Gaddafi Loyalists — Not The Libyan Government Or U.S Aligned Rebels — Rescued Americans In Benghazi


Gaddafi Loyalists — Not The Libyan Government Or U.S Aligned Rebels — Rescued Americans In Benghazi

ALEX PFEIFFER
Reporter
28/06/2016
Americans rescued from the facility in Benghazi were saved by Gaddafi loyalists — not the Libyan government or the militia group contractually obligated to provide security, the final report from the House Select Committee on Benghazi reveals.

After lethal mortar attacks, a special operator in Benghazi testified that:

“We decided that the situation we had was untenable to stay at the compound. We didn’t have enough shooters and there were too many wounded, and we were definitely going to lose our State Department wounded if we had stayed there much longer.”

The Americans in the annex, though, did not have the security vehicles and “gun trucks” necessary to evacuate to the airport in Benghazi. Help would eventually arrive.

“The forces that arrived at the Annex shortly after the mortar attacks were able to transport all State Department and CIA personnel safely to the airport. The forces, known as Libyan Military Intelligence, arrived with 50 heavily-armed security vehicles,” the select committee’s report says.

The Libyan Military Intelligence was not part of the Libyan Government that the Obama administration supported. Neither was it a component of the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade, recommended by the Libyan Government and contractually obligated to provide security to the Mission Compound.”

The report also states that “the February 17 Martyrs Brigade militia, which provided interior armed security at the Benghazi Mission compound, informed the Diplomatic Security Agents two days before the Ambassador was scheduled to arrive it would no longer provide off-compound security.”

“Instead, Libya Military Intelligence—whom the CIA did not even know existed until the night of the attacks—were comprised of former military officers under the Qadhafi regime who had gone into hiding in fear of being assassinated, and wanted to keep their presence in Benghazi as quiet as possible so as to not attract attention from the militias in control of Benghazi,” the report later notes.

It continues to say, “In other words, some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks. ”

American operatives on the ground only found out about the Libyan Military Intelligence group after a National Police officer described his capabilities as “next to helpless.”

“It was also this group, not groups previously given credit by previous investigations, that came to the rescue of the Americans in those early morning hours —likely saving dozens of lives as a result,” the select committee concluded.

 

Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors


Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors

This was released back in May of 2015, but I somehow missed it (no doubt because of my trial). But investigators have finally obtained secret reports from the Obama administration (by suing them in court) that prove that Obama, Hillary and all the talking heads from the top to the bottom outright lied to the American People. They knew the attacks were imminent 10 days before they happened. That means that moving our soldiers away from the embassy was treason and murder.

The CIA reports also show that the attacks were specifically in retaliation for the assassination of a terrorist leader and specifically in memorial of 9/11. There was absolutely no mention of any movie. Thus, the lies told about the movie were intentional.

This means that Obama and his entire administration, including General Dempsey lied to President Karzai of Afghanistan about the movie who then sent warning throughout his nation which spread throughout the Middle East- thus sending rage throughout the Muslim population. This led to more embassy attacks and riots. This also places the blame for the resulting fear, rage and uncertainty about whether other embassies would also be attacked directly on the intentional lies told by Obama, Hillary, Dempsey and others. This is treason that led to American deaths and violence in the Middle East. One must ask what motive they had.

One need not look any further than our own borders for the answer. The ensuing attacks and uncertainly of more attacks on U.S. embassies overseas led to the overturning of the decision to strike down the NDAA 2012 bill. “What is that?”, you might ask. NDAA 2012 is one of the most important pieces of legislature that has passed under Obama. Thanks to our state controlled media, most Americans don’t know anything about it.

It was passed on New Year’s Eve under the noses of the American People in the guise of a yearly funding bill for the military. However, it actually gives massive, unconstitutional authority to the president, without any approval of Congress and without oversight from any elected official, to use the entire might of the U.S. military against any American citizen on American soil. This bill was struck down as unconstitutional because it directly violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a critical part of American legislation, passed in 1878. It was due to be finalized exactly on Sept. 12, 2012 when the Benghazi nightmare ‘happened’ on Sept 11, 2012. (Remember, the Obama administration had been preparing for this since Jan 13, 2012 when the legal challenge was issued. They had time to plan this move.) Obama’s attorneys argued that domestic terrorists here at home might also react in rage and violence because of the movie and needed the right to use the U.S. military on domestic soil. Obama got a federal judge to STAY the finalization of the first federal judge’s order to strike NDAA 2012 as unconstitutional on Sept 13, 2012. It remains in legal limbo today which basically means that it is still legal. In other words, Benghazi ensured that Obama (and Hillary- because you know she will win) retains the power to arrest Christians, deny them all their constitutional rights and make them disappear forever without needing permission from anyone.)

Do you all understand the crimes committed in Benghazi and why it was done? NDAA 2012 is that important. Killing the ambassador and embassy workers was just a necessity to the media drama. Without the dead bodies, no one would pay enough attention and the bill injunction wouldn’t get stayed. People needed to really believe that terror could spread to U.S. shores. The violence caused by the movie rumor (most Muslims never saw the silly trailer- (no movie even existed) was also necessary to create the appropriate rage. Lying to President Karzai was a necessity, too, because you need a Muslim spreading the panic too. Oh, and getting the media to interview the pastor in Florida who burned the Koran was delightful, too. Just to add fuel to the fire- even though he had nothing to do with the infantile movie trailer. That was just to make even more Muslims as mad as possible- it was all one big lie. In hindsight, each one of these lies has only one thing in common- get as many Muslims as mad as possible in order to incite as much violence on American targets as possible. The goal: get a federal judge to stay the first federal judge’s injunction and keep it legal. Result of Benghazi: 4 Americans dead and NDAA 2012 is still alive. To Progressives: an acceptable loss for a powerful result.

Being allowed to use our military against American citizens here at home is key to overthrowing our nation’s constitution and turning this nation into a dictatorship– or whatever else a powerful group of individual wants. Add media control, internet control, quasi-digitized money and a powerful Progressive morality/loss of Christian values to the general population and you have a very ripe situation for the plucking.

All the proof is right there in black and white in the CIA reports. And yet, where are the Congressional hearings for the president, Hillary, Dempsey, Susan Rice, etc? Each and everyone of them are guilty of treason. The news did a story, but why did it die such a quiet death? Because the media is controlled and Americans are asleep. It is so sad. We deserve what we are getting. That is all I can say.

*****There is a video that you can see from this link: http://myfreshnews.com/critical-update-benghazi-cia-confirms-obama-hillary-traitors

US Ally in Libya Joins ISIL and Leads Its Forces in the Country – Reports


US Ally in Libya Joins ISIL and Leads Its Forces in the Country – Reports

Abdelhakim Belhadj, who despite ties to al-Qaeda was backed by the United States and NATO during the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi, has joined the Islamic State in Libya and is leading forces there, according to US intelligence officials.

Belhadj, a Libyan national and former head of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was considered by President Barack Obama’s administration and some members of Congress as a “willing partner” in the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011.

“Now, it’s alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya,” Catherine Herridge, chief intelligence correspondent for Fox News, said Tuesday on “America’s Newsroom.”

Also on Tuesday, Sara Carter of The Blaze tweeted: “Abdelhakim Belhadj is now the leader of #IslamicState in #Libya. At CIA rendition camp — let go, later participated overthrow #Qaddafi.”
Belhadj indeed was held in a secret CIA detention center, and his connection to the spy agency remains murky. In 2004, Belhadj and his pregnant wife were arrested in Kuala-Lumpur airport in Malaysia. He was transferred to a CIA “black-site” in Bangkok before being turned over to Gadhafi’s government, which threw him in the Abu Selim Prison.

Belhadj was freed in 2008 by the Gadhafi regime as part of a reapproach toward local Islamists. In 2011, however, he chased the Gadhafi family out of Tripoli as the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that was backed by the US and NATO.
Despite Belhadj’s well-known ties to al-Qaeda, he was made head of the Tripoli Military Council, a position he held until resigning to run for office in May 2012.

