October 22, 2014 in Libya’s Benghazi shows smoke billowing from buildings after the Libyan air force, loyal to former general Khalifa Haftar, pounded the buildings reported to be used for storing ammunition belonging to Ansar al-Sharia.

By Abayomi Azikiwe



On October 20, 2011, the leader of the North African state of Libya was brutally assassinated in the city of Sirte. Col. Muammar Gaddafi had been leading a struggle to defend his country from a war of regime-change coordinated and financed by the United States and NATO.

Since the overthrow of the Jamahiriya system of government in Libya, the social conditions prevailing inside the country are by no means stable. Various factions, most of which were utilized as ground troops in the Pentagon-NATO aerial war between March 19 and Oct. 31 of 2011, remained locked in a mortal conflict for control over the oil-rich state.

Conflicting sources of political power backed up by armed militias exist in the two largest cities of Tripoli, the capital, and Benghazi, in the east, where the counter-revolution against Gaddafi began. Areas in the south of the country have armed themselves against the US-installed regimes in Tripoli and Benghazi often in sympathy with the previous system under the Jamahiriya.

The two regional states that participated in the imperialist-engineered war against Libya, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have been carrying out periodic airstrikes against alleged “Islamist” strongholds in various locations in the east and west. Also renegade former Gen. Khalifa Hefter, a longtime Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset, has mounted a bid for power utilizing sophisticated weapons and airstrikes.

Oil production rising despite internal conflict

For several months during 2014, oil production in Libya was down considerably. Conflicts between various labor organizations in addition to clashes among the militias resulted in the decline of barrels-per-day extraction to almost nil.
A dispute over who could actually sell Libyan oil on the international market was eventually addressed by the US when it sent a naval warship to reclaim cargo traded by interests inside the country who were not endorsed by Washington. Subsequent efforts aimed at the resolution of the disagreements have still not cleared the way for a consistent boost in production.
Unrest has erupted again surrounding which political group claiming authority in Libya would control the proceeds from oil sales. Both the parties controlling the capital of Tripoli, who are often labeled as “Islamists,” and the “government in exile” in the eastern city of Tobruk say they are entitled to the revenue generated from the trade in oil.
With the decline in prices on the global market during October, the situation involving the struggle over the control of oil in Libya prompted the attention of the Wall Street Journal. Efforts by five Western countries designated by the United Nations to reach a political settlement in the Libyan quagmire has failed, and consequently, the major imperialist powers are concerned about the supply of oil and the role of Libya in the process.

“In a joint statement late Saturday, France, Italy, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. said they supported the U.N.-sponsored peace talks and a cessation of hostilities,” noted the Wall Street Journal. “The five governments condemned the violence by Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, voiced concern about the attacks of the renegade general and said they were ready to sanction those threatening Libya’s security.” (Oct. 19)

This same article went on to point out that “Libya is normally one of Europe’s largest oil suppliers, but disruptions since the fall of strongman Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 have reduced its contribution to the continent’s oil supply.” Therefore, even the publication of the international finance capital has to openly acknowledge that the Pentagon-NATO policy of regime-change in Libya has disrupted oil supplies to the European continent.

The Libya Dawn group, which is contesting control of the state with the ostensible moderate group led by Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani, who called themselves the House of Representatives, sent their own oil minister, Mashallah al-Zawie, to Turkey to participate in an industry conference held in Istanbul. The rival group headed by al-Thani based in Tobruk dismissed the Central Bank director Sadiq Kabir and claims they have control of the revenue from oil sales.

Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal reports that “officials at NOC (the state-owned National Oil Co.) and at the central bank subsidiary which receives payments from oil buyers said revenues had continued to flow to its Tripoli-based accounts. Mr. al-Kabir also remains in office, they said.”

Such confusion over which entity controls Libyan oil could very well hamper the country’s future production and exports projections. Libyan oil officials say production is at 850,000 barrels a day, marking an increase of 40,000 barrels compared with earlier in October, suggesting that some facilities have boosted their output. In contrast, operations at oil fields in eastern Libya have been interrupted by labor unrest led by workers seeking jobs at the facilities.

