David Cameron, Libya and Disaster


David Cameron, Libya and Disaster

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The UK Foreign Affairs Committee was a long time coming with this judgment, but when it came, it provided a firm reminder about how far the 2011 intervention against the Gaddafi regime was not merely flawed but calamitous in its consequences. There had been no coherent strategy on the part of the Cameron government; the campaign had not been “informed by accurate intelligence.”

For members of the committee, it was clear that the then UK prime minister, David Cameron, had to carry a rather large can on the issue. “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The consequential nature of this bloody and ultimately catastrophic blunder of international relations triggered continental instability, with a foul global aftertaste. The collapse of Libya into territories battled over with sectarian fury and the death of Muammar Gaddafi unsettled the ground in Mali. It also propelled violence through North African and the Middle East.

It is hard to rank the levels of severity in what went wrong in the aftermath of the Libyan collapse. Could a finger be pointed at the militia hothouse that was created within the state? (Tripoli alone currently hosts somewhere up to 150.) What of the external outrage stemming from it?

Near the top must be the conflict in northern Mali, precipitated by members of the Tuareg ethnic group who had long supplied Gaddafi with soldiers. Armed to the teeth, the MNLA, with the assistance of such Islamist groups as Ansar Dine, commenced a separatist action that in turn encouraged interventions by al-Qaeda sponsored Islamist groups.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb eventually became one of the big and most menacing players, busying itself with operations beyond Mali, including Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco.

Meshed between these skirmishing groups were a French-led intervention in 2013 that petered out, followed by a continuing peace keeping operation which has long since ditched the word “peace” in its equation.

Not even the presence of 12,000 UN soldiers under the mission known as MINUSMA has done much to prevent the fraying of that land, despite the June 2015 peace deal. Since 2013, the mission has taken over a hundred casualties, a deal of it occasioned by the ubiquitous landmine and roadside bomb.

While Mali burned with fury, other African states felt the aftershocks, notably through a huge, easily accessible arms market that was not brought under control after Gaddafi’s fall. Marty Reardon, Senior Vice President of The Soufran Group, a US-based security consultancy, surprised no one in telling The Independent that Libya’s implosion led to the arming of “well-armed and militant groups” in Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.[1]

In this belligerent free for all, jihadi groups jostle and scratch for gains, creating a further pool of radicalised fighters who will, in time, find nowhere else to go. The Libyan collapse, in other words, has created a certain type of roving tourist jihadi, notching up points with each campaign.

Crispin Blunt, who chaired the committee, scoldingly suggested that the 2011 intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the country.” This kindergarten world view did not stop there.

Having made a right royal mess, it was incumbent on France and the UK to right the ship, with a “responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction.” This responsibility was also a muddled one, with British and French institution builders profoundly ignorant about local matters. Having pushed Humpty Dumpty over, they showed scant knowledge on how to put him back together.

The sense of culpability for Cameron is further compounded by the nonsense the intervention made of such international humanitarian doctrines as the responsibility to protect. There was always a sense that the French-UK led mission was struggling for a plausible alibi, but recourse to the nonsensical notion of civilian protection reared its head.

That door was opened by the hoovering effect of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised “all necessary means” to protect that most wonderful contrivance, irrespective of what those in the host state thought.[2] Find the civilians and save the day.

While it remains the most insidious of contrivances at international law, that responsibility to protect could be said to have been discharged rapidly – after the initial round of strikes. In the words of the MPs, “If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in March 2011 in less than 24 hours.”

This was not to be. Instead, the intervention ballooned into a monstrous matter of regime change, with no attempt made to “pause military action” when Benghazi was being secured. “This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change by military means.” Docks in international criminal courts should be warmed by such adventurous men.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-report-britain-uk-gaddafi-civil-war-david-cameron-responsible-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-mali-a7309821.html

[2] http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Welsh%20Civilian%20Protection%20in%20Libya.pdf

The original source of this article is Global Research

Pentagon Mercenaries: Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?


Pentagon Mercenaries:
Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?

