Whistle blower reveals secret U.S. program to recruit, train, and provide visas to ‘terrorists’
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW how sausages are made, don’t start reading Visas forAl Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the Worldby Michael Springmann. The sausages in this case: the string of too-easily-swallowed accounts of bloody events in the “global war on terror,” served up daily with relish by the mainstream media. In reality these sausages are filled with tainted meat that’s making everyone sick.
Springmann is a brave whistle blower living in Washington, D.C. He’s written an accessible book, safe to digest, highlighting details of the corruption of the American Empire (and its accomplices, including Canada) as he experienced them from the inside during his years with the U.S. State Department.
While he served as a visa officer in the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for instance, he was obliged under threat of dismissal to issuevisas to persons hired clandestinely by the CIA to become trained-in-the-USA terrorists. Most of these psychopathic thugs were clearly and legally unqualified to be issued visas. There is every reason to believe the “Visas for Terrorists” program remains fully operative today.It takes a lot of expendable terrorists to run a global terrorism op.
Springmann places his experiences both within the context of the historical roots of the U.S. Empire and within its current ongoing global destabilization project.
“This tale,” the author states near the beginning, “is a sordid sketch of backstabbing, disloyalty, double crosses, faithlessness, falsity, perfidy, sellouts, treachery, and betrayal.”
And that only covers the bureaucratic aspect. Even more sobering is his sketch of human rights violations: torture, assassinations, massacres including bombings of markets, invasions and occupations of countries, destabilization of nations and regions.
Then there’s the financial side: widespread criminality, resource theft, bribery, diversion of funds, illicit drug dealing and more.
Not to mention the flouting of international laws. This dimension includes gross infringements on national sovereignty, the casual violation of treaties and ho-hum everyday general lawlessness, risking even the threat of nuclear annihilation.
All this before taking into account the moral dimension, in which trashing the Ten Commandments is just an opening trifle.
“My story shows how things really work,” Springmann writes, correctly. In the book’s 250 pages he names names, dates, times and places – presumably opening himself up to lawsuits, should there be anything here that the individuals named deem libelous. They might think twice, however, since Springmann is a lawyer by profession and knows his way around the Empire’s capital – as well as some of its outlying ramparts such as Stuttgart, New Delhi and especially Jeddah.
Stinging in itself, Springmann’s book also can be read as an authenticating companion to Michel Chossudovsky’s Towards a World War III Scenario (2012) and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” Against Humanity (2015). Along the way, both authors deal, to one extent or another, with the ideological, hubristic and increasingly bellicose role of the Harper government as handmaiden to the American Empire, including military involvements in Libya, Serbia and the Ukraine. Springmann necessarily refers very little to Canada, but to read his account of the cowardly and unnecessary rain of death inflicted on Libya, for instance, is to be obliged as a Canadian to think of Harper’s enthusiasm and pride in having this country share in the slaughter and destabilization carried out under the Orwellian “responsibility to protect” notion.
Springmann quotes Maximilian C. Forte who notes that before the attack Libya enjoyed the highest Human Development Index (a UN measurement of well-being) in all Africa. “After Western military forces destroyed the country the Index only records the steep collapse of all indicators of well-being. More Libyans were killed with intervention than without. It was about control, about militarizing Africa,” Forte argues.
What Springmann brings uniquely to the table is his firsthand knowledge of precisely how the USA recruits terrorists (no quotation marks needed), sends them to the USA for training and then deploys them to carry out murders, torture, bombings and more. The bloody mayhem carried out by these thousands of paid mercenaries – ostensibly beheading-habituated “jihadists” fighting against democracy, decency and the USA and its “allies – is planned, organized and funded by none other than the same USA and its allies. It’s a global false flag operation – the largest by far in history.
As Springmann on page 65 writes of the “Visas for Terrorists Program:”
This was not an ad hoc operation, conceived and carried out in response to a specific foreign policy issue. Rather, it was another of too many CIA efforts to destroy governments, countries, and politicians disfavored by the American “establishment” in its “bipartisan” approach to matters abroad. Whether it was opposing the imaginary evils of communism, the fictitious malevolence of Islam, or the invented wickedness of Iran, America and its intelligence services, brave defenders of “The City Upon A Hill,” sought out and created fear and loathing of peoples and countries essentially engaged in efforts to better their lives and improve their political world. Along the way, Agency-sponsored murders, war crimes, and human rights violations proved to be good business. Jobs for the Clandestine Service (people who recruit and run spies), sales of weapons and aircraft, as well as the myriad items needed to control banks, countries and peoples all provided incomefor and benefits to American companies.