Imperialists continue proxy war in Libya

The present situation in Libya is the direct result of the war of regime-change led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Pentagon and NATO during 2011. US policy is designed to overthrow all of the sovereign and anti-imperialist governments throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Consequently, the outcome of the current situation in the regions of North Africa and the Middle East will be critical in the future course of imperialist militarism worldwide. Obviously, these policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Libya have prompted massive destabilization of these societies, including the vast increase in the number of internally displaced persons and refugees.
Libya, which under the years of the Jamahiriya-Gaddafi rule was the most prosperous state in Africa, is now a major source of instability in the region. The response of aerial bombardments from Egypt and the UAE will only further the generalized sense of lawlessness and terror.
Only the Libyan people themselves, united around a political program of national unity, and genuine sovereignty will be able to reverse the current malaise. The plans suggested involving the direct intervention of thousands of NATO troops to Libya under the rubric of the United Nations would eventually result in greater anti-Western sentiments already prevalent throughout the country.
What the role of the US in Libya has proven is that Washington and Wall Street have no rational policy towards Africa and the Middle East. Their interventionist posture will only breed more anti-US consciousness and mass resistance to imperialist control.

About these ads

Libyen: Schreiben gegen den Mainstream

Libyen: Schreiben gegen den Mainstream

Medien Wie darf man über Libyen informieren? Einige Kommentare zu dem Beitrag von Mohamed Al-Fatah haben mich nachdenklich gemacht…

Ein Nutzerbeitrag von Angelika Gutsche

Mohamed Al-Fatah, ein Aktivist des Grünen Widerstands, hatte mich gewarnt: „Libya is a very hot issue and when you write about Lybia you will be bothered”. Er hatte mich vor Computerviren gewarnt und vor Belästigungen. Darauf war ich also gefasst. Doch wau, damit hatte ich dann doch nicht gerechnet! Einige Kommentare zu dem Gastbeitrag von Al-Fatah versuchten, mich in die Nazi- und Antisemitismus-Ecke zu drängen. Das tat weh. Das war wirklich der allerletzte Platz, an dem ich mich verortet sehen wollte. Es war der Versuch, mir die Deutungshoheit über meinen eigenen politischen Standpunkt zu entziehen. Wie infam! Doch wie reagieren? Würde ich mich auf diese Diskussion einlassen, so hieße das, die Kommentatoren aufzuwerten und mich in eine Verteidigungsposition zu begeben. Von meinem eigentlichen Anliegen, eine Diskussion über die Vorgänge in Libyen anzuregen, würde dies nur ablenken. Das war wohl auch der Grund für die Kommentare: Es sollte nicht über Libyen diskutiert werden, sondern darüber, ob ich zur „braunen Sauce“ gehörte. Wer lanciert solche Kommentare?

 Unsere Massenmedien werden nicht müde darüber zu lamentieren, wie stark in China das Internet zensiert wird. Doch auch bei uns stehe ich immer wieder vor der Merkwürdigkeit, dass kritische Videos oder Beiträge im Internet nicht mehr aufzufinden oder abzurufen sind. Verschiedene Initiativen sind inzwischen dazu übergegangen, als wichtig befundene Dokumentationen auf eigenen Seiten zu sichern. Wer sorgt dafür, dass unliebsame Beiträge und Videos aus dem Netz verschwinden?