By Finian Cunningham

CIA-linked private “security” companies are fighting in Yemen for the US-backed Saudi military campaign. Al-Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries are also being deployed. Melding private firms with terror outfits should not surprise. It’s all part of illegal war making.
Western news media scarcely report on the conflict in Yemen, let alone the heavy deployment of Western mercenaries in the fighting there. In the occasional Western report on Al-Qaeda and related terror groups in Yemen, it is usually in the context of intermittent drone strikes carried out by the US, or with the narrative that these militants are “taking advantage” of the chaos “to expand” their presence in the Arabian Peninsula, as reported here by the Washington Post.

This bifurcated Western media view of Yemen belies a more accurate and meaningful perspective, which is that the US-backed Saudi bombing campaign is actually coordinated with an on-the-ground military force that comprises regular troops, private security firms and Al-Qaeda type mercenaries redeployed from Syria.

There can be little doubt in Syria – despite Western denials – that the so-called Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)) jihadists and related Al-Qaeda brigades in Jabhat al-Nusra, Jaish al-Fateh, Ahrar ash-Sham and so on, have been infiltrated, weaponized and deployed for the objective of regime-change by the US and its allies. If that is true for Syria, then it is also true for Yemen. Indeed, the covert connection becomes even more apparent in Yemen.

Last November, the New York Times confirmed what many Yemeni sources had long been saying. That the US-backed Saudi military coalition trying to defeat a popular uprising was relying on mercenaries supplied by private security firms tightly associated with the Pentagon and the CIA.

The mercenaries were recruited by companies linked to Erik Prince, the former US Special Forces commando-turned businessman, who set up Blackwater Worldwide. The latter and its re-branded incarnations, Xe Services and Academi, remain a top private security contractor for the Pentagon, despite employees being convicted for massacring civilians while on duty in Iraq in 2007. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration awarded the contractor more than $200 million in security and CIA work.

Erik Prince, who is based primarily in Virginia where he runs other military training centers, set up a mercenary hub in the United Arab Emirates five years ago with full support from the royal rulers of the oil-rich state. The UAE Company took the name Reflex Responses or R2. The NY Times reported that some 400 mercenaries were dispatched from the Emirates’ training camps to take up assignment in Yemen. Hundreds more are being trained up back in the UAE for the same deployment.

This is just one stream of several “soldiers of fortune” going into Yemen to fight against the uprising led by Houthi rebels, who are in alliance with remnants of the national army. That insurgency succeeded in kicking out the US and Saudi-backed president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in early 2015. Hadi has been described as a foreign puppet, who presided over a corrupt regime of cronyism and vicious repression.

Since last March, the Saudis and other Persian Gulf Arab states have been bombing Yemen on a daily basis in order to overthrow the Houthi-led rebellion and reinstall the exiled Hadi.

Washington and Britain have supplied warplanes and missiles, as well as logistics, in the Saudi-led campaign, which has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. The involvement of Blackwater-type mercenaries – closely associated with the Pentagon – can also be seen as another form of American contribution to the Saudi-led campaign.

The mercenaries sent from the UAE to Yemen are fighting alongside other mercenaries that the Saudis have reportedly enlisted from Sudan, Eritrea and Morocco. Most are former soldiers, who are paid up to $1,000 a week while serving in Yemen. Many of the Blackwater-connected fighters from the UAE are recruited from Latin America: El Salvador, Panama and primarily Colombia, which is considered to have good experience in counter-insurgency combat.

Also among the mercenaries are American, British, French and Australian nationals. They are reportedly deployed in formations along with regular troops from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE.

In recent months, the Houthi rebels (also known as Ansarullah) and their allies from the Yemeni army – who formed a united front called the Popular Committees – have inflicted heavy casualties on the US-Saudi coalition. Hundreds of troops have been reportedly killed in gun battles in the Yemeni provinces of Marib, in the east, and Taiz, to the west. The rebels’ use of Tochka ballistic missiles has had particularly devastating results.

So much so that it is reported that the Blackwater-affiliated mercenaries have “abandoned the Taiz front” after suffering heavy casualties over the last two months. “Most of the Blackwater operatives killed in Yemen were believed to be from Colombia and Argentina; however, there were also casualties from the United States, Australia and France,” Masdar News reports.