He has also been connected to terrorist operations around the world, including the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the murder of two Tunisian politicians at behest of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Belhadj’s reported move to Islamic State would bolster the terrorist group’s efforts to recruit Libya’s existing militant forces, which includes as many as 3,000 fighters, according to the Washington Times.

A group of Syrian rebels supported by US politicians for their “moderate” position, and who received US military equipment, has disbanded after heavy losses.

America’s Favorite ‘Moderate’ Syrian Group Disbands
This would not be the first time western-backed “moderate rebels” who were recruited to fight terrorists ended up crossing to Islamic State or al-Qaeda. In Syria, the so-called “Hazm movement” defected to al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra front, while 3,000 members of the Free Syrian Army pledged support to Islamic State.

In Libya, Islamic State militants already are receiving “tangible assistance” from training camps at a new support base near the port city of Derna in the eastern part of the country, according to counter-terrorism sources who spoke with Fox News’ Herridge.

The situation raises fresh security concerns as the US and its allies struggle to keep tabs on the terror group as it expands throughout the Middle East.

An unnamed source told Herridge they would not be surprised “if the next 9/11 came out of Libya.”

Avaaz Ignores Libya Lessons in Advocating for Syria No-Fly Zone


Avaaz Ignores Libya Lessons in Advocating for Syria No-Fly Zone
By John Hanrahan | ExposeFacts | April 13, 2016

(Second of two articles)

A recent two-part series in The New York Times laid out in detail the pivotal role that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in President Obama’s decision to join in France and Britain’s 2011 military campaign against long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Times articles make the case that Clinton bears a heavy part of the responsibility for the tragic, increasingly chaotic aftermath of that campaign in which Gaddafi was ousted and killed.

As the Times summaries of the articles put it, Gaddafi’s fall “seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge,” leaving Libya “a failed state and a terrorist haven.”

While neocons, right-wingers and humanitarian interventionists back in 2011 were seeking regime change in Libya, there was one non-governmental organization that was alone among progressive groups in mobilizing public opinion around the world in support of military action in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone.

And this wasn’t just any organization, but the fast-growing, on-line advocacy giant Avaaz.org, which in 2011 had 7 million members and today boasts 43.1-million members in 194 countries. As such, the New York City-based Avaaz is, as we noted in a previous article, the largest and most influential Internet-based, international advocacy organization on the planet.

Through its members’ petitions and a full-page ad last June in The New York Times, Avaaz has for the last few years been pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria, as have assorted neocons and war-hawks in congress and think-tanks who favor military operations to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. Hillary Clinton (but not other presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump) is a staunch advocate for a no-fly zone and regime change in Syria.

Like Clinton and other interventionists, Avaaz — in advocating for a no-fly zone in Syria — has not been chastened by what its advocacy wrought in Libya. Some of the same arguments for a no-fly zone that Avaaz made for Libya, it has made again over the last few years for Syria. This, despite as we noted in that earlier article, that top U.S. generals have warned that a no-fly zone in Syria is a “high-risk operation..a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties,” civilian and military.

It’s instructive to examine Avaaz’s no-fly zone advocacy for Libya in 2011 to get a handle on the organization’s continued thinking that — barring a diplomatic settlement growing out of a current tentative ceasefire in Syria — more war, under the cover of humanitarian intervention, would somehow save more civilians’ lives.

Call for No-Fly Zone in Libya Did Not Turn Out Well for Libyans in Aftermath of U.S./NATO Attacks

In its call for a no-fly zone in Libya in 2011, Avaaz submitted to the United Nations a petition containing 1,202,940 signatures gathered on-line. Demonstrating Avaaz’s impact, 90% of those were collected in just a two-day period between March 15 and 17 of that year, when its reported membership was a more modest, but still impressive, seven million.

And we now know what a sage piece of advocacy that was — as Libya experienced not only a no-fly zone, but U.S./NATO forces’ bombardments, the ousting and killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffy, the rise of ISIS, the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the flood of refugees from the chaotic, failed country that Libya is today.

Even at the time Avaaz was gathering all those signatures back in 2011 in support of a no-fly zone in Libya, there were critics who wondered why a U.S.-based non-governmental organization felt it had to stand up with neocons and war-hawks in advocating for an action that violated Libya’s sovereignty and was likely to lead to more violence against the Libyan people.

As John Hilary writing in The Guardian presciently warned in March 2011: “Little do most of these generally well-meaning activists know, they are strengthening the hands of those western governments desperate to reassert their interests in north Africa…A no-fly zone would almost certainly draw NATO countries into further military involvement in Libya, replacing the agency of the Libyan people with the control of those governments who have shown scant regard for their welfare…”

Hilary, executive director of War on Want, the U.K.-based charity that fights poverty and economic injustice, further noted, again presciently: “Clearly a no-fly zone makes foreign intervention sound rather humanitarian — putting the emphasis on stopping bombing, even though it could well lead to an escalation of violence.”

Noting that support for a no-fly zone in Libya was at that time “rapidly becoming a key call of hawks on both sides of the Atlantic,” (just as has been the case in more recent years regarding Syria) Hilary commented: “The military hierarchy, with their budgets threatened by government cuts, surely cannot believe their luck — those who usually oppose wars” [such as Avaaz] “are openly campaigning for more military involvement.”

On-line progressive organizations constantly seek signatures on petitions calling on the U.S. or other governments to adopt or change or reject certain policies. But Hilary pointed out that calling for a no-fly zone crosses a line into dangerous territory. As he wrote:

“The issue exposes the core of the problem with internet activism: instead of changing the world through a lifetime of education, it aims to change the world through a single click of the mouse. The impacts might be benign, when lobbying a government to stop causing harm. But a positive plan of action in a situation such as Libya requires more thought. Calling for military intervention is a huge step — the life and death of hundreds of thousands of people might hang in the balance. The difference between the ease of the action and impact of the consequence is great.”

Avaaz’s Justification for No-Fly Zone in Libya

It’s worth examining the Libya experience to get some idea of how Avaaz sees using military action to achieve what it contended would be civilian-saving humanitarian results.

Looking back, in calling for a no-fly zone Avaaz appeared to fully accept and spread the Gaddafi-will-systematically-murder-all-opponents line that western governments were trumpeting as the justification for intervention, stating in its March 15, 2011 message to members: “Right now Gaddafi’s forces are crushing the rebellion town by town” and noted that “brutal retribution awaits Libyans who challenged the regime. If we don’t persuade the U.N. to act now, we could witness a bloodbath.”

Avaaz went on to say that while it “is deeply committed to non-violence… enforcing a no-fly zone to ground Gaddafi’s gunships is one case where UN-backed military actions seems necessary.”

On March 17, 2011, just two days into flooding the U.N. Security Council with petitions containing 1,172,000 signatures, Avaaz enthusiastically reported (exclamation point and all) that the United Nations had agreed to take “‘all necessary measures’ short of an invasion to protect the people of Libya under threat of attack, including a no-fly zone!” It seems Avaaz’s expressed deep commitment to nonviolence had expanded beyond a no-fly zone to encompass “all necessary measures” — and Libya was soon on the receiving end of all those necessary measures.

When it was promoting a no-fly zone for Libya, Avaaz — as with its current Syria campaign — did receive pushback from some members. The organization felt it necessary to respond at some length on-line to the criticism before the no-fly zone was put into effect and the onslaught against Libya began.

Avaaz’s then-campaign director Ben Wikler (who is now with MoveOn.org), in an on-line posting responding to John Hilary’s Guardian article quoted above, outlined a number of reasons and procedures Avaaz used in taking up the cause of a no-fly zone for Libya. Among his points:

“The call for a no-fly zone originated from Libyans – including the provisional opposition government, Libya’s (defected) ambassador to the UN, protesters, and youth organisations…Avaaz staff are in close and constant contact with activists inside Libya and have been repeatedly asked to move forward on this campaign.”(***THAT IS NOT TRUE!)
“In some ways,” Wikler wrote, “we work a lot like journalists… talking to people and weighing the facts before we form conclusions. However, our staff’s personal conclusions also have to pass the test of our membership being strongly supportive of any position we take.”
In the Libya case, though, it would seem that Avaaz scarcely considered the potential negative aspects of military action — such as, when you “win,” what happens afterwards.