 Auch in Libyen wird – wie in jedem Krieg – der Kampf um die Herzen und Hirne mit Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda geführt. Doch ist in den westlichen Medien die Unterdrückung von Meinungen und Informationen, die dem Mainstream entgegenstehen, nirgendwo so gnadenlos und die Gegenpropaganda dermaßen dreist wie im Bezug auf den Libyen-Krieg. Um nur wenige Beispiele zu nennen: Die Süddeutsche Zeitung erblödete sich nicht, in ihrem Magazin einen Artikel zu bringen, in dem Gaddafi unterstellt wurde, er hätte heimlich sexuelle Ambitionen bezüglich der betagten und nicht gerade durch ihre Attraktivität auffallenden Madeleine Albright, der ehemaligen US-Außenministerin. Oder die Schlagzeile, dass die Kampfkraft von Gaddafis Armee mit Viagra gestärkt würde. Diese Behauptung wurde Monate später zwar zurückgenommen, aber erst einmal hatte sie ihren Zweck erfüllt. Oder: Es sollte eine gegen Gaddafi gerichtete Massendemonstration auf dem Grünen Platz in Tripolis gezeigt werden, im Bild störte nur die indische Flagge. ( Dafür kam eine pro Gaddafi Großdemonstration nicht in die westlichen Medien, zu der – die Angaben schwanken zwischen ein und zwei – Millionen Libyer kamen. Und das bei einer damaligen Gesamtbevölkerung von sechs Millionen Menschen. Diese Liste des krassen Versagens der westlichen Medien ließe sich beliebig verlängern. Es lässt sich daraus nur eine Schlussfolgerung ziehen: Die Medien wollen nicht wahrheitsgemäß informieren, denn sie sind eingebunden in die Propagandamaschinerie eines unrechtmäßigen Krieges! (Vgl. dazu den Bestseller von Udo Ulfkotte „Gekaufte Journalisten“) Und der Nato-Krieg gegen Libyen war unrechtmäßig. Die letzten drei Jahre wurden alle Gräuel, Schandtaten und Ungerechtigkeiten verheimlicht, ebenso wie die wahren Motive für diesen Krieg als da sind die Gier nach Rohstoffen und Geld sowie der Wunsch nach Vernichtung eines unbequemen Gegenspielers.

 Vor dem Nato-Krieg wurde von einigen Seiten Kritik an Gaddafi geübt, sogar vom eigenen Sohn Saif Al-Islam. Sollte er die Nachfolge seines Vaters antreten, versprach man sich in der Folge eine Liberalisierung und Öffnung Libyens. Doch die Kritik von Seiten Saif Al-Islams war eine konstruktive, wie auch die Kritik anderer Libyer. Man wollte Veränderungen, die das Land verbessern sollten. Keinesfalls sollte diese  Kritik einen Nato-Bombenkrieg auf Libyen rechtfertigen mit dem bekannten Potential an Tod, Vertreibung und Zerstörung mit anschließender Neokolonialisierung.

 Wünschte der Westen überhaupt jemals eine Liberalisierung der Politik Gaddafis? War es nicht viel einfacher, medienkompatibel einen satanischen Gegner zu kreieren, um sich so zu jedem Zeitpunkt die moralische Legitimation für die erneute koloniale Eroberung Libyens zu verschaffen? Sollte Gaddafi weg, bevor sein Sohn Saif, bekannt für seinen Reformwillen, die Macht übernommen hätte? Wie hätte man es dann gerechtfertigt, in Libyen einzumarschieren, um an dessen Öl, Wasser, Geld und Militärstützpunkte zu kommen? Aufgrund des Öl-Reichtums Libyens wäre dessen Einfluss in der Welt, insbesondere in Afrika weiter gestiegen. Was, wenn sich die bis zum Krieg positive Zusammenarbeit mit China und Russland weiter verstärkt hätte?