That the American Empire has been able to carry out such a massive illegal program for so long is the saddest of commentaries on how deep the rot is, how effective the secrecy, how complicit the media.
As to the span of dangerous widespread deception, Springmann notes that Rahul Bedi wrote in Jane’s Defence Weekly on September 14, 2001 that beginning in 1980 “thousands [of mujahideen] were … brought to America and made competent in terrorism by Green Berets and SEALS at US government East Coast facilities, trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons.”
The point is made repeatedly that Al Qaeda and now ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State are essentially “Made in USA” entities, brought into being and organized for the Empire’s purposes. Among the elements that make possible such a vast fraud are deception, compartmentalization and secrecy. Springmann quotes attorney Pat Frascogna, “a man with FOIA expertise,” about secrecy and its purpose:
Thus whether it be learning the dirty and unethical business practices of a company or the secrets of our government, the same deployment of denials and feigning ignorance about what is really going on are the all-too-common methods used to keep the truth from the light of day.
Langley recruited the Arab-Afghans so clandestinely that the terrorists didn’t know they had been recruited. They thought that they had found a battlefield on their own, or through the Internet or through Twitter or through television…
Frascogna’s observation intersects with Springmann’s on-the-job experiences as a visa officer in Jeddah starting in 1987. Springmann was repeatedly overruled when he turned down disqualified applicants for U.S. visas. He writes:
As I later learned to my dismay, the visa applicants were recruits for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union’s armed forces. Further, as time went by, the fighters, trained in the United States, went on to other battlefields: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They worked with the American intelligence services and the State Department to destabilize governments the United States opposed. While it’s no secret, most knowledgeable people still refuse to talk about this agenda.
As Springmann learned, “the average percentage of intelligence officers to real diplomats at a given Foreign Service post is about one in three. My experience in Jeddah, Stuttgart, and New Delhi might place it higher—at least 50 percent, if not more.” According to the Anti-CIA Club of Diplomats: Spooks in U.S. Foreign Service [sic], a twelve-page, 1983 Canadian publication (see namebase.org), the percentage is 60 percent.
“At Jeddah,” Springmann writes, “to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State.The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses.” Elsewhere Springmann suggests that essentially the CIA runs the State Department, and that this is true of many other U.S. government departments and agenciesas well. It seems that it’s almost impossible to over-estimate the reach of the CIA’s tentacles or the overweening treason of its nonstop black ops and unconstitutional operations domestically.
Springmann toward the end of the book refers to the beginnings of the CIA. It’s interesting for this reviewer to think that he was 13 years of age in 1947 when U.S. president Harry Truman agreed with the National Security Council (NSC) to secretly create the CIA and NSA. I remember that in my teenage years a few of my peers said there “was something” called “the CIA.” This was around the time a few people also said there “was something” called “the Mafia.” The consensus was that both ideas were very far-fetched.
In 1948 Truman approved yet another NSC initiative, providing for “propaganda, economic warfare;preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuationmeasures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas, and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” That’s a tabula rasa if there ever was one: a license for lawlessness.
The CIA’s twisted hits have just kept coming. It’s worth noting that Truman didn’t single-handedly initiate this monstrosity. The dark recesses of the Deep State, as Peter Dale Scott calls it, are where the demonic entity was spawned. Ever since, Frankenstein’s monster has been a harmless schoolboy by comparison.
To read of the rape of Libya with active Canadian military complicity makes for difficult reading. The lies are piled as high as the bodies, and these two categories are insuperably paired.
Equally sordid, especially in light of Stephen Harper’s enthusiasm for expanding the war on Russia (the economic sanctions and the diplomatic exclusion of Russia from the G8 are forms of warfare, not to mention decades of covert* military incursion by the West onto the territory of the former USSR and now the Russian Federation, as described in Visas forAl Qaeda) is to read some of the history of the Ukraine. “The West’s” meddling in the Ukraine has a long illicit pedigree. As Springmann writes:
It seems that the CIA had problems [in the immediate post World War II period] distinguishing between underground groups and above-ground armies. Langley used Marshall Plan money to support a guerrilla force in the Ukraine, called “Nightingale.” Originally established in 1941 by Nazi Germany’s occupation forces, and working on their behalf, “Nightingale” and its terrorist arm (made up of ultranationalist Ukrainians as well as Nazi collaborators)murdered thousands of Jews, Soviet Union supporters, and Poles.
