Impact of the slaughter of Brak, Wadi Shati, Fezzan, Libya


Impact of the slaughter of Brak, Wadi Shati, Fezzan, Libya

The murder of 143 people at the base of Brak in Wadi Shati about 750 km south of Libya in the desert by the armed bands of Misratah, supported by the West, it’s a crime atrocious war and the worst in this small city ​​and area in the desert. People were celebrating because they had signed a cease-fire with all the armed bands of Misratah by the proximity of the start of Ramadan. The killing has no justification nor forgiveness, and even less knowing the anger of psychopaths who have used after shooting people, they passed them over with the car and / or slaughtered and / or burned.

The repercussions of the massacre Sands Brak Wadi Shati:

The House of Representatives condemned the operation and declares 3 days of mourning

The interim government condemned the operation

The Libyan army commander threatens a quick response.

The Council of State has not shown any reaction

Members of the third force (Misratah) threaten to show recorded audios showing Barghouthi Defense Minister and President Al-Sarraj and KAGMAN (member of the presidency), giving instructions for carrying out the slaughter of Brak.

People’s Libyan National Movement condemns the slaughter.

The elders and sages of Southern Libya have declared that give two days a third force (Misratah armed bands) to abandon southern Libya without restrictions or conditions.

International reactions

  1. The British ambassador to Libya condemned the operation and called WAR CRIME
  2. The UN envoy in Libya, M. Kobler, condemned the operation and called for calm.
  3. The Egyptian government condemns the operation.
  4. The Italian newspaper “La Republica” published today that the slaughter in the sands of Brak was made by Mhadi Barghoudi without having thought that the impact would be very serious.

    We can see clear absences international recognition of this terrible war crime and psychopaths sent to carry it out. We must never forget that the mercenaries trained to kill and turned into psychopaths are just the tool for the real culprits who are not in Libya, do not speak and if they do is to lie. 

    It is also very important to check the media repercussions against a single death from Western aggressors against the killing of 143 Libyans.  

Al-Siraj has decided to suspend from office Al-Mahdi Al-Barghouthi and Jamal-Triki to be subjected to an investigation into the causes of the slaughter of Brak.

The president of the Council urged the suspension from office Colonel Mahdi Albergta as defense minister for a thorough investigation on the slaughter of Brak

 Weapons and ammunition armed gangs attacked Brak. Found in a building in Brak

                       Armed bands from Misratah way to Brak

information received Directly from eyewitnesses
Leonor Massanet

Advertisements

Libya Tribes leader: Trump’s travel restrictions justified, terrorists using fake Libyan passports to enter U.S.


Libya Tribes leader: Trump’s travel restrictions justified, terrorists using fake Libyan passports to enter U.S.

ByHarrison Koehli
Sott.net

Passports of Syrian mercenaries who come to Libya to receive new identities.

In his first week in office, President Trump signed an order temporarily freezing immigration from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Libya. According to Trump, the order’s purpose was to “keep America safe” by blocking groups of people who can not yet be properly vetted. Trump’s critics labeled the order a ‘Muslim ban’, deeming it unfair, mean-spirited, and racist. One recent editorial even criticizes Trump for playing up “the imaginary threat of terrorists” from the countries in question.

Now, after the U.S. court of appeals upheld federal judge Robart’s restraining order on the executive order, it appears that Trump plans to sign a new executive order before, or perhaps alternatively to, the appeal to the Supreme Court. But the question remains: is the executive order unreasonable? And is the terrorist threat ‘imaginary’?

Libyan tribal leader Sheikh Khaled Tantoush doesn’t think so. Sheikh Tantoush, a fierce critic of the jihadist movements and one of Libya’s most esteemed clerics, was captured by Libyan “rebels” in Sirte in 2011 along with Colonel Gaddafi. He performed the final Islamic rites over Gaddafi’s body after he was murdered, and the Sheikh himself was subsequently imprisoned and tortured. In a 2013 show trial he was sentenced to life in prison on trumped-up charges of “glorifying Gaddafi”, but was released last month after spending over five years in prison.

In his first interview with Western media since his release from rebel captivity, Sheikh Khaled told SOTT.net that the so-called Muslim ban is meaningless to the vast majority of ordinary Libyans, who find it difficult enough to move from city to city, let alone leave the country for the U.S. There is an extreme cash shortage in the country, and the only Libyans with the means to come to the U.S. are mostly criminals and terrorists. He said:

A small number [of Libyans] might travel to the USA for studying, but the others [who travel] are traitors who have been working for and are paid for by the US government. The majority of Libyans don’t care about this ban, because we are struggling to travel from one city to another in Libya… The real Libyans don’t care to travel to the USA. They care about finding a solution for Libya. This [travel ban] is a small thing for us.