 Mithilfe der Massenmedien gelang es, Gaddafi zum absolut bösen Diktator hoch zu stilisieren. Kein gutes Haar durfte an ihm gelassen werden. Doch hätte sich Gaddafi ohne Rückhalt in der Bevölkerung über 40 Jahre an der Macht halten können? Ich meine nein. Und das System der Jamahirija (Herrschaft des Volkes)? Über seine Funktionsfähigkeit kann man diskutieren. Aber entspricht das US-amerikanische Zwei-Parteien-System – beide Parteien finanziert durch die Wallstreet-Hochfinanz – unserem europäischen Demokratieverständnis? Oder das Fehlen eines allgemeinen Krankenversicherungssystems unseren Vorstellungen von einem Sozialstaat? Gar nicht zu reden von den durch und durch verrotteten, vom Westen gehätschelten arabischen Monarchien, Sultanaten und Militärdiktaturen des Maghreb und der arabischen Halbinsel, die ihr Volk mit eiserner Faust regieren. Im Vergleich zu den anderen arabischen Systemen nahmen Gaddafi, sein sozialer Anspruch und seine Jamahirija durchaus einen vorderen Platz im „good governance“-Ranking ein. Vor allem als nach dem Wegfall der westlichen Sanktionen, als das Land aufblühte und sein Wohlstand sprunghaft anstieg (leider auch die Korruption, die sich aber dank Gaddafi noch in Grenzen hielt) und auch Reformen Platz griffen, die Zufriedenheit der Bevölkerung weiter anstieg.

 Nebenbei bemerkt, wieso sollen Konkurrenz und Wettbewerb nur in der Wirtschaft gut sein? Ein Wettstreit der politischen Systeme, den jeweiligen kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Gegebenheiten angepasst, macht unsere Welt vielgestaltiger. Wie können wir so vermessen sein, in der ganzen Welt unser sogenanntes westliches Wertesystem nicht nur mit missionarischem Eifer, sondern auch mit Gewalt durchsetzen zu wollen? (Einmal vorausgesetzt, es wäre wirklich in diesem Krieg auch darum gegangen.) Die Jamahirija könnte aufgrund ihrer basisdemokratischen Vorstellungen, eingebettet in eine Stammesstruktur, und ihrer sozialen Leistungen in einem Wettstreit der Systeme durchaus bestehen.

 Aber das darf nicht gesagt werden, auch wenn die simple Gleichung: Diktator ist gleich böse und muss weg, nicht immer aufgeht. Man sollte sich bei uns vor Vereinfachungen hüten, wenn man von den betreffenden Ländern nur wenig Ahnung hat und noch weniger Ahnung, welche Schrecken auf eine gestürzte Regierung folgen werden. In einem warmen Wohnzimmer, satt und bequem auf einem Sofa sitzend, lassen sich guten Gewissens leicht andere Völker in Krieg, Leid, Vertreibung und Tod hetzen. Man ist ja auf der Seite der „Guten“ und “Diktatoren“ müssen nun mal weg.

 Auf unseren Individualreisen durch Libyen trafen wir auf eine stolze, selbstbewusste und freundlich-hilfsbereite Bevölkerung. Ich persönlich stand der Jamahirija und Gaddafi recht indifferent gegenüber, zu viel Personenkult, klar, aber doch auch Respekt für Gaddafis unbeugsamen politischen Weg und Anerkennung dessen, was er für sein Land geleistet hatte.

 Als klar wurde, wohin der Weg der Nato geht, dass eine Invasion und Neokolonialisierung Libyens bevorstanden, wurde jedoch jede Kritik am System Gaddafi belanglos. Die meisten Libyer wollten nur noch ihr Land vor dem westlichen Aggressor verteidigen und so schlossen sich die Reihen um Gaddafi. Denn welcher Libyer kann diesen Krieg, der sein Land zerstört, gewollt haben, die vielen Toten, das große Leid, den Hass? Andere Länder wie die USA schaffen sich künstlich ihre Feinde, um von inneren Schwierigkeiten abzulenken. Die Kritik verstummt, das Volk hält zusammen. In Libyen existiert dieser äußere Feind real.