Even relatively recently, since the so-called Orange revolution in the Ukraine made events there eminently newsworthy, I can’t remember seeing in the mainstream media a single substantial article dealing with the historical relationships between the Ukraine and Russia going back to World War II, nor such an article laying out the history of the involvement –overt or covert – of “the West” in the Ukraine.
Instead, we see the surreal ahistorical likes of the top headline in The New York Times International Weekly for June 13-14, “Russia is Sowing Disunity,” by Peter Baker and Steven Erlanger. They report breathlessly in the lead paragraph: “Moscow is leveraging its economic power, financing European political parties and movements, and spreading alternative accounts of the Ukraine conflict, according the American and European officials.
True to the narrative of “the West” as a pitiful giant facing a powerful and expansionist Russia, the writers posit that the “consensus against Russian aggression” is “fragile.
The drift of this NYT yarn, typical of Western propaganda across the board, is that there remains in effect a behemoth “Soviet empire” surreptitiously shipping “Moscow gold” to dupes in “green movements” and so on. Even a former American national intelligence officer on Russia, Fiona Hill, now at the Brookings Institution, told the writers: “The question is how much hard evidence does anyone have?
Maybe this NYT propaganda, like its clones across the mainstream media, is not ahistorical after all. The story comes across rather as an historical relic of the Cold War – found in a time capsule in a fallout shelter – that the NYT editors decided to publish as a prank. A sausage.
* Military action by “the West” has not always been covert. Springmann notes that American and Japanese soldiers were dispatched to Russia in 1917 to squelch the fledgling Russian revolution. The soldiers were part of what was called the Allied Expeditionary Force. Winston Churchill for his part said: “We must strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib.” Springmann might have noted that Canadian soldiers were part of the AEF.
Libya was a literal earthly paradise, before the world unleashed
Their barbaric dogs-of-war upon her.
No one mentions the REPARATIONS that must be paid
To the survivors of that Genocide
France, US Inc., Britain, Sweden, Greece, Germany, Italy and Canada, promoted that war and it was carried out by the UN, NATO and Israel.
This was a massive and totally illegal war that was started and maintained
By lies, lies and more lies the time has come for the criminals
To pay for that crime!
This could all have been stopped if Russia or China
Had dared to block the vote in the UN
But no nation did.
By allowing this to happen, in and to Libya, the global outlaws paved the way for Syria, and Ukraine that will soon be followed by the end of the USA.
The media worldwide joined in creating a fake-firestorm-of-lies that was directed against one of the most prosperous and free nations on this earth. Its people shared directly in the profits from Libyan Oil, the richest oil produced, in which the entire nation had a share. Libya refused the Rothschild’s banks along with US dollars for their oil. Libya was preparing the Libyan Gold-Dinar that threatened the filth that always comes with the exclusive use of US Dollars, to buy oil. Libya had already begun to support many of the other nations in her region of the planet, and therefore she had to go.
Libya discovered and had begun to share in a Pleistocene-Age river of underground water that Libya had begun to develop – to turn the whole of North Africa into an earthly garden, and its people were some of the most well educated and the most free in all the world. Their medicine and technology were superior to most of the nations that attacked her for daring to share her wealth with her own citizens. Libya was free and she enjoyed the luxury of living life to the hilt: before the thunderstorm of lies was allowed to bury Libya before the nation was even murdered.
REPARATIONS are overdue to the Libyan people and are far more necessary than even that which was paid for what was done to the war-torn nations of WWII.
Once this Libyan crime was completed, the whole planet adopted the mantra of how brutal Qaddafi had been to his people. Hillary laughed about his murder, and many a ‘western-want-to-be’ echoed similar lies about what Qaddafi and Libya had been before they slaughtered Libya to the point of global-obliteration.
As a result the planet has seen the remaining Libyan people’ turned into “faceless-homeless-migrants”when in fact they are war refugees in need of help.
But the real crime that has gone unpunished were the Lies behind the War on Libya in 2011 this became the “LIE” that the supposedly leading nations of the world cooperated in completing: Which remains unchallenged to this day.