According to Wikler, a random-sample poll taken before the petition was promulgated on-line, showed that “84% of [Avaaz] members supported this campaign, while 9% opposed it. Since launching it, we’ve found intense support for the campaign from around the world.” (*** YES MOSTLY CIA/MOSSAD/MI6 AGENTS & EX PATRIOTS) Avaaz says that petition ideas such as a no-fly zone campaign “are polled and tested weekly to 10,000-member random samples—and only initiatives that find a strong response are taken” to the wider membership. (***PERSONALLY I DO NOT REMEMBER SUCH A POLE) The organisation has not disclosed who within Avaaz was the main instigator of the petitions for no-fly zones in Libya and Syria. Generally speaking, Avaaz says here’s how its petitions develop: “… Avaaz staff don’t set an agenda and try to convince members to go along with it. It’s closer to the opposite: staff listen to members and suggest actions they can take in order to affect the broader world. Small wonder, then, that many of our most successful campaigns are suggested first by Avaaz members themselves. And leadership is a critical part of member service: it takes vision and skill to find and communicate a way to build a better world.” Although this doesn’t say so, certainly on a matter of such import and controversy as a no-fly zone the final call would logically come from executive director Ricken Patel.
Avaaz staff played “a key role in consulting with leading experts around the world (and most of our staff have policy as well as advocacy backgrounds) on each of the campaigns we run, and Libya was no exception.” This begs the question: Who were these experts, and did Avaaz seek out critics of such an action?
On the question of whether imposing a no-fly zone would lead to a full-blown international war in Libya, Wikler downplayed the possibility at the time: “No-fly zones can mean a range of different things. Some analysts and military figures [none named by Wikler] have argued that it would require a pre-emptive attack on Libya’s anti-aircraft weapons. Others [again, none named], however, contend that merely flying fighter planes over the rebel-controlled areas would ensure that Qaddafi wouldn’t use his jets to attack eastern Libya, because he knows his air force is weaker than that of Egypt or NATO states. The best solution is the one that reduces civilian deaths the most with the least violence. Things might not turn out as expected, but while there are potential dangers to an international war, there are certain dangers to civilians if things continue without a no-fly zone.” [Emphasis added.]
Calling for military action seems a very risky calculation for an advocacy group to make, given even its own nodding recognition that the action it supports might bring on an international war or other “things… not expected.” And to discuss such an issue in a mere one sentence and conclude that the risk is worth it — and after the petition is already out there — is not indicative of a transparent, all-cards-on-the-table process that make for well-informed potential petition signers.

At the very least, now with the benefit of hindsight, you would think that the Libya experience would give Avaaz some second thoughts about supporting a no-fly zone in what top U.S. generals quoted in our previous article have described as the even riskier environment of Syria. But no such soul-searching is evident in Avaaz’s campaign for a Syrian no-fly zone.

For this and the previous article, we submitted a series of questions to Avaaz media personnel and campaign directors, with an emphasis on obtaining specifics as to the organization’s rationale for supporting no-fly zones in Libya and Syria — including whether the tragic outcome in Libya had figured at all in Avaaz’s consideration of whether to call for a no-fly zone in Syria. After requests (and reminders) on five occasions in November, December and January, we finally received a response on February 11 from campaign director Nell Greenberg, but that addressed only a few of our specific questions. Our follow-up questions, submitted on February 12, have gone unanswered.

As with the other questions we submitted to Avaaz personnel, the organization did not answer whether the Libya experience made the organization’s leaders think twice about taking up the Syria no-fly zone issue. It was possibly obscurely referencing the Libya no-fly zone when Greenberg stated to us: “Much of what you’re asking for are reflections on past campaigns given the geopolitical landscape today. But based on the way we work, I cannot tell you how any Avaaz member would feel today about a past campaign without going back and asking them.”

Our follow-up question made it clear that we were not asking how any individual Avaaz member might feel about the Libya campaign today, but rather how Avaaz’s leaders felt about proposing a no-fly zone for Syria when the Libya military action had turned out so disastrously. To date, Avaaz has not responded to any of our follow-up questions.

Regarding whether a no-fly zone would violate Libya’s national sovereignty, Wikler in March 2011 stated: “National sovereignty should not be a legitimate barrier to international action when crimes against humanity are being committed.” Then in perhaps a foreshadowing of the organization’s call for a similar action in Syria, Wikler added: “If you strongly disagree, then you may find yourself at odds with other Avaaz campaigns as well.”
Wikler concluded his defense of the call for a Libyan no-fly zone by saying: “All told, this was a difficult judgment call. Calling for any sort of military response always is. Avaaz members have been advocating for weeks for a full set of non-military options as well, including an asset freeze, targeted sanctions, and prosecutions of officials involved in the violent crackdown on demonstrators.

“But although those measures are moving forward, the death toll is rising. Again, thoughtful people can disagree – but in the Avaaz community’s case, only 9% of our thoughtful people opposed this position [84% approved] – somewhat surprising given that we have virtually always advocated for peaceful methods to resolve conflicts in the past. We think it was the best position to take given the balance of expert opinion, popular support, and most of all, the rights and clearly expressed desire of the Libyan people.”

The figure of 84% approval from a sampling of Avaaz members seem astounding — and raises the issue of whether the questions were worded in the most emotional ways that would produce such an overwhelming result (along the lines of — Gaddafi is slaughtering, and will slaughter, everyone in his path and we must act now to avert a bloodbath). It also raises the question of whether Avaaz offered any counterpoints that a no-fly zone could lead to a wider war and end up killing, maiming and displacing thousands of civilians.

Regardless of the numbers, relying on partisan civilian sources in embattled areas for tactics or military solutions of any sort is both a dubious and frightening proposition and hardly seems the role for an advocacy organization to undertake.

Avaaz’s Origins: Founders and Funders

Even in the U.S. progressive community, Avaaz is far less well-known than its sister advocacy organization MoveOn.org. To put Avaaz in perspective, a little background is in order.

Avaaz was created in 2006 and officially launched in 2007 by MoveOn.org Civic Action and the little known and closely affiliated global advocacy group Res Publica, Inc. Its initial significant financial backing came from liberal philanthropist George Soros and his Open Society Foundations (then called Open Society Institute).

Avaaz’s individual founders included three of its current officers/directors — Ricken Patel, Eli Pariser and Thomas Pravda — as well as Thomas Perriello, Andrea Woodhouse, Jeremy Heimans, and David Madden. (More about them later.) (****MOST OF THEM ARE ZIONISTS/JEWS just saying)

If you don’t know much about Avaaz, or think about it as I long did as a non-U.S. entity (actually, its headquarters is in New York City), that is not so surprising since many of its campaigns are targeted to specific countries other than the United States, and only a little over 5 percent of its 43.1 million members are U.S.-based. (A member being anyone who has ever signed an Avaaz petition — and that includes me.) Still, even that small U.S. percentage equates to 2.3 million people — a number that would be the envy of most U.S. activist organizations. (By way of comparison, Avaaz’s affiliated member organization MoveOn.org claims more than 8-million members.)

The U.S. membership in Avaaz is about the same as the German membership (2.2 million), and far less than France with 4.3 million and Brazil with a whopping 8.8 million members. Other nations with more than one million Avaaz members include Italy (2.1 million), Spain (1.8 million), the United Kingdom (1.6 million), Mexico (1.4 million), Canada (1.2 million). India has 991,000 members and Russia 901,000. Overall, Avaaz claims members in 194 countries, with its smallest membership — 81 — in the British overseas territory of Montserrat, population 5,100.

Avaaz is organized under the name the Avaaz Foundation, a 501(c)(4) non-profit lobbying organization, with its headquarters in Manhattan. It describes itself as having “a simple democratic mission: To close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.”

