QATAR’S SUPPORT OF THE WORST OF THE WORST IN LIBYA MUST END


QATAR’S SUPPORT OF THE WORST OF THE WORST IN LIBYA MUST END

By

Libyans wave their new national flag (L) and Qatar’s flag during a ceremony announcing the liberation for the country in the eastern city of Benghazi on October 23, 2011 three days after ousted despot Moamer Kadhafi was captured and killed. Photo: Abdullah Doma/AFP/Getty

 

Libya’s eastern-based government joined Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt in cutting ties with Qatar in June, with Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Deri asserting that Doha was “harboring terrorism.” The move reflected longstanding grievances expressed by Libya’s non-Islamist forces about Qatar’s sponsorship of extremists in the war-torn country. And while the meddling in Libya doesn’t get a lot of coverage, it remains one of the key grievances of Qatar’s foes in the current diplomatic crisis.

Since the 2011 revolution, Libya has been the site of a rather nasty proxy war. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other traditional Gulf states have backed the eastern-based government and Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA). Seeking a more Islamist order in Libya, Qatar and Turkey backed the Muslim Brotherhood, and more recently, the Tripoli-based General National Congress (GNC).

According to press reports, Qatar has been sending massive amounts of weapons and cash to Islamist militants battling the Western-backed government in Libya. A March 2013 U.N. report noted that in 2011 and 2012, Qatar violated the U.N. arms embargo by “providing military material to the revolutionary forces through the organization of a large number of flights and the deliveries of a range of arms and ammunition.”

And according to another report in the Egyptian al-Masry al-Youm, Doha has provided more than 750 million euros ($890 million) to extremist groups in Libya since 2011. Arab officials believe that this assistance arrives in Western Libya by way of a commercial airline that is bankrolled by Qatar.

But the Arab states are not simply bothered by Qatar’s support for garden variety Islamists. They allege that Qatar is directly backing the worst of the worst. And they appear to be correct.

According to Kristian Coates Ulrichsen of the Baker Institute for Public Policy, “Qatar developed close links with key Islamist militia commanders [in Libya] such as Abdelhakim Belhadj, once the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and, in 2011, the commander of the Tripoli Brigade.” The LIFG is an al-Qaeda affiliate group that was sanctioned by both the United States and the United Nations.

Belhadj twice met with Osama bin Laden, and he was detained by the CIA in 2004. He launched Hizb al-Watan in 2012, which Arab officials say has maintained close ties to LIFG and received continued support from Qatar.

Ulrichsen also notes the connection between Qatar and “Ismael al-Salabi, the leader of one of the best-supplied rebel militias, the Rafallah al-Sahati Companies. Qatar was widely suspected of arming and funding al-Salabi’s group, whose sudden munificence of resources in 2011 earned it the nickname of the ‘Ferrari 17 Brigade.’”

Ismael al-Salabi’s brother, Ali al-Salabi, is a prominent Libyan cleric close to the emir of Qatar. One Egyptian source claims that he maintains close ties to the LIFG. This is a claim echoed by Arab officials familiar with the situation in Libya.

On June 8, the LNA held a press conference alleging proof of Qatar’s malign role in Libya. The LNA charged that Qatari intelligence General Salim Ali al-Jarboui supported al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Muslim Brotherhood by transferring $8 billion from the Qatari Tunisian National Bank to the Housing Bank of Tataouine Governorate in southern Tunisia.

According to the LNA, Qatar supported the assassination of senior officials, facilitated training of Islamist extremists by Hamas, and helped transport Libyan Islamists to Syria. The LNA also presented a letter purportedly penned by Mohammed Hamad Al Hajri, acting charge d’affaires at the Qatar Embassy in Libya, alleging that Qatar had deployed military units to the country.

In June, when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt first issued theirterrorist list” of 59 individuals and 12 entities linked to Qatar, it included one entity (the Benghazi Defense Brigades) and five individuals from Libya. The LNA then released a second list of 75 Libyan individuals and nine organizations tied to Qatar. A third list, issued by the Arab states in late July, include two individuals and six organizations reportedly based in Libya. One highlight of the first list includes Al-Sadiq Abd al-Rahman Ali al-Ghiryani, who previously served the Grand Mufti of Libya, who has called for the destruction of the eastern government.

The allegations of Qatari malign behavior in Libya continue. The Libyan army spokesman just last week described Qatar, Sudan, and Turkey as “the triad of terrorism” in Libya. He also stated that, “a number of Qatari aircraft are regularly landing in Libya in 2017 to support terrorist groups.”

The Libyan war is not likely to be solved anytime soon. Nor is the Gulf crisis with Qatar, for that matter. But putting a stop to Qatar’s meddling in Libya might make it easier to solve both.

Advertisements

Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think


Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think

By Michael Flynn

A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.

But new evidence — and a review of the public record — reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on “inaccurate intelligence” and “erroneous assumptions.” Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element,” and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the “growth of ISIL” in North Africa.

However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.

False pretenses

The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.

Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.

The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.

The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.

But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.

Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.

Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.

While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.

The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.

As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”

These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.

Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.

Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.

Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law — again.

Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.

USA returns to Libya with a genocidal military campaign without “endpoint”


USA returns to Libya with a genocidal military campaign without “endpoint”

US criminal and irrational barbarity Western complicity in genocide against the people of Libya

It had long US He planned to extend its military campaign against the Islamic State in Libya

 The actual data more than 240 thousand dead

On August 1 US  bombed  first positions of the Islamic State  in the Libyan city of Sirte.

As noted by the portal  Intercept , attacks represent a significant escalation in the US war against the Islamic State, which now develops far beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq. The attacks were carried out without the authorization of Congress or any prior debate.

“We want to attack the Islamic State wherever lift his head. Libya is one of those places,” said Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook.

According to Cook, air strikes “will continue as long as [the Government of Libya] the request” and have “an end point at this particular time.”

It had long US planned to extend its military campaign in Libya. In January, General Joseph Dunford the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs United States, told reporters that the country was preparing to take “decisive military action against the Islamic State” in Libya.

Does the Pentagon little memory?

The bombings in Libya surprised those who remember the consequences of military intervention in this country in 2011. “The US intervention in Libya was such a resounding success that awaits us a second part,” he quipped one of the founders of Intercept Glenn Greenwald.

The ‘New York Times’  described  the plan as “very worrying” and said it represented a “significant advance of a war that could easily spread to other countries in the continent.”

In 2011 US He led the air campaign  NATO  to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.However, after the assassination of the dictator, the country was plunged into a chaos that has lasted for years. Later President  Barack Obama  confessed that lack of planning on replacing Gaddafi was his “worst mistake” as thousands of fighters of the Islamic State invaded the country.

And now US returns to Libya. Cook stressed that Washington “is prepared to carry out more air strikes”, but has not provided details of the operation on Monday, even accurate data on victims of the attack.

Libya: Suicide bombing against military leaves at least 23 dead and dozens injured

At least 23 people were killed and 20 others wounded in a suicide attack Tuesday against a group of soldiers in the Libyan city of Benghazi, northwest, reports the agency  RIA Novosti .

Reportedly, the attack was carried out using a car bomb. At the moment no terrorist organization has claimed responsibility for the attack. In Benghazi, troops controlled by Parliament based in Tobruk, contrary to the Government of Tripoli, fighting the jihadists groups Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

Source: https://actualidad.rt.com

USA OPENS ANOTHER MILITARY FRONT AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE

deceptively brandishing the infamous authorization puppet regime of Fayez al-Sarraj, this August 1st, by direct order of slave slave Obama, the US imperialist army has gone into action against ISIS in Libya.Indeed, by orders Pentagon has begun aerial bombardment against the city of Sirte, located between Tripoli and Benghazi, and martyred in the North African country.

Peter Cook, a Pentagon spokesman, said: “At the request of the Libyan government of national unity” -not laugh, please, which is seriously N QG- “US military conducted airstrikes against targets precise ISIS. in Sirte, Libya. “and often he remarked that” the United States stands with the international community in supporting the national unity government and its struggle to restore stability and security in Libya. “so, auto justification wolf his new depredation harm the Libyan people.

 With such a statement from his spokesman, he is given by officially initiated, by such imperialist superpower War Imperialist Aggression US-led coalition against Libya.Coalition who they are part, among others, England, France, Italy, Spain and presumably Belgium.

 For his part, President Obama, liveried footman of white supremacists and Yankees hegemonistic, read the mandate have dictated the fascist military of the Pentagon that “operations … are consistent with our approach to combat ISIS, working with forces competent local and motivated. “

 Meanwhile the puppet of Tripoli Fayez al-Sarraz, very loose tongue has exposed its sad role of traitor and accomplice of the new slaughter of his people, through television said: “We have inflicted heavy losses on terrorists” (read anti-imperialist fighters loyal to Libyan EI).

URGENT -Tunisian man appeals for help to bring his 3-year-old nephew from Libya, authorities refuse


Tunisian man appeals for help to bring his 3-year-old nephew from Libya, authorities refuse

Libya is deteriorating and is entering to its worse era of a failed state and division I beg my readers  to show their humanity for this child. Personally I have no connections to the family but this infant is all alone in a Libyan hospital with his mother put into jail reasons unknown, but in Libya you don’t have to do anything just look somebody side ways and they will put you in jail. Anyway I am sure that all of us have still a drop of humanity in us to help this little boy.

Here is the link from the Libyan Observer:http://www.libyaobserver.ly/news/tunisian-man-appeals-help-bring-his-3-year-old-nephew-libya-authorities-refuse

MAKE IT VIRAL MAYBE THEN THE TUNISIAN OFFICIALS AND THE UN-GOVERNMENT OF LIBYA WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About


The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

by JoanneM

Here’s what Members of both parties desperately avoided bringing up at the Benghazi hearing this week: the US knew its partners in Libya were jihadist terrorists and the Benghazi “consulate” was a CIA facility to smuggle weapons and terrorists from Libya to Syria for the next “regime change.” This is no conspiracy: it was openly covered in the media right after the attack.
The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

GREAT ARTICLE POSTED FROM DR RON PAUL INSTITUTE
_____________________________________________________________________
The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About
Written by James George Jatras
Friday October 23, 2015

As I write this, Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the House panel investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks that killed four Americans is still going on. I wasn’t able to listen to all of it live, and will plow through the transcript in due course.