The leadership from that war, with the exception of USI because it’s far too distant to reach, are all those nations that participated in the genocide of the Libyan population. The French were the leading blood-lust followed by Italy, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the others that jumped on the war-wagons of hellish destruction, to revenge themselves upon a nation that had dared to do what all of them have always refused to do for their own people…
Everyday I listen to the garbage that is still trying to cover-up the horrendous lies behind that unpaid-for war crime, and it still turns my stomach. But I’m not alone: Millions know about what Libya really was and just how much the human race lost when Libya was murdered:In public and in cold-blood that absolutely delighted themselves with the horror that they were bringing to Libya, initially, but to the whole planet now so many years on.
Libya was reduced to SUBMISSION, but the day is coming for those that survived to bring back DEFIANCE into the world that has almost forgotten all the depth of meaning in everything we all do each and every day.
This crime will never be allowed to stand.
The lies behind all of this will eventually surface and those who committed this unthinkable obscenity will pay for that crime one way or another. Meanwhile the reasoning behind the refugees from the Libyan War will continue to seek refuge from the same criminal states that were and still are massively responsible for turning them into globally dislocated war-refugees. There has never been a mystery about any of this. What is transpiring over the global-airwaves is a global-cover-up that will eventually have to be told in every gory detail…
The deaths of all those ‘refugees’ in that boat, will be just the beginning of what will inch by inch be revealed about the corruption’s of this planet worldwide.
The mainstream U.S. news media is lambasting the Europeans for failing to stop the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as desperate Libyans flee their war-torn country in overloaded boats that are sinking as hundreds drown. But the MSM forgets how this Libyan crisis began, including its own key role along with that of “liberal interventionists” such as Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power.
In 2011, it was all the rage in Official Washington to boast about the noble “responsibility to protect” the people of eastern Libya who supposedly were threatened with extermination by the “mad man” Muammar Gaddafi. We also were told endlessly that, back in 1988, Gaddafi’s agents had blown Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The R2Pers, led by then-National Security Council aide Power with the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, convinced President Barack Obama that a “humanitarian intervention” was needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering people whom he claimed were Islamic terrorists.
As this U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign was about to begin in late March 2011, Power told a New York City audience that the failure to act would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” Power was credited with steeling Obama’s spine to press ahead with the military operation.
Under a United Nations resolution, the intervention was supposed to be limited to establishing no-fly zones to prevent the slaughter of civilians. But the operation quickly morphed into a “regime change” war with the NATO-led bombing devastating Gaddafi’s soldiers who were blown to bits when caught on desert roadways.
Yet, the biggest concern in Official Washington was a quote from an Obama’s aide that the President was “leading from behind” – with European warplanes out front in the air war – when America’s war hawks said the United States should be leading from the front.
At the time, there were a few of us who raised red flags about the Libyan war “group think.” Though no one felt much sympathy for Gaddafi, he wasn’t wrong when he warned that Islamic terrorists were transforming the Benghazi region into a stronghold. Yes, his rhetoric about exterminating rats was over the top, but there was a real danger from these extremists.
And, the Pan Am 103 case, which was repeatedly cited as the indisputable proof of Gaddafi’s depravity, likely was falsely pinned on Libya.Anyone who dispassionately examined the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court would realize that the case was based on highly dubious evidence and bought-and-paid-fortestimony.
Megrahi was put away more as a political compromise (with a Libyan co-defendant acquitted) than because his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, by 2009, the conviction was falling apart. Even a Scottish appeals court expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice. But Megrahi’s appeal was short-circuited by his release to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
Yet the U.S. mainstream media routinely called him “the Lockerbie bomber” and noted that the Libyan government had taken “responsibility” for the bombing, which was true but only because it was the only way to get punitive sanctions lifted. The government, like Megrahi, continued to proclaim innocence.
A Smirking MSM
During those heady days of bombing Libya in 2011, it also was common for the MSM to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. Then, in September 2011, after Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited the BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.
His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, said, “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.”Asked about the people who died in the Pan Am bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”
But it was only after Megrahi died on May 20, 2012, that some elements of the MSM acknowledged grudgingly that they were aware of the many doubts about his conviction all along.The New York Times’ obituary carried a detailed account of the evidentiary gaps that were ignored both during the trial in 2001 and during the bombing of Libya in 2011.
The Times noted that “even some world leaders” saw Megrahi
“as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence. … Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.”