In its most recent Form 990 filing with the Internal Revenue Service, signed in September 2015 for tax year 2014, Avaaz reported contributions totaling $20.1 million and net assets of $7.6 million. Avaaz, which says that it is entirely member funded, had previously stated that it accepts no single contribution of more than $5,000, but that was not the case in 2014 as the organization reported that 18 individuals had contributed amounts ranging from $5,000 to $15,383. The contributors were not identified by name in the filing. Since around 2010, the organization is on record as not accepting corporate or foundation donations — although it did receive grants totaling $1.1 million from George Soros-connected foundations in the three years before that.

In response to our inquiry about Avaaz funding and the organization’s early link to Soros, campaign director Nell Greenberg responded:

“With regards to Avaaz funding, this movement was founded with the ideal of being completely self sustaining and democratic. 100% of the Avaaz budget comes from small online donations…Avaaz has never taken a contribution from a government or a corporation, and since 2009 has not solicited any contributions from charitable foundations.”

She continued: “We did receive seed funding from George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, but not after 2009. No corporation, foundation or board member has influence on the organization’s campaign directions or positions. This is hugely important to ensuring that our voice is exclusively determined by the values of our members, and not by any large funder or agenda.”

Of Avaaz’s four current officers/directors, only executive director Ricken Patel was listed as full-time, with annual pay of $177,666 for 2014. Chairman Eli Pariser; treasurer Thomas Pravda, and secretary Ben Brandzel are not day-to-day employees and all received no compensation in 2014. Of Avaaz’s 77 employees, the five highest-compensated staff members after Patel received salaries ranging between $111,000 and $153,000.

For its various domestic and overseas campaigns, Avaaz reported providing $3.2 million in grants to U.S. organizations and $932,000 to foreign organizations in 2014. Reported grants of more than $5,000 came in five categories, with the largest recipients being the U.S. Fund for UNICEF ($1 million for education for Syrian refugees), and the Rain Forest Trust ($1 million for “conservation of land and species”).

To help combat the Ebola virus, Avaaz provided $500,000 to the International Medical Corps, $350,000 to Save the Children and $300,000 to Partners in Health. For organizing for the September 2014 People’s Climate March in New York City, Avaaz provided $27,500 to Align and $10,000 to New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). Rounding out the list, a $10,000 grant went to Amazon Watch for “protection of the Amazon.”

For activities outside the United States, Avaaz spent most heavily in Europe on campaigns, advertising and consulting — $6.2 million, with South America a distant second at $685,000 for consulting services, followed by East Asia and the Pacific with $553,000 for campaigns and consulting services. Expenditures in five other regions ranged from $45,000 to $270,000.

Avaaz reported that the foundation is still comprised of the same two member organizations — MoveOn.org Civic Action and Res Publica, Inc. (U.S.) — which were the original founding groups.

Res Publica, a 501(c)(3), lists the same Manhattan address as the 501(c)(4) Avaaz and presumably provides unspecified assistance to Avaaz. Back at Avaaz’s beginning, the three principals in Res Publica were the aforementioned Patel, Pravda and Perriello. The three men had all served with the International Center for Transitional Justice, which “assists countries pursuing accountability for past mass atrocity or human rights abuse.” Also in those early days, according to some accounts, Avaaz listed the Service Employees International Union and Australia-based GetUp.org.au as co-founding organizations, but they seem to have long since been out of the picture.

In Res Publica’s most recent Form 990 filing with the IRS for 2013, Patel is listed as executive director, Pravda as treasurer, and Vivek Maru as secretary. All received no compensation. Contributions for 2013 totaled $963,895, of which $846,165 was from “Government grants” for unspecified purposes. The organization reported that it “provides strategic advice to other non-profit organizations… [and] also provides educational and action-based e-mail campaigns to citizens in every country via its website.” It also reported supporting projects “through fiscal sponsorship, that focused on online security and Internet freedom for repressed communities globally…”

Here are profiles of Avaaz co-founders and past and current officers:

Eli Pariser: Avaaz Chairman and Co-founder

Eli Pariser was executive director of MoveOn.org from 2004 through 2009 when the organization experienced explosive growth, and has been its board president since then. MoveOn, in the words of an on-line Pariser biography, “revolutionized grassroots political organizing by introducing a small-donor-funded and email-driven model that has since been widely used across the political spectrum.”

In addition to being a founder of Avaaz and currently serving as its chairman, the Brooklyn-based Pariser has been a member of the boards of Access and the New Organizing Institute. A best-selling author and former fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, Pariser is co-founder and executive of the on-line media company Upworthy. He is also currently a member of the advisory board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Programs.

We would note that Pariser appears to be one of the few Avaaz founders and officers whose background is almost entirely in on-line activism, while some others have governmental or otherwise overseas experience working in programs in high poverty and/or war-torn countries.

We submitted several questions to Pariser on March 9, but he has not responded as of this writing.

Ricken Patel: Avaaz Executive Director and Co-founder

Prior to the founding of Avaaz in 2007, the Canadian-born Ricken Patel consulted for a number of international and well-established non-profit organizations — the International Crisis Group, the United Nations, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Harvard University, CARE International, and the International Center for Transitional Justice. He worked in several countries including Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan and Afghanistan. He also was the founding executive director of Avaaz-affiliated Res Publica, which among its past projects “worked to end genocide in Darfur.” As executive director of Avaaz since its begining, Patel is the face of the organization and has been termed “the global leader of online protest” by The Guardian.

Thomas Pravda: Avaaz Treasurer and Co-founder

Through two of its co-founders — Tom Perriello and Thomas Pravda — Avaaz has connections to government officialdom in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Perriello (discussed below) is now with the State Department as U.S. special envoy for the African Great Lakes and the Congo-Kinshasa.

Pravda is currently serving as the (unpaid) treasurer and a director for Avaaz, while at the same time holding down a post as a diplomat with the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, commonly known as the Foreign Office. He is also co-founder and officer in Res Publica.

As the Foreign Office is “responsible for protecting and promoting British interests worldwide,” this could raise conflict-of-interest possibilities regarding U.K. and U.S. foreign relations and military issues that might be taken up by Avaaz. This would include the organization’s advocacy for a no-fly zone in Syria, in which both the U.S. and U.K. would be expected to participate. Our research, though, found no example of anyone raising a specific issue about Pravda’s dual role as U.K. diplomat and Avaaz officer, but this relationship looks problematic on the face of it.

Pravda’s self-provided biography shows he has been with the Foreign Office since October 2003, and with Avaaz since 2006, and that he was also an advisor to the U.S. State Department in 2009-2010 regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In his diplomatic assignments Pravda has worked on E.U. trade and development policy; as an advisor to the Special Representative for Climate Change, and as the U.K. Representative in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo. He has also consulted extensively on political, security, research and advocacy issues for such institutions as the U.S. State Department, the United Nations Development Program, the International Center for Transitional Justice and Oxford Analytica.

Ben Brandzel: Avaaz Secretary and Co-founder

In addition to currently serving as the (unpaid) secretary for Avaaz, Ben Brandzel is the founder and director of OPEN (Online Progressive Engagement Network), described as an alliance of the world’s leading national digital campaigning organizations. Besides being a founding board member and former senior campaigner at Avaaz, Brandzel is the chief founding advisor for OPEN member groups in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland. He also served as the original advocacy director for MoveOn.org and in 2009-2010 directed new media campaigns and fundraising for President Obama during the health reform campaign. He writes frequently on digital organizing and transnational movement building.

Tom Perriello: Avaaz Co-founder

If I were going to name one chief suspect among Avaaz’s founders as the architect of its no-fly zone advocacy in Libya and Syria, it would be Tom Perriello. More than anyone else connected with Avaaz from its earliest days, Perriello, since leaving the organization — first for Congress and then for the think-tank world before going to the U.S. State Department — has shown himself to be a reliable advocate for war: For continuing the war in Afghanistan, for bombing Libya and ousting Gaddafi, and for taking military action to support Syrian rebels and remove Assad from power.