Two things already are notable: one concerning the impact of the hearing itself – plus another aspect marked only by the sound of crickets chirping.

First, as one would have expected, the hearing has generated more heat than light. As has been the case to date, Republican lawmakers seem mainly interested in granular details of the State Department’s bureaucratic handling of the Benghazi post’s requests for more security, what did then-Secretary Clinton know and when did she know it, whether help could have and should have been sent and who stopped any such attempt, whether prompt action might have changed the outcome, questionable claims regarding a movie riling up the Muslim rabble, Hillary’s reliance on the expertise (or lack thereof) of Sidney Blumenthal, and all the other back-and-forth that’s dominated the issue since the events in question.

Democrats predictably shilled for her, the poor innocent victim of a GOP Star Chamber.

In short, nothing new.

Hillary boosters will be reinforced in their conviction that the inquiry is a witch hunt to hurt political prospects of the still-presumptive (especially with “Uncle Joe” Biden’s declining to run) Democratic presidential nominee. In supporting that conviction, the ill-phrased comments of abortive House Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy were a godsend.

Conversely, Hillary-haters (who outnumber her fans, according to polling) will be buttressed in their conviction that she’s a lying incompetent with the blood of four Americans on her hands. (There’s nothing wrong with a witch hunt if you catch a real witch.)

Aside from digging Americans more firmly into the partisan points of view they already hold, little of importance is likely to result.

Which is unfortunate, because the hearing could have been a watershed in American foreign policy if someone on either side of the aisle had wished to pillory Hillary on an issue that screams out for public answers. But certainly no Democrat would do so for partisan reasons, and no Republican seemed to care. (One can only wish that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, or both, had been on that panel!)

That issue is what was really going on in Benghazi. Unremarked upon from the lawmakers’ bench was Clinton’s admission that the post in Benghazi was not a consulate, as it is uniformly reported in the media. She did refer several times to the CIA compound.

No Sherlock Holmes is needed here. The facts have been in plain sight for over three years. As just one example, the following is a good summary from October 2012, barely a month after the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

‘There’s growing evidence that US agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official US liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that an FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the US surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the US consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at [the] rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.’

“How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria,” Business Insider, by Michael B Kelley, October 19, 2012

In short, to an extent still undisclosed to the American people, US agencies (and specifically the CIA) were at least aware of – and almost certainly complicit in – a pipeline to ship weapons from Gaddafi’s captured stocks to jihad terrorists in Syria seeking to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The key actors were jihadists, including elements of al-Qaeda, that NATO had assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi.

Shockingly, such savages don’t always remain on the leash and sometimes bite the hand that fed them. In a word, the Benghazi debacle was blowback from a “regime change” operation in which our allies and clients were the very terrorists we’ve been told for 14 years by both parties are the greatest threat to Americans’ lives and freedoms.

It’s then clear why Republican Congressmen declined to grill Hill’ on the details of our canoodling with terrorists: to do so would be to call into question the bipartisan penchant for supporting jihadists in multiple conflicts. Perpetuating a pattern established no later than the 1980s in Afghanistan (under Ronald Reagan, when at least Cold War vicissitudes could be considered a partial excuse), terrorists inspired by Saudi Wahhabist ideology were “our guys” in Bosnia and Kosovo (under Bill Clinton) and in Libya (under Barack Obama).

While the presidents in the post-Cold War cases were Democrats, most Republican criticism was not that supporting people of that ilk was a bad idea but that, respectively, Clinton or Obama wasn’t moving decisively enough to empower the terrorists. Hence, the familiar refrain that Obama was “leading from behind” in Libya. If only we had moved faster, critics claimed, pro-American, democratic “moderates” might have gained power . . . Sure.

The same pattern continues today, in Syria. Just this week, in light of Russia’s airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), the al-Nusra Front (the official al-Qaeda affiliate), Ahrar al-Sham, and other jihadists, the Obama administration boldly responded – with arms drops to “trusted” terrorists. Having been up to their elbows in supporting jihad in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Gulf States are now doubling down on their aid to terror groups in Syria, while publicly members of the US-led “anti-ISIL coalition.” Some allies.

And where is the GOP? Aside from a few noble exceptions, Republicans are faulting Obama for not providing more help to the jihadists, even joining with none other than Hillary Clinton in calling for a no-fly zone. How little we’ve learned.

Other angles could also have been explored at the hearing, such as Hillary’s faux Caesaresque cackle regarding Gaddafi’s murder: “We came, we saw, he died!” One yearns to ask her if extrajudicial murder of foreign heads of state is now official US policy, or is that just her private peccadillo? Can she suggest a list of other countries’ leaders who, without benefit of trial, should have a knife shoved up their rectum, then get shot in the head?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Article link: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/23/t…