Besides the lack of proof supporting that hypothesis was the sheer implausibility that a terrorist would assume that an unattended suitcase could make such an unlikely trip without being detected, especially when it would have been much easier to sneak the suitcase with the bomb onto Pan Am 103 through the lax security at Heathrow Airport outside London.
The Times’ obit also noted that during the 85-day trial,
“None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays. …
“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert. Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in [Megrahi’s co-defendant’s] desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.”
In finding Megrahi guilty, the Scottish court admitted that the case was “circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable,” but concluded that “there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of Megrahi.
However, the evidence later came under increasing doubt.The Times wrote: “It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahibefore the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.” Scottish authorities learned, too, that the U.S. Justice Department paid Gauci $2 million for his testimony.
As for the bomb’s timer, the Times noted that the court called Bollier “untruthful and unreliable” and “In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.
“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’words echoed by [South African President Nelson] Mandela.”
In other words, Megrahi’s conviction looked to have been a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct,relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane). And those problems were known prior toMegrahi’s return to Libya in 2009 and prior to the U.S.-supported air war against Gaddafi in 2011.
Yet, Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC and pretty much everyone elsein the MSM repeated endlessly that Megrahi was “the Lockerbie bomber” and that Libya was responsible for the atrocity, thus further justifying the “humanitarian intervention” that slaughtered Gaddafi’s soldiers and enabled rebel militias to capture Tripoli in summer 2011.
Similarly, there was scant U.S. media attention given to evidence that eastern Libya, the heart of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, indeed was a hotbed for Islamic militancy, with that region supplying the most per-capita militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, often under the banner of Al-Qaeda.
Despite that evidence, Gaddafi’s claim that he was battling Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi region was mocked or ignored. It didn’t even matter that his claim was corroborated by a report from U.S. analysts Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.
In their report, “Al-Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” Felter and Fishman analyzed Al-Qaeda documents captured in 2007 showing personnel records of militants who flocked to Iraq for the war against the Americans. The documents showed eastern Libya providing a surprising number of suicide bombers who traveled to Iraq to kill American troops.
Felter and Fishman wrote that these so-called Sinjar Records disclosed that while Saudis comprised the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, Libyans represented the largest per-capita contingent by far.Those Libyans came overwhelmingly from towns and cities in the east.
“The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21),” Felter and Fishman wrote, adding that Abu Layth al‐Libi, Emir of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida.”
Some important Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan’s tribal regions also were believed to have come from Libya. For instance, “Atiyah,” who was guiding the anti-U.S. war strategy in Iraq, was identified as a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.
It was Atiyah who urged a strategy of creating a quagmire for U.S. forces in Iraq, buying time for Al-Qaeda Central to rebuild its strength in Pakistan. “Prolonging the war[in Iraq] is in our interest,”Atiyah said in a letter that upbraided Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his hasty and reckless actions in Iraq.
After U.S. Special Forces killed Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan, Atiyah became al-Qaeda’s second in command until he himself was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2011. [See Consortiumnews.com “Time Finally Ran Out for Atiyah.”]
However, to most Americans who rely on the major U.S. news media, little of this was known, as the Washington Post itself acknowledged in an article on Sept. 12, 2011, after Gaddafi had been overthrown but before his murder. In an article on the rise of Islamists inside the new power structure in Libya, the Post wrote:
“Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.”
“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well beAli Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising.The most powerful military leader is nowAbdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.”
Belhaj was previously the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with Al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group denied continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but Belhaj was captured during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror” and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.
The Times reported that “Belhaj has become so much an insider lately that he is seeking to unseat Mahmoud Jabril, the American-trained economist who is the nominal prime minister of the interim government, after Mr. Jibril obliquely criticized the Islamists.”
The Times article by correspondents Rod Nordland and David D. Kirkpatrick also cited other signs of growing Islamist influence inside the Libyan rebel movement:
“Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority.”
It may be commendable that the Post and Times finally gave serious attention to this consequence of the NATO-backed “regime change” in Libya, but the fact that these premier American newspapers ignored the Islamist issue as well as doubts about Libya’s Lockerbie guilt– while the U.S. government was whipping up public support for another war in the Muslim world – raises questions about whether those news organizations primarily serve a propaganda function.