Syrian President Assad gave a similar assessment of the ‘ban’ on Syrians, telling Yahoo News that it is “an American issue” and that his responsibility is simply to restore stability in his country, “in order to bring [the refugees] back”. When asked if he thought some of the refugees are aligned with terrorists, he replied, “Definitely.”

Passports for Al-Qaeda

James and JoAnne Moriarty, the only official American spokespersons of the tribes of Libya, say the problem in Libya is even worse. In 2011, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood “rebels” took over all ministries of the Libyan government, including the passport office of the Libyan Interior Ministry in charge of Border Control and Strategic Institutions, which was put under the control of one Abdul Wahhab Hassan Qayed. Qayed’s brother was Abu Bakr Hassan Qayed (aka Abu Yahya al-Libi), a top-level al-Qaeda operative who was killed by U.S. drones in June of 2012.

 

The man in charge of the Libyan passport office after NATO’s invasion (right).

As JoAnne Moriarty put it, “Al Qaeda controlled the passport office right after the fall of Libya and was issuing Libyan passports to foreign mercenaries as fast as they came across the border.” For example, back in February 2014, the Libyans caught five spies from Qatar carrying fraudulent Libyan passports (including Qatari intelligence officer Abdel-Hadi Saleh Al-Rushaydi, Faraj Saleh Al-Mansour Jatlawi, and Ali Al-Mohamad Sadeq-Obaidi). The spies told Libyan authorities that the passports were provided to them by the CIA during NATO’s war on Libya in 2011 (see this article for pictures and a video of their arrest).

A fake Libyan passport provided to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist Abdelhakim Belhadj, created 26 May 2011, 3 months after the start of the war, 2 months after his release from Libyan prison.

Belhadj’s fake passport, made out in the name of “Salem Al Elwani”. Notice the occupation: “Free Trade.”

 

Another fake Libyan passport (Left) provided to an Egyptian mercenary (Ahmed Salh Amwer Salh). On the right is his Egyptian passport. Caption says: “Picture of Egyptian terrorist sent from Dorna with a fake Libyan passport to bomb an Arab airport. The passport number sequence was stolen from Tripoli but wasn’t issued by any recognized Libyan department.”

This identity-laundering scheme in Libya – where an untold number, likely in the thousands, of jihadi mercenaries exchanged their old ‘terrorist’ identities for fresh post-Gaddafi Libyan ones – became so bad that Morocco had to introduce a visa requirement for Libya due to the prevalence of fraudulent passports. In one month alone the Moroccans caught 285 foreigners carrying Libyan passports – from Pakistan, Chechnya, Mozambique, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

The Moriartys told SOTT.net that the Libyan rebels used their control of the passport office not only to issue fake identities and passports to their fellow terrorists, but also to distribute funds to them, providing millions of dollars to English-speaking fighters sent to the U.S., where they were routinely passed through immigration and were given green cards or multiple-entry visas, at a rate of 100 to 1,000 per month:

“The rate [of entries into the United States] was 100 a month, moving up to 1,000 a month. They have been processing people through Libya since October of 2011 into the United States. They’ve been doing the same thing into France, same thing into Germany.”

James Moriarty went on to say that he has spoken to a pilot who flew out of Syria (now deceased), who told the Moriartys that he was part of caravan of three 747s that “picked up over 700 men each in Syria and flew them to the United States”, to an airport in New York. The pilots were then “required to sign a 21-page non-disclosure agreement that included guaranteed jail-time if they ever spoke about it.” This pilot told the Moriartys that upon landing, U.S. government officials gave these men passports and “buckets of money”.

The Moriartys hope that this information about the prevalence of Libyan passports provided to terrorists will influence the U.S. government to stop this from happening. At the very least, officials need to vet everyone who has traveled into the States from Libya since 2011. As for those who continue to come, the Libyan tribes have extended an offer to President Trump to cooperate with American officials.They know who most of these people are because they became notorious in Libya over the last six years of causing bloody mayhem there.