 Ich wünsche den traumatisierten Menschen in ihrem kriegsverwüsteten Land, dass sie sich von ihren kolonialen Feinden befreien, selbstverwaltet und selbstbestimmt über ihr Land, deren Bodenschätze und Güter zum Wohle aller verfügen können. Und ich glaube, dass nur der Grüne Widerstand und die Großen Stämme, denen schweres Unrecht zugefügt wurde, eine Befreiung in diesem Sinne bewerkstelligen können. Für die weitere Zukunft hoffe ich, dass alle in Libyen lebenden Stämme und deren Menschen unter Berücksichtigung ihrer jeweiligen Interessen und Wünsche wieder zu einem friedlichen Zusammenleben zurückfinden. Eine große Hilfe dabei wäre, die faire und offene Berichterstattung über die Vorgänge in diesem Land. Eine Wunschvorstellung, denn in Libyen geht es nicht um die dort lebenden Menschen, sondern: Es geht um Geld, um sehr viel Geld.

Libya’s Lesson for Iran: Beware of Rapprochement

Libya’s Lesson for Iran: Beware of Rapprochement


By Dan Glazebrook

Britain and the US used the so-called “rapprochement” with Gaddafi’s Libya to cultivate a fifth column and prepare the ground for war

Britain and the US used the so-called “rapprochement” with Gaddafi’s Libya to cultivate a fifth column and prepare the ground for war

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the “state of the masses” – in the face of a massive onslaught from NATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.

It took seven eight months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special-forces operation to finally WIN control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons, either looted from state armouries or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a “failed state.”

Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had “come in from the cold” and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of “rapprochement” with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and cooperation.

Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite “rapprochement,” Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that “there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive,” hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of “rapprochement.” Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he warned the assembled heads of state that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day.”

So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.

Thus, the so-called rapprochement period was anything but. The US continued to remain hostile to the independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced most obviously by Gaddafi’s hostility to the presence of US and European military forces in Africa – and it now seems that they and the British used this period to prepare the ground for the war that eventually took place in 2011.

The US, for example, used their newfound access to Libyan officials to cultivate relations with those who would become their key local allies during the war. Leaked diplomatic cables show that pro-Western Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil arranged covert meetings between US and Libyan government officials that bypassed the usual official channels and were therefore “under the radar” of the foreign ministry and central government. He was also able to speed up the prisoner release programme that led to the release of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group insurgents who ultimately acted as NATO’s shock troops during the 2011 war. The head of the LIFG – al-Qaeda’s FRANCHISE in Libya – eventually became head of Tripoli’s military council, whilst Abdul-Jalil himself became head of the “Transitional National Council,” that was installed by NATO following the fall of the Jamahiriya.

Another key figure groomed by the US in the years preceding the invasion, was Mahmoud Jibril, head of the National Economic Development Board from 2007, who arranged six US training programmes for Libyan diplomats, many of whom subsequently resigned and sided with the US and Britain once the rebellion and invasion got underway.

Finally, the security and intelligence co-operation that was an element of the “rapprochement” period was used to provide the CIA and MI6 with an unprecedented level of information about both Libyan security forces and opposition elements they could cultivate that would prove invaluable for the conduct of the war.

Thus rapprochement, whilst appearing to be an improvement in relations, may actually be a “long game” to lay the groundwork for naked aggression, by building up intelligence and sounding out possible collaborators, effectively building up a fifth column within the state itself. This is what the neo-conservatives in the US Congress opposing Obama’s “thaw” in Iranian relations apparently fail to understand. Thankfully, it is likely that the Iranians understand it perfectly well.

 - Dan Glazebrook is a political writer specialising in Western foreign policy. He is author of Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis.

Photo: Moamer Gaddafi addresses delegates during the 12th African Union summit at the United Nations Headquarters in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa on 4 Feb, 2009 (AFP)

A sick joke!: U.S. and allies threaten sanctions in Libya

A sick joke!: U.S. and allies threaten sanctions in Libya

Libya has been in a state of upheaval since its former leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and killed three years ago. (AFP/File)

Libya has been in a state of upheaval since its former leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and killed three years ago. (AFP/File)

In a joint statement issued late Saturday by the governments of the US, UK, Germany, France and Italy, the group threatened sanctions against violent parties in Libya if a ceasefire and negotiation process is not implemented. **(I would suggest that these governments mind their own business and leave Libya alone. We are cleaning their mess, so they have no right what so ever to even make a comment or implement or condemn or even advise. They were the ones who brought chaos to Libya and left us Libyans to collect the pieces.)