Into this murky mix are added extremist Sunni militants who have been dispatched to Yemen from Syria. They can be said to be closely related, if not fully integrated, with Al-Qaeda or IS in that they profess allegiance to a “caliphate” based on a fundamentalist Wahhabi, or Takfiri, ideology.

These militants began arriving in Yemen in large numbers within weeks of Russia’s military intervention in Syria beginning at the end of September, according to Yemeni Army spokesman Brigadier General Sharaf Luqman. Russian air power immediately began inflicting severe losses on the extremists there. Senior Yemeni military sources said that hundreds of IS-affiliated fighters were flown into Yemen’s southern port city of Aden onboard commercial aircraft belonging to Turkey, Qatar and the UAE.

Soon after the militants arrived, Aden residents said the city had descended into a reign of terror. The integrated relationship with the US-Saudi coalition can be deduced from the fact that Aden has served as a key forwarding military base for the coalition. Indeed, it was claimed by Yemen military sources that the newly arrived Takfiri militants were thence dispatched to the front lines in Taiz and Marib, where the Pentagon-affiliated mercenaries and Saudi troops were also assigned.

It is true that the Pentagon at times wages war on Al-Qaeda-related terrorists. The US airstrike in Libya on Friday, which killed some 40 IS operatives at an alleged training camp, is being trumpeted by Washington as a major blow against terrorism. And in Yemen since 2011, the CIA and Pentagon have killed many Al-Qaeda cadres in drone strikes, with the group’s leader being reportedly assassinated last June in a US operation.

Nevertheless, as the broader US-Saudi campaign in Yemen illustrates, the outsourcing of military services to private mercenaries in conjunction with terrorist militia is evidently an arm of covert force for Washington.

This is consistent with how the same groups have been deployed in Syria for the purpose of regime change there.

The blurring of lines between regular military, private security contractors with plush offices in Virginia and Abu Dhabi, and out-and-out terror groups is also appropriate. Given the nature of the illegal wars being waged, it all boils down to state-sponsored terrorism in the end.

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.

Ripped From Hillary’s Emails: French Plot to Overthrow Gaddafi and Help Itself to Libya’s Oil


Ripped From Hillary’s Emails: French Plot to Overthrow Gaddafi and Help Itself to Libya’s Oil

By Conn Hallinan,

“Philosopher“ Bernard Henri-Levy (aka, BHL) worked undercover as a journalist to engineer the deal with Libya, thus paving the way for yet more journalists to be accused of being spies. (Photo: Itzik Edri / Wikimedia Commons)

“Philosopher“ Bernard Henri-Levy (aka, BHL) worked undercover as a journalist to engineer the deal with Libya, thus paving the way for yet more journalists to be accused of being spies. (Photo: Itzik Edri / Wikimedia Commons)

French intelligence plotted to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi to horn in on Libya’s oil and to provide access for French businesses.

For more of Conn Hallinan’s essays visit Dispatches From the Edge. Meanwhile, his novels about the ancient Romans can be found at The Middle Empire Series.

The Congressional harrying of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over emails concerning the 2012 death of an American Ambassador and three staff members in Benghazi, Libya, has become a sort of running joke, with Republicans claiming “cover-up” and Democrats dismissing the whole matter as nothing more than election year politics. But there is indeed a story embedded in the emails, one that is deeply damning of American and French actions in the Libyan civil war, from secretly funding the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi, to the willingness to use journalism as a cover for covert action.

The latest round of emails came to light June 22 in a fit of Republican pique over Clinton’s prevarications concerning whether she solicited intelligence from her advisor, journalist and former aide to President Bill Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal. If most newspaper readers rolled their eyes at this point and decided to check out the ball scores, one can hardly blame them.

But that would be a big mistake.

While the emails do raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s veracity, the real story is how French intelligence plotted to overthrow the Libyan leader in order to claim a hefty slice of Libya’s oil production and “favorable consideration” for French businesses.