Libyan Tribes Endorse Trump, Want To Work Together

In March of 2016, the Tribal Leaders of Libya officially endorsed Trump for the office of President of the USA. In their message to Trump on behalf of the Tribes, the Moriartys wrote:

“The people of Libya reiterate their pledge to eliminate all the radical Islamists in Libya as soon as the U.S. stops support of these entities in their country. Thereafter, the Great Tribes of Libya have pledged to go country-to-country joining hands with other Tribes of the Middle east, and you as President of the United States, to eliminate radical Islam worldwide.”

As the Moriartys told SOTT.net on 12 February, this offer still stands. The Tribes are the only Libyans who know who’s who in Libya. As such, they are willing and able to work with the Americans to vet any individuals entering the United States from Libya, or carrying Libyan papers.

The Tribal Leaders are the only legitimate representatives of Libya’s approximately 6 million citizens. These ordinary Libyans, who make up 95+% of the Libyan population, have suffered for six years under the rule of violent jihadist groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar al-Sharia, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, all of whom were shepherded into the country by Western government agents and their clients in the Middle East. They are natural allies in the fight against the jihadists – not the illegitimate “governments” set up by the terrorists and their supporters.

Gaddafi’s Ghosts: Return of the Libyan Jamahiriya


Gaddafi’s Ghosts: Return of the Libyan Jamahiriya

by dan glazebrook

When NATO murdered Gaddafi and blitzed his country in 2011, they hoped the socialist “Jamahiriya” movement he led would be dead and buried. Now his son has been released from prison to a hero’s welcome with his movement increasingly in the ascendancy.

There were various moments during NATO’s destruction of Libya that were supposed to symbolically crown Western supremacy over Libya and its institutions (and, by implication, over all African and Arab peoples): the “fall of Tripoli” in August 2011; Cameron and Sarkozy’s victory speeches the following month; the lynch-mob execution of Muammar Gaddafi that came soon after. All of them were pyrrhic victories – but none more so than the death sentence handed down to Gaddafi’s son (and effective deputy leader) Saif al-Gaddafi in July 2015.

Saif had been captured by the Zintan militia shortly after his father and brother were killed by NATO’s death squads in late 2011. The International Criminal Court – a neocolonial farce which has only ever indicted Africans – demanded he be handed over to them, but the Zintan – fiercely patriotic despite having fought with NATO against Gaddafi – refused. Over the next two years the country descended into the chaos and societal collapse that Gaddafi had predicted, sliding inexorably towards civil war.

By 2014, the country’s militias had coalesced around two main groupings – the Libyan National Army, composed of those who supported the newly elected, and mainly secular, House of Representatives; and the Libya Dawn coalition, composed of the militias who supported the Islamist parties that had dominated the country’s previous parliament but refused to recognize their defeat at the polls in 2014. After fierce fighting, the Libya Dawn faction took control of Tripoli. It was there that Saif, along with dozens of other officials of the Jamahiriya – the Libyan “People’s State” which Gaddafi had led – were put on trial for their life. However, once again the Zintan militia – allied to the Libyan National Army – refused to hand him over.

After a trial condemned by human rights groups as “riddled with legal flaws,” in a court system dominated by the Libya Dawn militias, an absent Saif was sentenced to death, along with eight other former government officials. The trial was never recognized by the elected government, by then relocated to Tobruk. A gloating Western media made sure to inform the world of the death sentence, which they hoped would extinguish forever the Libyan people’s hopes for a restoration of the independence, peace and prosperity his family name had come to represent.

It was a hope that would soon be dashed. Less than a year later, the France 24 news agency arranged an interview with Saif Al Gaddafi’s lawyer Karim Khan in which he revealed to the world that Saif had in fact, “been given his liberty on April 12, 2016,” in accordance with the amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament the previous year. Given the crowing over Saif’s death sentence the previous year, and his indictment by the International Criminal Court, this was a major story. Yet, by and large, it was one the Western media chose to steadfastly ignore – indeed, the BBC did not breathe a single word about it.

What is so significant about his release, however, is what it represents: the recognition, by Libya’s elected authorities, that there is no future for Libya without the involvement of the Jamahiriya movement.

The truth is, this movement never went away. Rather, having been forced underground in 2011, it has been increasingly coming out into the open, building up its support amongst a population sick of the depravities and deprivations of the post-Gaddafi era.

Exactly five years ago, following the start of the NATO bombing campaign, Libyans came out onto the streets in massive demonstrations in support of their government in Tripoli, Sirte, Zlitan and elsewhere. Even the BBC admitted that “there is no discounting the genuine support that exists,” adding that, “‘Muammar is the love of millions’ was the message written on the hands of women in the square.