Gaddafi’s Brutal Demise
Even amid these warning signs that Libya was headed toward bloody anarchy, the excited MSM coverage of Libya remained mostly about the manhunt for “the madman” – Muammar Gaddafi. When rebels finally captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, in the town of Sirte – and sodomized him with a knife before killing him – Secretary of State Clinton could barely contain her glee, joking inone interview: “We came, we saw, he died.”
The months of aerial slaughter of Gaddafi’s soldiers and Gaddafi’s own gruesome death seemed less amusing on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. In the two-plus years since, Libya has become a killing ground for rival militias, including some now affiliated with the Islamic State.
As the BBC reported on Feb. 24, 2015, the Islamic State
“has gained a foothold in key towns and cities in the mostly lawless North African state [Libya], prompting Egypt – seeing itself as the bulwark against Islamists in region – to launch air strikes against the group. …
“IS has launched its most high-profile attacks in Libya, bombing an upmarket hotel in the capital, Tripoli, in January, and releasing a video earlier this month showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians it had kidnapped. On 20 February, it killed at least 40 people in a suicide bombing in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.”
Now, the chaos that the U.S.-sponsored “regime change”unleashed has grown so horrific that it is causing desperate Libyans to climb into unseaworthy boats to escape the sharp edges of the Islamic State’s knives and other depredations resulting from the nationwide anarchy.
Thus, Libya should be a powerful lesson to Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other R2Pers that often their schemes of armed “humanitarianism” can go badly awry and do much more harm than good.It should also be another reminder to the MSM to question the arguments presented by the U.S. government, rather than simply repeating those dubious claims and false narratives.
But neither seems to be happening. The “liberal interventionists” – like their neoconservative allies – remain unchastened, still pumping for more “regime change” wars, such as in Syria. Yet, many of these moral purists are silent about the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Palestinians in Gaza, or now Houthis and other Yemenis dying under Saudi bombs in Yemen.
It appears the well-placed R2Pers in the Obama administration are selective in where that “responsibility to protect” applies.
Samantha Power, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, remains the same self-righteous scold denouncing human rights abuses in places where there are American-designated “bad guys” while looking the other way in places where the killing is being done by U.S. “allies.”As for Hillary Clinton, she is already being touted as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.
Meanwhile, the MSM has conveniently forgotten its own propaganda role in revving up the war on Libya in 2011.So, instead of self-reflection and self-criticism, the mainstream U.S. media is filled with condemnations of the Europeans for their failure to respond properly to the crisis of some 900 Libyans apparently drowning in a desperate attempt to flee their disintegrating country.
When the truth will out There may be more to Benghazi than officialdom wants to uncover
What if American Weapons Killed in Benghazi Illustration by Greg Groesch
It took four whole years for Washington Times to realise the obvious, we have been shouting on deaf ears for the last four and half years.
Of-course we are not so prominent journalists we are plain people who fight with what ever means we have against the Western media either by blogging, or twitting, or Facebook, or YouTube which ever means available risking prosecution from the militias and gangs who do not like what we say….. If anyone of you readers have been following me since August 2011 you will see that what Andrew Napolitano is writing here below we have said it over and over but no one listened or if they did they are taking our articles and owning them without giving any credit to all Libyan brothers and sisters who have stopped everything in their lives and are working without pay to try to get the truth out….All bloggers and I, do not need their recognition or their congratulation the only thing I can say better late than never……
These internet-newspapers are the same who sold you the war in Libya and Syria! They are the ones who have blood on their hands for having millions killed in Libya and Syria, they are the ones who I hold responsible for Libyans and Syrians that have become refugees. They are the same people who wrote that Qaddafi and Assad are dictators and they must go…. They are the ones responsible that Qaddafi was BRUTALLY MURDERED and made viral the video of his EXECUTION.
It’s not only the American foreign policy or the Cabal mafia who are responsible but also the WESTERN MEDIA which are the LAP DOGS of their own government. They should not be called JOURNALISTS but CRIMINALS FOR HIRE AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED THE SAME AS MASS MURDERERS.