Perriello champions “humanitarian intervention” and lauded the NATO bombing campaign in Libya — before the U.S./NATO “victory” there and before the country subsequently went all to hell — as a prime example of how this approach can succeed .

We asked Avaaz whether Perriello’s thinking had influenced the organization’s campaigns for no-fly zones in Libya and Syria, and received a stern denial from Avaaz’s Greenberg: “Tom Perriello, specifically, was an Avaaz board member at the founding of the organization but has not been on the board since December 2009, and has had no role in Avaaz’s Syria campaigns.”

Perriello’s career, like some others with Avaaz, has been more one of public service through established organizations than of activism. According to an on-line biography, in 2002-2003 Perriello was special advisor to the international prosecutor of the Special Court of Sierra Leone, and then served as a consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice in Kosovo (2003), Darfur (2005) and Afghanistan (2007). In 2004, he co-founded Res Publica with Patel and Pravda. Perriello has also been a fellow at The Century Foundation and is a co-founder of DarfurGenocide.org. He said in his on-line bio that he had “spent much of his career working in West Africa and the Middle East to create strategies for sustainable peace, and he was involved in the peace processes that helped end the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia.”

A Democrat, Perriello was elected to Congress from Virginia’s 5th District in 2008. (It would appear from the statement we received from Avaaz that if Perriello left the organization in December 2009 then he was still on the Avaaz board during his first year in Congress.)

In his one term, Perriello was a staunch supporter of the global war on terror, the military appropriations to continue U.S. wars, and keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Defeated in his 2010 bid for reelection, Perriello went on to serve as president and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and counselor for policy also at Center for American Progress, a Democratic party-supporting think tank. From 2014 to the present he has been with the State Department, first as the Special Representative to the Secretary of State for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and since last summer as the U.S. special envoy for the African Great Lakes and the Congo-Kinshasa. Although said not to be involved with Avaaz currently, his humanitarian intervention philosophy seems alive and well at Avaaz with its calls for no-fly zones in Libya and Syria.

In this excerpt from his 2012 article on humanitarian intervention, Perriello sounds absolutely eager to send in the bombs wherever “egregious atrocities” are occurring and human beings are suffering. And this, as Perriello writes, would give “progressives” the “opportunity… to expand the use of force to advance key values.” Following are two paragraphs from Perriello’s article that give the flavor of the “humanitarian intervention” philosophy he advocates. It would certainly be helpful if Avaaz would tell us if it subscribes to its co-founder’s rather bloodless and creepy prescription for advancing progressives’ “key values.”

“Operational developments since the end of the Cold War have substantially improved our capacity to wage smart military operations that are limited in time and scope and employ precise and overwhelming force,” Perriello wrote. “This presents progressives with an opportunity—one that is too often seen as a curse—to expand the use of force to advance key values. Our technical capacities, ranging from accuracy of systems intelligence to smart weaponry, now allow for previously impossible operations. Today, we have the ability to conduct missions from the air that historically would have required ground troops. And we possess an admittedly imperfect but highly improved ability to limit collateral damage, including civilian casualties. Among other things, this means fewer bombs can accomplish the same objectives, with early estimates suggesting that the Libyan air campaign required one-third the number of sorties as earlier air wars…

“We must realize that force is only one element of a coherent national security strategy and foreign policy. We must accept the reality—whether or not one accepts its merits—that other nations are more likely to perceive our motives to be self-interested than values-based. But in a world where egregious atrocities and grave threats exist, and where Kosovo and Libya have changed our sense of what’s now possible, the development of this next generation of power can be seen as a historically unique opportunity to reduce human suffering.”

Imagine the nerve of those other nations Perriello refers to — failing to see that the United States selflessly engages in “values-based” bombing: Bombs for a better world.

Andrea Woodhouse: Avaaz Co-founder

Another Avaaz co-founder, Andrea Woodhouse, describes herself as a development professional, social entrepreneur and writer. She has worked in many countries experiencing conflict and political transition, including Indonesia, Timor Leste, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Burma/Myanmar. In Indonesia, she reported working on one of the largest anti-poverty programs in the world, which she said became the model for a national program of post-conflict reconstruction and state-building in Afghanistan. She has worked for the World Bank and the United Nations and was a founder of the World Bank’s Justice for the Poor program.

Jeremy Heimans: Avaaz Co-founder

According to an on-line biography, Jeremy Heimans in 2005 co-founded GetUp, an Australian political organization and one of that country’s largest campaigning communities. It has campaigned for same-sex marriage and in support of Julian Assange of Wikileaks. In addition to being an Avaaz co-founder, Heimans in 2009 co-founded Purpose, an activist group that launched several major new organizations including All Out, a two-million member LGBT rights group.

David Madden: Avaaz Co-founder

David Madden, another Avaaz co-founder, is a former Australian Army officer and World Bank and United Nations employee. With Jeremy Heimans, he co-founded GetUp. Madden has worked for the World Bank in Timor Leste, and for the United Nations in Indonesia. In 2004, Madden was one of the founders of Win Back Respect, a web-based campaign against the foreign policy of U.S. President George W. Bush.

George Soros’s Role in Avaaz Early Years

For the last few years, various on-line bloggers have questioned whether Avaaz is somehow doing the bidding of philanthropist George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, or of the U.S. government (or portions thereof). (See an example here.)

There is no question that there was a close connection between Avaaz and Soros and his organizations dating back to Avaaz’s early days, but what — if anything — does that translate into today?

As noted earlier, in one of the few of my questions that Avaaz answered directly, there was an acknowledgement of early Soros “seed money” to Avaaz, but a denial of any continuing involvement with the organization.

Of all individuals or organizations outside the Avaaz structure, though, Soros’s foundations played the most significant role in helping get Avaaz off the ground with generous grants. Additionally, the Open Society Institute (the previous name of the Open Society Foundations) served as Avaaz’s “foundation partner” on campaigns of joint interest, most notably in connection with the Burmese Democracy Movement.

Avaaz still has a Soros connection — notably, as indicated above, Eli Pariser serving on an Open Society advisory board. And both Avaaz and Soros seem to share an antipathy to what they characterize as Russian aggression as exemplified by Avaaz’s sometimes over-the-top statements about Russia in Syria. (For example, as noted in our previous article, Ricken Patel holding Putin’s government responsible for being complicit with the Assad government in “coordinating atrocities” and “targeting the assassinations of journalists” in early 2012. Also, see this September 30, 2015 Avaaz posting using flimsy evidence to accuse Russian planes of deliberately bombing civilian neighborhoods.)

Donations by Soros’s Foundations

Over a three-year period beginning in 2007, Soros’s foundations — either directly or passed through Res Publica — gave Avaaz a total of $1.2 million.

In 2007, the Open Society Institute gave $150,000 to Res Publica for general support for Avaaz, and $100,000 for Avaaz’s work on climate change.

In 2008, Open Society Institute again gave a total of $250,000 to Res Publica — with $150,000 of that again for general support for Avaaz and the remaining $100,000 for Avaaz’s climate change work.

The following year, Soros was even more generous to Avaaz. His Foundation to Promote Open Society in its Form 990 filing for 2009 (page 87) reported giving a total of $600,000 to Res Publica for Avaaz’s use — $300,000 for general support and $300,000 for climate campaigning.

Avaaz increased its ties to the Soros organization in 2008 by selecting the then-named Open Society Institute (OSI) as its “foundation partner” to oversee some $325,000 in donations that Avaaz had received from its members — in just four days — to support the Burmese Democracy Movement.

Avaaz said it was linking up with OSI — “one of the largest and most respected foundations in the world” — for the purpose of OSI monitoring Avaaz’s grant awards and expenditures. OSI was “taking no overhead on the funds we are granting to Burmese groups” for technology, organizing, support for the regime’s victims and victims’ families, and international advocacy.

In June 2009, OSI reported that its Burma Project grantees — including Avaaz — had rallied global support around democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. On that occasion, Avaaz partnered with the Free Burma’s Political Prisoners Now! Campaign to collect more than 670,000 signatures asking for UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon’s support for Aung San Suu Kyi and some 2,000 other political prisoners.