Following the US-UK-Qatari invasion of Tripoli the following month, however, the reign of terror by NATO’s death squad militias ensured that public displays of such sentiments could end up costing one’s life. Tens of thousands of “suspected Gaddafi supporters” were rounded up by the militias in makeshift “detention camps” were torture and abuse was rife; around 7,000 are estimated to be there still to this day, and hundreds have been summarily executed.

Black people in particular were targeted, seen as symbolic of the pro-African policies pursued by Gaddafi but hated by the supremacist militias, with the black Libyan town of Tawergha turned into a ghost town overnight as Misratan militias made good on their promise to kill all those who refused to leave. Such activities were effectively legalised by the NATO-imposed “Transitional National Council” whose Laws 37 and 38 decreed that public support for Gaddafi could be punished by life imprisonment and activities taken “in defence of the revolution” would be exempt from prosecution.

Nevertheless, over the years that followed, as the militias turned on each other and the country rapidly fell apart, reports began to suggest that much of southern Libya was slowly coming under the control of Gaddafi’s supporters. On January 18th 2014, an air force base near the southern city of Sabha was taken by Gaddafi loyalists, frightening the new government enough to impose a state of emergency, ban Libya’s two pro-Gaddafi satellite stations, and embark on aerial bombing missions in the south of the country.

But it was, ironically, the passing of the death sentences themselves – intended to extinguish pro-Gaddafi sentiment for good – that triggered the most open and widespread demonstrations of support for the former government so far, with protests held in August 2015 across the country, and even in ISIS-held Sirte. Middle East Eye reported the following from the demonstration in Sabha (in which 7 were killed when militias opened fire on the protesters):
Previous modest pro-Gaddafi celebrations in the town had been overlooked by the Misratan-led Third Force, stationed in Sabha for over a year – originally to act as a peacekeeping force following local clashes.

‘This time, I think the Third Force saw the seriousness of the pro-Gaddafi movement because a demonstration this big has not been seen in the last four years,’ said Mohamed. ‘There were a lot of people, including women and children, and people were not afraid to show their faces … IS had threatened to shoot anyone who protested on Friday, so there were no green flags in towns they control, apart from Sirte, although there are some green flags flying in remote desert areas,’ he said. ‘But if these protests get stronger across the whole of Libya, people will become braver and we will see more green flags. I know many people who are just waiting for the right time to protest.’

In Sirte, demonstrators were fired at by ISIS fighters, who dispersed the group and took away seven people, including four women. The same Middle East Eye report made the following comment:
The protests have been a public representation of a badly kept secret in Libya, that the pro-Gaddafi movement which has existed since the 2011 revolution has grown in strength, born out of dissatisfaction with the way life has worked out for many ordinary citizens in the last four years…[Mohamed] added that some people who had originally supported the 2011 revolution had joined the protests. Most Libyans just want a quiet life. They don’t care who takes over or who controls Libya’s money, they just want a comfortable life. That’s why Gaddafi stayed in power for 42 years. Salaries were paid on time, we had good subsidies on all the essentials and living was cheap.
Mohammed Eljarh, writing in the conservative US journal Foreign Policy, added that:
These pro-Qaddafi protests have the potential to turn into a national movement against the 2011 revolution, not least because a growing number of Libyans are deeply disillusioned by its outcome…there is now a building consensus that the atrocities and abuses committed by post-Qaddafi groups since the revolution exceed by far those committed by the Qaddafi regime during its rule.
At the same time, the Green resistance is becoming an increasingly influential force within the Libyan National Army, representing the country’s elected House of Representatives. Earlier this year, the Tobruk parliament allowed Gaddafi’s widow back into the country, whilst the LNA entered into an alliance with pro-Gaddafi tribes in the country’s East, and began to recruit open supporters of Gaddafi into its military structures. Gaddafi’s Tuareg commander General Ali Kanna, for example, who fled Libya following Gaddafi’s fall in 2011, has now reportedly been welcomed into the LNA. The policy is already bearing fruit, with several territories near Sirte already seized from ISIS by the new allies.

The Jamahiriya, it seems, is back. But then, it never really went away.

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.

 

UN is worried about the Tribes opinion


UN is worried about the Tribes opinion

This information was sent to me by another activist.