As for the Benghazi Committee their only goal is to clear the CIA and nothing else… they do not want the REAL truth… every single one in the Benghazi Committee have their own agenda and the TRUTH IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
As for Russia and China they are paying a high price for not Vetoing the no flight zone in Libya…
Qaddafi said in his last speech that LIBYA WILL BE THE DEATH OF THE WEST… AND HIS PROPHECY IS BECOMING A REALITY…. LIBYA WILL SURVIVE… LIBYA WILL WIN THE WAR AGAINST THE WESTERN COLONIZATION… LIBYA WILL BE ONCE AGAIN FREE
By Andrew P. Napolitano – June 17, 2015
What if President Obama secretly agreed with others in the government in 2011 to provide arms to rebels in Libya and Syria? What if the scheme called for American arms merchants to sell serious American military hardware to the government of Qatar, which would and did transfer it to rebel groups?What if the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury approved those sales?
What if the approvals were kept secret because some of those rebel groups were characterized by the same Departments of State and Treasury as terrorist organizations? What if the ultimate recipients of those arms were the militants and monsters in al Qaeda and ISIS who have slain and tortured innocents?
What if this scheme is defined in federal law as providing material assistance to terrorist organizations?What if that’s a felony? What if that’s the same felony for which the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted dozens of persons merely for attempting? What if this scheme was not a mere attempt, but an actual arming of terrorists?
What if this scheme was approved not only by the president, but also by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? What if the idea of doing this was hers? What if congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and from both parties signed off on this?What if the remaining members of Congress and the American people were kept in the dark about this scheme? What if those who agreed to permit this scheme knew that the arms were destined for terrorist organizations and they were flirting with a criminal conspiracy to violate federal law?
What if Mrs. Clinton was asked by senators while under oath about the delivery of arms made by American manufacturers to ports in the Middle East and she denied knowing anything about it?What if she knew she had personally approved the deliveries but falsely claimed she had no knowledge?
What if this arms-to-terrorists scheme began to unravel? What if the rebels were really bad guys? What if there are many rebel-terrorist groups with varying degrees of hatredfor the United States? What if some of the groups that received American arms are so hateful of the United States that they will bite the hands that fed them?
What if Clinton’s job was to prevent American arms from slipping into the hands of terrorists? What if she secretly did the opposite of what her job required? What if she and the president and the other conspirators viewed themselves as being above the law? What if they thought the terrorist groups they were arming would overthrow the Gadhafi government in Libya and the Assad government in Syria?What if they believed those revolutions would be greeted with cheers in the West? What if they hoped the cheers would be for them?
What if their goal of regime change succeeded in Libya, and yet the result was chaos? What if under Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya had been a stable U.S. ally? What if today there is no central government in Libya and it is ruled by gangs and tribes and militias?
What if the American assistance to Syrian rebels became known to the Russians?What if that knowledge prompted Russian President Putin to help his ally, President Bashar Assad of Syria? What if the American and Russian introduction of heavy military hardware into the Syrian civil war has resulted in prolonged war and more deaths of innocents and destruction of property, not less?
What if one of the terrorist groups that received American arms from this scheme attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, because it wanted more arms from the United States and it knew arms were stored there?What if that attack killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues? What if this was a nightmare scenario for the conspirators? What if the conspirators now fear that the truth of their plot will become known?
What if the tragedy at Benghazi was unwelcome but not unforeseen? What if the conspirators knew of the risks to innocent lives attendant upon breaking the law by giving arms to madmen? What if members of Congress who were kept in the dark about the arms-to-terrorists scheme were outraged over Benghazi?What if leaders of the House of Representatives, some of whom were conspirators, formed a committee to investigate how the murder of Stevens came about?
What if some members of that committee already know that Stevens and the others were murdered with U.S. weapons illegally given to U.S. enemies secretly by U.S. government officials?What if the stated purpose of the committee — to seek the truth about Benghazi — is not the true purpose? What if the real purpose of that committee is to suppress the truth so that the president and Mrs. Clinton and the other conspirators do not get indicted?What if the truth is the last thing the conspirators want to see come out? What do we do about lawless government by secrecy? What do we do about government officials who act as if they are above the law? What do we do if one of them lives in the White House and controls all federal prosecutions? What do we do if another of them is presently on her way there?
There is no way around it: The western intervention in Libya was in vain.
Americans, perhaps, have the luxury of feeling sorry for themselves about it. But in Europe, the feelings are of a different order and urgency. According to recent estimates, it is now likely that somewhere between half a million and a million persons will try to cross the Mediterranean this summer.
British authorities, joined in Europe’s belated effort to prevent mass drownings, predict 500,000 will leave shore, according to The Washington Post. Libyan officials, reported Voice of America, say one million illegal immigrants alone plan to climb aboard packed smugglers’ boats in the weeks and months to come.