From available information, it does not appear Soros or his foundations have contributed financially to Avaaz or directly engaged in projects with the organization in the last five to six years. And Avaaz itself says the Soros financial connection ended in 2009. Whether the substantial assistance Soros’s foundations gave Avaaz in its first three years of existence carries any lasting influence, though, is certainly hard to show.

Avaaz’s Impressive Record of Advocacy

As noted in our previous article, even allowing for organizational self-hype, Avaaz has an impressive record of advocacy — a record that mostly seems off-kilter with its no-fly zone advocacy in Libya and Syria. For example, here are some other Avaaz campaigns not previously mentioned:

Avaaz has played a prominent role in a number of actions directed at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Avaaz was a key player in a successful campaign (including a petition with more than 1.7 million signatures, coupled with occupations and protests at some 15 Barclays bank branches across the United Kingdom) to pressure Barclays to divest its $2.9 million holdings in an Israeli defense contractor, Elbit Systems.
Avaaz received plaudits from the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for its role in that campaign. Elbit Systems is the major Israeli-based arms and security company that manufactures drones used in surveillance and attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. It also provides electronics for the “apartheid wall” being constructed on the West Bank.

A petition directed to the government of Israel and to the U.S. Congress netted 185,000 signatures in support of the portion of President Obama’s Cairo speech in June 2009 in which he said: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”
In 2011, some 1.6 million people — more than 300,000 of them in just the first two days — signed an Avaaz petition to European leaders and U.N. member states, urging them “to endorse the legitimate bid for recognition of the state of Palestine and the reaffirmation of the rights of the Palestinian people. It is time to turn the tide on decades of failed peace talks, end the occupation and move towards peace based on two states.”
In March 2013, at the time of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC’s) annual conference and congressional lobbying days in Washington, D.C., Avaaz joined with Jewish Voice for Peace to erect hundreds of anti-AIPAC posters across Metro stations in central D.C. The signs read: “AIPAC does not speak for me. Most Jewish Americans are pro-peace. AIPAC is not.”
Through its petitions, Avaaz has strongly opposed governmental surveillance of U.S. citizens, and has defended Wikileaks and national security whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning.
In April 2011, amid news reports of Manning’s brutal treatment while imprisoned at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia before facing a court martial for providing classified documents to Wikileaks, almost 550,000 people signed an Avaaz petition to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The petition, headlined “Stop Wikileaks Torture,” called on those officials “to immediately end the torture, isolation and public humiliation of Bradley Manning. This is a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed human rights, and a chilling deterrent to other whistleblowers committed to public integrity.”
A December 2010 Avaaz petition, calling “the vicious intimidation campaign against Wikileaks” by the U.S. and other governments and corporations “a dangerous attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” produced 654,000 signatures — more than 300,000 of those in the first 24 hours the petition was circulated on-line.
In June 2013, just days after the first reports of the National Security Agency’s illegal worldwide spying appeared, some 1.38 million people signed a petition, headlined “Stand with Edward Snowden,” to President Obama. The petition read: “We call on you to ensure that whistleblower Edward Snowden is treated fairly, humanely and given due process. The PRISM program is one of the greatest violations of privacy ever committed by a government. We demand that you terminate it immediately, and that Edward Snowden be recognized as a whistleblower acting in the public interest — not as a dangerous criminal.”
In April 2012, some 780,000 people signed an Avaaz petition to members of Congress, and another to Facebook, Microsoft and IBM (with 626,000 signers), to drop their support for the Internet surveillance bill known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The bill, the petition stated, would place “Our democracy and civil liberties… under threat from the excessive and unnecessary Internet surveillance powers” that it would grant to the U.S. government without requirement of a warrant.
In the face of widespread hunger strikes at the Guantanamo Bay prison in 2013, Avaaz gathered 690,000 signatures on a petition to transfer the 86 men who had already been cleared for release, and to appoint a White House official whose responsibility it would be to close down the prison. Said the petition: “This shameful complex is a scourge on humanity, is destroying lives, and fuels hate across the world. Close it down!”
Avaaz is also in the front ranks on various other issues — fighting global warming, seeking an end to U.S. and European arms sales to Saudi Arabia, protecting rain forests, saving endangered species, promoting clean energy, challenging Rupert Murdoch’s bid for a greater media monopoly in the United Kingdom, defending human rights in a number of countries, etc.
In none of those other campaigns do we see Avaaz proposing military action of any sort. Why this anomaly when it came to Libya and now Syria? Especially, when military action’s aftermath turned out so badly in Libya, and when even the nation’s leading generals say a Syria no-fly zone would escalate the war and endanger the very civilians Avaaz has the stated goal of protecting?

The Islamic State Diary: A Chronicle of Life in Libyan Purgatory


The Islamic State Diary: A Chronicle of Life in Libyan Purgatory

For months, the Islamic State visited its reign of terror on the city of Derna, Libya — until it was stopped by an al-Qaida offshoot. Farrah Schennib describes the horrors of daily life under the IS in his diary.

Only 300 kilometers (186 miles) separate dream from nightmare. On the coast of Crete, tourists enjoy their carefree summer holidays. But just across the water, at the southern edge of the Mediterranean in Libya, Islamists are committing murder in the name of Allah.

Very little unfiltered news is making its way out of the contested regions. Most of the images we get are from terrorists, who are spreading their chilling propaganda on YouTube and Facebook. But what is really happening inside the isolated country? What is life like there?

Since the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi, the coastal city of Derna has been ruled alternately by an offshoot of al-Qaida and by the Islamic State terrorist militia. One young resident kept a diary for us for over five months. Its publication presents a not-insignificant risk to the 26-year-old. In order to protect his identity, we have changed his name and are instead calling him Farrah Schennib.

The two Islamist groups are engaged in a brutal battle for power. In July, al-Qaida fighters drove the IS extremists out of Derna, but now they are trying to return.

In this special report, you will find 22 entries from Farrah Schennib’s diary. They are filled with a sense of fear and resignation. But they also show a lust for life and a desire to resist.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

A large crowd has formed in front of the al-Harish hospital. I get out of the car. “It’s Muhannad!” a woman cries out. I move closer and I can see the dead boy on a stretcher. He’s wearing a yellow jacket covered with mud. I stare at the lifeless body of a child of about the age of 10. The boy’s head is missing. He has been decapitated.

I have been a photographer since the beginning of the revolution. Back then, the world wanted to know what was happening in Libya. These days, no one cares any longer what has become of Derna, a slaughterhouse where the butchers are swapped out every few months.

They found Muhannad’s head a week later. The news spread throughout the entire city. We asked ourselves what kind of person would decapitate a child? Why? At least Muhannad’s parents are now able to bury their child.

An agency in Tripoli asked me for pictures from Derna. At first, I wanted to reject the assignment, but I can’t afford to lose my last clients. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any work for me here.

Fighters with the Islamic State are unable to differentiate between journalists and members of militias. They shoot at anyone who looks suspicious to them. That’s why, most of the time, I only take photographs from my car. I seldom get out.

I used to walk through the streets without worry. People would wave at me. After 2011, there was even a brief period of euphoria and freedom. I gave colleagues from abroad tours through Derna. At one point, I even had a visit from a blonde-haired woman, a journalist from Australia.

Now, anyone who doesn’t work for a particular militia is suspected of being a spy. But I don’t work for any side.

I stand for a while in front of the morgue. I don’t feel anything. When I get home, I realize that I haven’t even taken a single photograph.

IS has ruled Derna since October 2014

Wednesday, March 11

Maryam walks over to me merrily. She’s wearing a black and white school uniform. My Uncle Faruk asked me to pick her up from school at Al-Khadra Market. Maryam is 11 years old. Like me, many other male relatives, brothers and fathers, wait until the girls exit the school. And as always, the Hisba, the IS’ moral police, patrol in their white Hyundai vans.

It used to be that teenage boys would lurk in the alleyways trying to attract the attention of one of the older girls. But no one dares do that anymore.