“We stand ready to use individual sanctions in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2174 against those who threaten the peace, stability or security of Libya or obstruct or undermine the political process,” the statement said. ****(You can shout and throw tantrums as much as you want and do as many sanctions as you want WE KNOW YOUR GAME AND YOU ARE NOT SCARING US, INTIMIDATING US OR BRAKING US…. WE ARE UNITED AND THAT IS SOMETHING YOU DO NOT WANT.)

The resolution was unanimously adopted by the five permanent members of the Security Council, and all 10 rotating members on August 27. It calls for an end to the fighting between the government and multiple rebel groups, an inclusive dialogue, and prior notice regarding weapons transfers.

In Saturday’s statement, the group said they “strongly condemn the ongoing violence in Libya and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

“We are particularly dismayed that after MEETINGS in Ghadames and Tripoli, parties have not respected calls for a ceasefire,” they noted. *****(You are dismayed? oh poor you, what a problem we have caused you!!!! its your proxies who did not respect the cease-fire, NOT US. BUT WE ARE NOT STUPID TO SIT THERE AND NOT TO SHOOT BACK….)

“We condemn the crimes of Ansar al-Sharia entities, and the ongoing violence in communities across Libya, including Tripoli and its environs. Libya’s hard-fought freedom is at risk if Libyan and international terrorist groups are allowed to use Libya as a safe haven,” the statement said. *****(They condemn their proxies & allies  really? Well if they want to cease-fire they should stop financing them so they would stop doing any further atrocities. We have the proof that they are the ones who are financing them through Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, some of the prisoners of Ansar Sharia confessed so who are they condemning again???? Libya did not fight for its freedom because it had its freedom with the Jamahiryia, you the west came along with your no-fly zone and you started bombing all the Libyan infrastructure, hospitals, mosques, innocent civilians and mostly children, the great man river, you bombed Libya to the stone age so that you the west could rebuild it by stealing our resources, you murdered in cold blood the president of the country and his son and showed it world-wide the gruesome murder, you helped the foreign mercenaries which you paid and trained to gain power the same way you are doing now in Iraq and Syria; so please explain to me which freedom did we fight? You wanted us to lay down and die and allow these terrorists that you so much condemn to become a government for the few like you have in your countries. So please when you talk about freedom be more respectful because from the moment you toppled Qaddafi our freedom stopped.)

“We are also concerned by (ex-military general) Khalifa Hifter’s attacks in Benghazi. We consider that Libya’s security challenges and the fight against terrorist organizations can only be sustainably addressed by regular armed forces under the control of a central authority, which is ACCOUNTABLE to a democratic and inclusive parliament,” the group affirmed.  *****(Your concern about your CIA SPY ASSET Haftar really???? When he tried to do the first coup de tat and failed with the money of USA/U.A.E/SAUDI ARABIA he took refuge at the house of the Ambassador Deborah Jones of the United States, he is doing your bidding YOU are playing in both sides  so please stop the hypocrisy we know your game. From where does Hafter gets his ammunition? planes? and the finance? but from you of course….  You have the audacity to tell us how to run our own country after the mess you left! What government are you talking about? The one that was not elected democratically? it was forced down our throats, well we showed you that its unacceptable and we have chosen democratically  our own government together with the Honourable tribes  which you call terrorists. This government is cleaning your mess.)

The five nations said they “fully support” the work of the UN’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG), Bernardino Leon, “and urge all parties to cooperate with his efforts.” Leon is the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), which was established in 2011 “at the request of the Libyan authorities following six months of armed conflict to support the country’s new transitional authorities in their post-conflict efforts.