I sent you the report of the Secretary General of the UN Mission of Support in Libya UN August 13, 2015, which will be of interest. It is curious that in regard to the “process of political dialogue” (items 4 to 19) the leaders of the Libyan tribes are only refered in point 17 that reports of the meeting in Cairo from 25 to 28 May, and very concise way. Even more curious it is that in the original English, in footnote admits that “for technical reasons” on August 19 has been remade the report of August 13; Well, the only difference between the two reports (that I could find on the net and you send them) is that the first report does not include this point 17, otherwise the two reports in English are identical up to semicolons.
By this I mean that I think the issue of the representatives of the Libyan tribes is a sensitive point for onunistas and otanistas. It seems clear that it is the only element that can achieve the necessary unity and strength to end the Libyan chaos that we see you and me;
Also historically it has always been so, because the Libyan society, as you have taught me, has this tribal structure. Therefore the report, written by those who want a colonial peace in the service of exploitation and usurpation of Libyan resources is spent talking putting equal to the multiple factions and gangs, as if they were subject with which it could and should establish a legitimate dialogue, without showing any effort or motivation onuniano body to approach the positions of those who are the real key to any solution of the problem and that is the advice of the representatives of the great Libyan tribes.
Bad solution is the issue, I see only two exits long-term. One is that the tribes negotiate knowing that peace will prevail colonial and wait their chance when they have finished with bands and chaos; but in this first phase, should make it clear that the otanistas peacefully not take even a drop of oil that both want if there is no peace for all and the pace of civil society is recovered; later, the seeds of the green revolution will re-sprout and to take the new colonial king in power and bourgeois troops have been based in the country. The other possibility is continued resistance until a new structure of international relations emerge, perhaps led by Chinese and Russian leaders, to replace the present bloody arrogant and overbearing “international community”, greedy and that is clearly a historic decline and opposite a probable financial collapse.
 
Here is the original email leaving out the names of the recipients:
Te envío el Informe del Secretario General de la ONU sobre la Misión de Apoyo de las Naciones Unidas en Libia del 13 de agosto de 2015, que será de tu interés. Es curioso que en lo que se refiere al “Proceso del diálogo político” (puntos 4 al 19) sólo se refiere a los líderes de las tribus libias en el punto 17 que informa de la reunión de El Cairo del 25 al 28 de mayo, y de manera muy escueta. Aún más curioso resulta que en el original inglés, a pié de página se admite que “por razones técnicas” el 19 de agosto se ha rehecho el informe del 13 de agosto; bien, pues la única diferencia entre ambos informes (que los pude localizar en la red y también te los mando) es que el primer informe no incluye este punto 17, por lo demás ambos informes en inglés son idénticos hasta en puntos y comas.
Con esto quiero decir que me parece que el asunto de los representantes de las tribus libias es un punto sensible para los onunistas y otanistas. Parece bien claro que es el único elemento que puede conseguir la unidad necesaria y la fuerza para acabar con el caos libio, eso lo vemos tu y yo, y lo deben ver también así estos tipejos; también históricamente ha sido siempre así, porque la sociedad libia, como tú me has enseñado, tiene esa estructura tribal. Por eso el informe, redactado por los que quieren una paz colonial al servicio de la explotación y usurpación de los recursos libios, se dedica a hablar poniendo en pie de igualdad a las múltiples facciones y bandas, como si fueran sujetos con los que se pudiera y debiera establecer un legítimo diálogo, sin reflejar ningún esfuerzo ni motivación del organismo onuniano por acercarse a las posturas de los que son la verdadera llave para cualquier solución del problema y que son los consejos de los representantes de las grandes tribus libias. 
Mala solución tiene el asunto, solo le veo dos salidas a largo plazo. Una, que las tribus negocien sabiendo que se impondrá una paz colonial y que esperen su oportunidad, cuando hayan acabado con las bandas y el caos; pero, en esta primera fase, deben dejar bien claro que los otanistas no se llevarán pacíficamente ni una gota del petróleo que tanto quieren si no hay paz para todos y se recupera el ritmo de la sociedad civil; más adelante, las semillas de la revolución verde volverán a germinar y habrá que echar al nuevo rey colonial de turno y a las tropas burguesas que se hayan afincado en el país. La otra posibilidad es la resistencia continua hasta que una nueva estructura de relaciones internacionales surja, liderada quizás por dirigentes chinos y rusos, que sustituya a la presente “comunidad internacional” arrogante y prepotente, avara y sanguinaria, que se halla en una clara histórica decadencia y enfrente de un probabilísimo derrumbe financiero.