For Americans grown used to a dwindling stream of unlawful border crossings from Mexico, the Mediterranean situation is a nightmare of complexity, staggering in scale. Many foreigners are vying not to escape to Europe but to make their way home — to Ghana for instance, from which workers and businessmen looking for opportunity came to Libya’s coastal cities in years past, and now find themselves in a long line to trade one humanitarian catastrophe for, quite plausibly, another.
But, of course, U.S. policymakers have not brought themselves to see the problem as their own. Along with their counterparts in the EU, they refuse to pick a side in Libya’s chaotic struggle for order among rival militias.The Islamic State, with whom we are allegedly at war, has seized the opportunity to capture Sirte, a strategic city midway between Tripoli and Benghazi that supplies half of all Libyans with electricity.
When President Obama ordered airstrikes against the Gadhafi regime, he did so out of fear that Benghazi’s 700,000 residents would be subject to a massacre.****(these 700.000 residents never feared of a massacre because there was no order, it was faked by Obama’s, Cameron’s and Sarkozy’s regime to intervene their partner in this facade is Jalil of the NTC who in 2014 in national TV said that there was no order and the few who were killed were foreign SPOOKS. This how the FALSE FLAG STARTS also there is this “U.S. intelligencedid not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion: that Gadhafi would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country… the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.” There is also this: “As secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton didn’t just vote for the war in Libya. She is one of the policymakers most responsible for the decision to go to war and how the “kinetic military action” would be conducted.Make no mistake, Libya was every bit as much of a foreign-policy blunder as Iraq. In some ways, it was worse. Iraq was at least authorized by a congressional vote. Libya was not.”)But another truth must have been at the back of his mind. As Gadhafi’s forces bore down, “Free Libyans” would do what people have done for millennia when confronted with onrushing armies: flee.
It was painfully apparent in March of 2011 that Europe couldn’t handle a wave of war refugees hundreds of thousands strong spilling into the EU’s weakest, most precarious economies. Now, with Greece on the brink and Italy straining to maintain stability, a wave of “boat people” the size of Benghazi itself would follow a humanitarian disaster with an economic one.
Europe’s response has been to bristle. Terrified that Libya will become a sucking wound, drawing in migrants from as far afield as Somalia, Afghanistan, and the imploding nation of Syria, the EU has made concerted preparations for an interdiction force designed to crack down on human smuggling.****(I doubt that as human smuggling is a BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS… Europe will do nothing) In a strategy document obtained by The Guardian, planners noted the potential for an intervention on Libyan soil itself, where “heavy military armaments (including coastal artillery batteries) and military-capable militias present a robust threat to EU ships and aircraft operating in the vicinity.” ***(they intentionally do not mention that there are Russian and Chinese naval ships doing their naval exercise in the Mediterranean sea near the vicinity of the Libyan waters, which also complicates things as European and American ships can not doc on the Libyan ports and support the JIHADISTS which are ISIS/DAESH, LIBYAN DAWN, SHARIA, MUSLIM BORHTERHOOD. Just mentioning it. This is not a coincidence)
To state the obvious, a poorly led or ad hoc approach to this degree of escalation is certain to end in tears. “It is hard to imagine that these groups will stand by while European militaries operate on their turf,”Foreign Policy noted, “even if the targets of EU operations are smugglers rather than militants. The danger of armed action escalating out of control, and leading to further loss of innocent life, is very real.”
To be sure, smugglers are profiting handsomely while civilians are dying at sea en masse. Last week, over 2,000 perished, while one smuggler profiled by The Independent boasted a monthly income of $200,000.
But without a full-dress invasion and protectorate in Libya, Europe’s half-cocked halfway intervention is most likely to create only greater death and confusion. European leaders know they cannot count on America to bail them out this time around. The duty to lead therefore falls to France, the major power most committed morally and politically to the original Libyan crusade. France will have to take charge to forestall the kind of horror its attack on Gadhafi was designed to prevent.
This is a harsh lesson for Paris. Even more, it is a sobering signal of the new world Europe has finally been plunged into. Crisis does not stop at the eurozone’s edge. And despite the continent’s unwillingness to meet America’s demand to swell its own military budgets, the threat posed by Russia is one that will always draw in the U.S. The tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean is different. It is Europe, and Europe alone, that will now have to risk acting in vain.