The watchdogs wear long robes like the ones in Afghanistan and long beards. These days, they are even forcing shop owners to close their businesses during prayer times — five times a day, just like in Saudi Arabia.

They also closed the schools for two months. The curriculums were purged of any “un-Islamic” material. Biology, chemistry, physics, physical education and music are no longer taught. For Maryam, school is the only place where she still gets a chance to meet with other girls, her friends. Girls are barely even allowed to leave their homes anymore.

We hated Gadhafi. He and his sons ruled brutally, and we were afraid of his thuggish police. But there were no Islamists back then.

Members of the al-Qaida group SRMD

Members of the al-Qaida group SRMDSunday, March 15

For a moment, I’m happy. I’ve found a steel container that I can use to store more than 100 liters of gasoline.

Gasoline is strictly regulated here, which might sound like a joke in one of the world’s most oil-rich countries, but when the city is sealed off, it is impossible to find fuel. My Uncle Faruk advised me to immediately drive from one gas station to the next to collect gasoline.

Gas Station 115 is guarded by IS fighters in an SUV. The black IS flag is planted above the station.

A dispute breaks out as fighters from another militia, the Mujahedeen Shura Council of Derna (SRMD), drive past all the people waiting in line and head straight for the pumps.

Members of SRMD have sworn their allegiance to Egyptian al-Qaida boss Ayman al-Zawahiri.

We don’t like Islamic State or the SRMD. Nevertheless, the Islamic State is far more barbaric than the others.

I believe they are so callous because they don’t know us or our country. They include Tunisians, Yemenis, Chechens and Pakistanis. Almost all the men from SRMD are from Derna, which makes it more difficult for them to kill people.

I want to leave this gas station immediately. When the militias encounter each other, it is often quickly followed by shooting. IS and SRMD have divided the city among themselves. They have reached a kind of cease-fire with each other. But how long will it hold for? I put the car into reverse and ram into the front of the car behind me.

I get back home safely. During the evenings, I give flour to Ahmed, the baker, who then bakes tannour bread for me and my neighbors.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Nadya calls me. “Is this how you want to feed our children?” she asks, jokingly, as I pick up the telephone half asleep. We’ve been engaged for six months. I want to marry her as soon as possible. Nadya is gorgeous. She’s 22. We call each other every day, at least when there’s electricity. She’s the youngest cousin of my aunt and wants to become a doctor.

Since IS has ruled the city, she can no longer attend university. I am the only one of my friends who has his own apartment – two rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom. But I don’t make any money and weddings are expensive.

An IS convoy in the mountains near Derna

Thursday, April 2

When the IS arrived in Derna six months ago, anyone who had worked together with the government was ordered to appear at the Tawba Station, or “Penance Center,” and hand in their weapons. The traffic cop Saleh from the Al-Khadra Market hasn’t been seen since. He was an institution. Everyone knew him.

Journalists were also forced to issue an “apology” for their “transgressions” in the past. I told the man at the IS media center that the times after the revolution were disorienting and that we didn’t immediately find the right path, but that we were now happy that the Islamic State had liberated us.

Of course we are all depressed. Journalists have lost their courage. It’s only very seldom that I carry my camera with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, April 13, 2015

People are disappearing. Flyers are posted in the city with photos of the missing. New ones are added every day. My friend Ali Ibrahim is selling his car, his mother’s jewelry and the house in order to pay the ransom demanded by the people who have kidnapped his father.

We are certain that Islamist militias are behind the kidnappings. For people who don’t pay the ransoms, the next time they see their missing relative is in the morgue.

There’s no authority we can turn to for help either. The city’s highest justice official is a killer named Ayman Kalfa who had been sentenced to death. He had been imprisoned and, like so many other criminals, only got out because of the revolution. We are being ruled by murderers.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Derna has been sealed off. I am only able to eat one meal a day and I am worried that there soon won’t be anything to eat at all.

I haven’t left my apartment for days now. We haven’t had any electricity for 35 hours. No Internet. No information.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Yesterday one of the armed groups with IS executed two officers of our army.

They call them “halal” killings. What this means is that IS fighters believe it is OK to kill if someone disagrees with the ideology of their militia leader.

They simple annihilate you if you have a different opinion – in the name of Allah.

Heavily armed IS combatants

Monday, April 20, 2015

Today they crucified three brothers from the Mansouri family (also known as the al-Harir family). The whole city listened to the shots being fired back and forth between the Mansouris’ compound and the IS fighters. It began yesterday at 6 a.m. in the morning and ended at 3 a.m. at night. The Mansouris knew they would die. But they stood up against the savagery. For us, they are heroes.

The IS’ rule is unjust and brutal. The Libyans will not go on accepting this for an eternity. As of today, we know this with certainty.

They had been searching for Hamida, one of the four Mansouri brothers, because he had allegedly killed a person. They wanted to try him in an IS court.

It could be true that Hamida committed the murder, but he refused to be convicted by an IS judge.

An IS courier delivered an ultimatum to the family. If Hamida didn’t turn himself in, he warned, the Mansouris’ home would be destroyed.  The Mansouri brothers fought until the very end. They shot and killed three important IS leaders, including the highest ranking, a Yemeni, and they wounded 40 fighters. It was an historical moment. Was it also a turning point?

It’s likely the IS will seek to take revenge on friends of the Mansouris.

I wonder if my number is still saved on one of their phones?

King Idris I., overthrown in 1969 by Gadhafi

Friday, April 24, 2015

As I do every Friday, I visited my grandparents in the Ambich neighborhood today. My grandfather studied agriculture at university many years ago. We went together to the small village mosque, not the big new one. We have been doing this since the IS enthroned its own imams, their prayer leaders in the main mosques. It’s a form of silent protest.
My grandmother made couscous. The whole family was there, including my uncles, aunts, cousins and Maryam. My grandfather is 72 years old. He says we can’t lose our courage, because wrongful regimes can’t maintain power forever.
He tells us about the Italian occupation and the good times of Libyan independence under King Idris I. It was chicken soup for our sad hearts.
Grandfather says that life in Derna in the 1970s and 1980s was shaped by artists and poets. Women would walk around the city on their own, they didn’t wear headscarves and they wore fashionable skirts that weren’t even knee-length. He showed us just how high with his hands, prompting everyone to laugh.  It’s good that Gadhafi is away, he says. Then he throws a scarf over his shoulder and grimaces imperiously in a way that we immediately understand to be a caricature of Gadhafi.
Grandfather is funny, but he’s also smart. Libya is rich, he explains to us, and that is both a blessing and a curse. The people in the West wanted access to the oil, but so too do the religious fanatics. That’s why we went to war. That’s why all the foreign fighters came from Africa and Asia.

The families in Libya now need to stick together. It’s the only way the country can be returned to reason.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

It’s 2 a.m. and I am awoken by the sound of rockets exploding. I go out onto my balcony and see clouds of smoke billowing over the city center. People are dying there again. Do I know them?

My friend Faisal calls me. “They’ve attacked Daesh headquarters!” he says. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for IS.

A suicide attacker had allegedly smuggled a bag with explosives into the old City Hall, which now serves as IS headquarters. The bomb was detonated using a mobile phone.
I’m suddenly feeling exhilarated. I call Nadya. We speak to each other for an hour. I feel hopeful again and I finally fall asleep.

SRMD fighters in the mountains surrounding Derna

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

There are dozens of entries on our local Facebook page. The heart of the IS government in Derna has been hit.