“After the Ghadames and Tripoli MEETINGS, negotiations should be pursued with goodwill and adopting inclusive policies, with the aim of finding an agreement on the location of the House of Representatives elected last June 25th and laying the foundations for a Government of National Unity,” the group said****(There is no way that the legal Government and the Honourable tribes will sit down at the same table with the terrorists and discuss of National Unity…. All the Tribes are united and all prisoners are free, so we have already a NATIONAL UNITY what remains is to kick out the FOREIGN MILITIAS who are your allies…)

“We agree that there is no military solution to the Libyan crisis,” they added. “We stress the importance that the international community acts in a united manner on Libya on the basis of the principles and understandings agreed at recent meetings, namely in New York and Madrid.” *****(Well your ultimate goal is to divide as into 3 pieces FRANCE GETS THE PART OF CYRINAICA, ENGLAND GETS THE PART OF TRIPOLITANIA AND YOU AMERICA GETS THE BEST PIECE FEZZAN. Stop trying to manipulate everything to your advantage we are sick and tired of your nagging and incompetence. Put this in your psychopathic minds WE WILL BE THE FIRST COUNTRY IN HISTORY THAT YOU DID NOT SUCCEED TO PUT YOUR PUPPET GOVERNMENT AND WE WILL KICK YOUR ASSES OUT OF OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE WE ARE UNITED.)

The statement also warned against interference from outside parties, and urged “all partners to refrain from actions which might exacerbate current divisions in order to let Libyans address the current crisis within the framework of UN-facilitated talks.” According to UN figures, some 287,000 people have had to flee due to the fighting in and around the cities of Benghazi and Tripoli, leading to a “critical” humanitarian situation. ****(Who are you to dictate us what to do? You should worry about the EBOLA virus that start hitting your countries and leave us alone to deal and clean the mess you left.)

Libya has been in a state of upheaval since its former leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and killed three years ago

United troops trying to take back Tripoli

United troops trying to take back Tripoli

TRIPOLI: Libya’s internationally-recognised prime minister said yesterday that military forces in the strife-torn country had united to try to recapture Tripoli and the second city Benghazi from Islamist militias.

Abdullah Al Thani also expressed his frustration over a lack of support from the international community, calling for foreign weapons and assistance in the fight against the Islamists.

“All military forces have been placed under army command to liberate Tripoli and Benghazi soon, inshallah (God willing),” Thani told AFP in a telephone interview from the eastern town of Al Baida.

Since a 2011 revolution which toppled Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi, interim authorities have failed to establish a regular army and had to rely on state-backed militias.

Former rebels who fought against Gaddafi have formed powerful militias and seized control of large parts of turmoil-gripped Libya over the past three years.

On Wednesday, retired general Khalifa Haftar launched an operation against Islamist militias in the eastern city of Benghazi with the backing of army units and civilians who have taken up arms.

The operation is “under the control of the regular army and the control of the government and the parliament,” said Thani.

An AFP count based on hospital sources in the city put the death toll in Benghazi at 66 since Haftar’s offensive began, including eight killed yesterday and four who died in a suicide attack the previous day.

Haftar launched a first, unsuccessful campaign against Islamists in the city back in May but failed to muster support from the authorities who accused the Gaddafi-era general of trying to mount a coup.

Before this week’s assault, Haftar’s forces had been steadily beaten back to a final redoubt at Benghazi’s airport, which has come under attack by Islamists since mid-September.

Thani’s government and parliament, elected on June 25, have taken refuge in the country’s east to escape Fajr Libya, a mainly Islamist coalition which seized control of Tripoli at the end of August.

The fall of the capital followed a weeks-long battle with pro-government militias from the town of Zintan in western Libya.

Thani said the Zintan forces had also been placed under army command and joined regular units which aim to recapture the capital.

“All the forces have been placed under the command of the army to liberate Tripoli,” Thani said.

He branded Fajr Libya as “outlaws” who had set up an “illegitimate” parallel government and alleged the group was the armed wing of movements such the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions.

Unlike its predecessor, Libya’s new parliament is dominated by anti-Islamist lawmakers. AFP