Granddad was right. There will be a time after the IS.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Every Thursday, my friends and I meet up at my place. We’ve known each other since kindergarten. Ashour became a dentist. Said Ahmed works as a car mechanic. We call him the “German machine expert.” Salhin studied management and Nizar lived for a long time in Misrata. We drink lemonade. Nazir slices onions and tomatoes. I put on water for the pasta.
If the crisis persists, Salhin says, he will never be able to earn the money he needs to marry the girl he has loved since he met her on his first day at university. She has warned him that she wouldn’t be able to keep rejecting the offers of other candidates forever.Salhin says a solution needs to be found soon. Only a second intervention by the West can save us now, he says. The West needs to finally take our expectations into consideration, says Ashour. And if they do come, they need to remain in Libya for the long-term and reform the country from the bottom up. Nizar disagrees. “Only we can save ourselves,” he says.
“The Europeans have to intervene at some point,” I argue. “Otherwise the gate from Africa to Europe will remain open.” “What are they waiting for?” asks Said Ahmed. “For us to all be dead?”
Nizar calls from the kitchen. The pasta is ready.

Those who do not attend executions are suspicious

Friday, June 5, 2015

The IS’ militia members drive through the city in pick-ups outfitted with loudspeakers. They order everyone to gather to view the public execution of a postal worker. They say the man worked for the Libyan army and that he’s a traitor.

Those who don’t show up for executions are immediately suspected of opposing Daesh. We all go there – Nizar, Said Ahmed, Salhin and I.

The condemned man is wearing orange overalls, as is so often the case. His executors are covering their faces. I want to take a photo when they sever his head.

When it’s over, I look down to the ground. Then I sneak back home.

 

An SRMD fighter

Monday, June 8, 2015

The corpses always arrive early in the morning. The grounds of the Harish Hospital are guarded by members of the Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade, which belongs to SRMD. Their leader is called Salim Derbi. He is as broad as grandmother’s wedding chest and he has a dark beard. Naturally Salim Derbi is a hardliner, but the residents of Derna view him as a righteous adversary of the IS fighters.

I am looking for Fatallah, a former schoolmate. His brother tells me he has been missing for three days. Fatallah took over my dad’s grocery store two years ago. Things were going well. Perhaps too well.

People disappear because they have money or because they made disparaging remarks about the leaders of certain militias. When they reappear, it’s in the morgue. I hope this won’t be the case with Fatallah.

I pass by the SRMD checkpoint at the entrance to the hospital. The flag of Abu Salim’s militia is flying there, white with black text. IS uses a black flag with white text.

Some of the militiamen are 15 or, at most, 16 years old. They only have thin whiskers on their faces and yet they are carrying fairly expensive radio equipment and weapons. They would rather patrol the streets than go to school.

A man wearing a long shirt and a pointy beard is sitting at the entrance to the hospital. He runs his finger down a handwritten list. I announce myself as a family member. “Fatallah?” the man asks. He then leads me to the examining room. These days, they are even bringing dying people to Harish Hospital, even though there isn’t even an emergency room here.

The more modern Al Wahda Hospital has been closed for months now. Foreign companies stopped sending replacement parts for the high-tech equipment there and the MRI device from Germany is no longer working. The company no longer has any representatives in Libya.

Five men are lying next to each other on blankets on the floor — old men with gray beards — and a child. Their clothes are dirty, covered in blood and full of dust. Three of the old men look as if they may no longer be alive. One moans and groans. Fatallah isn’t among them.

“Do you want to go inside the morgue,” the bearded man asks, pointing to a steel door behind him.

I start to feel sick to my stomach. I thank him and I hurry back to my car.

SRMD boss Salim Derbi

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

The battle between IS and the Shura Council of the Mujahedeen in Derna is in full swing. We hear shots and the impact of rockets. I stay at home, where it is safest.

Deash has killed Salim Derbi, the leader of the Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade. Although not everyone liked him, they all respected him. Members of SRMD are unlikely to stand for what has happened. (Editor’s note: It was later determined that Derbi had actually been the victim of friendly fire from his own men.)

I call Faisal. We analyze who we think is stronger: IS or SRMD? And, of course, we hope that SRMD will prevail.

SRMD has conquered the city.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Salah is back. He’s standing at the Al-Khadra Market where he is directing traffic. I holler with delight when I see his photo on Facebook. I jump into the car and drive to the old city center. People are in a festive mood. They wave at Salah as they drive by his pedestal.

Daesh is no longer in Derna. SRMD has driven them out. IS will try to return, but for now the Islamists are sitting in the mountains. Armed SRMD fighters stand at the side of the street.

Never would I have thought that I would ever be pleased that my city was now being governed by an al-Qaida militia.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A YouTube video shows a uniformed IS fighter. He admits defeat. He says they lost Derna but that they will take revenge for their comrades who have been killed very soon.

We know the threat is still very real. We continue to live in purgatory.

I call Nadya and tell her that I love her more than anything else.

Monday, July 27, 2015

I would have loved to have seen it with my own eyes. The leader of IS was captured and they dragged him naked through the streets of Derna. They later hanged him. I laughed until I had tears in my eyes when I heard about it.

It only occurred to me later that night that I had laughed about the humiliation and death of a human being.

What has become of us is shameful. But Islamic State – they aren’t people.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Alcohol is available for sale again. I don’t drink alcohol myself, but I think that is something each person has to decide himself together with his God. All I know is that those who ban alcohol and cigarettes aren’t popular in Libya.

The most important thing is that there are no longer any “Tawba,” or repentance, stations where IS forced police and officials to make “atonement” payments.

Friday, August 7, 2015

My friend Ashour was here today. His cousins are fighters with the Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade.

From them he learned about the real reason local fighters from Derna decided to challenge the Islamic State.

IS wanted to grab the list of all the young widows of our perished fighters. They wanted to force them to marry their fighters. The bastards.

The men of Derna didn’t let them. They fought for the honor of the women here.

Sunday, August 9

The IS is back. Nadya told me. She’s beside herself. Her Aunt Asma lives in the eastern part of the city and the IS is attacking Derna from the mountains.

There was a major explosion right behind Asma’s house, a car bomb with many dead and injured. Asma is a nurse and she ran over to help them. Now she’s sitting at home crying.

IS won’t enter the city. It’s now just trying to free a path for itself through the desert, but it is surrounding by SRMD militiamen.

And General Haftar, the leader of the official government army, is cutting off their supply lines so that they are unable to bring any new fighters or weapons via the coast near Derna, Misrata or Sirt. He is cutting off the desert paths as well. Haftar’s troops are at the gates of the city, where they are controlling the sea routes. Islamic state has become a lion in a cage.

If Asma leaves, then the house will be left empty, but if she stays she will be in danger. Would should Nadya advise her to do?

Who knows what will happen next.

On August 9, we lost contact with Farrah Schennib. Since then, there has been no contact by telephone, no email. It has been reported that all connections to Derna are dead because there is no electricity there.

A friend of our translator, Salah Ngab, is soon expected to travel from Derna to Benghazi. We hope that he will bring back news of Farrah Schennib.

Susanne Koelbl is a reporter with SPIEGEL’s foreign desk and is often on assignment in crisis regions. She last traveled to Libya during the summer of 2014.

Salah Ngab is a Libyan politician who fled from extremists and came to Germany five months ago. Ngab assisted with the translation of this diary and the difficult task of keeping up contact and passing on information about precise events in Derna.

How the Diary Came into Being

Derna? Very difficult! That, at least, is what human rights organizations and journalists say who are still conducting research and reporting on the ground in Libya. It’s too remote, they said of the city, which became the first to fall into the hands of Islamist extremists after Gadhafi’s fall and was then taken over by Islamic State (IS) in autumn 2014. But we wanted a better idea of what is happening there.

SPIEGEL international affairs reporter Susanne Koelbl and Libyan politician Salah Ngab, who fled from extremists to Germany five months ago and helped to translate this diary, established contact with photographer Farrah Schennib. The young man, a resident of Derna, is as reflective as he is courageous. In him, they found a young man who was willing to pen a diary about his daily experiences in a world defined on one side by Salafist militias and on the other by the butchers of the IS.

The three had little idea how difficult it would be to maintain contact and to impart what was happening on the other side of the Mediterranean. Over the course of five months, they had telephone conversations in which they had to scream in order to be heard. They exchanged emails and even Skyped when there was electricity. The diary ends on August 9, the day we lost contact with Schennib.

In his last entry, he wrote: “Islamic State has become a lion in a cage. … Who knows what will happen next.”