The courier in this cynical undertaking was journalist and right-wing philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, a man who has yet to see a civil war that he doesn’t advocate intervening in, from Yugoslavia to Syria. According to Julian Pecquet, the U.S. congressional correspondent for the Turkish publication Al-Monitor, Henri-Levy claims he got French President Nicolas Sarkozy to back the Benghazi-based Libyan Transitional National Council that was quietly being funded by the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), the French CIA.

According to the memos, in return for money and support, “the DGSE officers indicated that they expected the new government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya.” The memo says that the two leaders of the Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil and General Abdul Fatah Younis, “accepted this offer.”

Another May 5 email indicates that French humanitarian flights to Benghazi included officials of the French oil company TOTAL, and representatives of construction firms and defense contractors, who secretly met with Council members and then “discreetly” traveled by road to Egypt, protected by DGSE agents.

Henri-Levy, an inveterate publicity hound, claims to have come up with this quid pro quo, business/regime change scheme, using “his status as a journalist to provide cover for his activities.” Given that journalists are routinely accused of being “foreign agents” in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan, Henri-Levy’s subterfuge endangers other members of the media trying to do their jobs.

All this clandestine maneuvering paid off.

On Feb. 26, 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970 aimed at establishing “peace and security” and protecting the civilian population in the Libyan civil war. Or at least that was how UNR 1970 was sold to countries on the Security Council, like South Africa, Brazil, India, China and Russia, that had initial doubts. However, the French, Americans and British—along with several NATO allies—saw the resolution as an opportunity to overthrow Qaddafi and in France’s case, to get back in the game as a force in the region.

Almost before the ink was dry on the resolution, France, Britain and the U.S. began systematically bombing Qaddafi’s armed forces, ignoring pleas by the African Union to look for a peaceful way to resolve the civil war. According to one memo, President Sarkozy “plans to have France lead the attacks on [Qaddafi] over an extended period of time” and “sees this situation as an opportunity for France to reassert itself as a military power.”

While for France flexing its muscles was an important goal, Al- Monitor says that a September memo also shows that “Sarkozy urged the Libyans to reserve 35 percent of their oil industry for French firms—TOTAL in particular—when he traveled to Tripoli that month.”

In the end, Libya imploded and Paris has actually realized little in the way of oil, but France’s military industrial complex has done extraordinarily well in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall.

According to Defense Minister Jean-Yves Lodrian, French arms sales increased 42 percent from 2012, bringing in $7 billion, and are expected to top almost $8 billion in 2014.

Over the past decade, France, the former colonial masters of Lebanon, Syria, and Algeria, has been sidelined by U.S. and British arms sales to the Middle East. But the Libya war has turned that around. Since then, Paris has carefully courted Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates by taking a hard line on the Iran nuclear talks.

The global security analyst group Stratfor noted in 2013, “France could gain financially from the GCC’s [Gulf Cooperation Council, the organization representing the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf] frustrations over recent U.S. policy in the Middle East. Significant defense contracts worth tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs in the Gulf region, ranging from aircraft to warships to missile systems. France is predominantly competing with Britain and the United States for the contracts and is seeking to position itself as a key ally of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as it looks to strengthen its defense and industrial ties in the region.”

Sure enough, the French company Thales landed a $3.34 billion Saudi contract to upgrade the kingdom’s missile system and France just sold 24 Rafale fighters to Qatar for $7 billion. Discussions are underway with the UAE concerning the Rafale, and France sold 24 of the fighters to Egypt for $5.8 billion. France has also built a military base in the UAE.

French President Francois Hollande, along with his Foreign and Defense ministers, attended the recent GCC meeting, and, according to Hollande, there are 20 projects worth billions of dollars being discussed with Saudi Arabia. While he was in Qatar, Hollande gave a hard-line talk on Iran and guaranteed “that France is there for its allies when it is called upon.”

True to his word, France has thrown up one obstacle after another during the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1—the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

Paris also supports Saudi Arabia and it allies in their bombing war on Yemen, and strongly backs the Saudi-Turkish led overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, even though it means that the French are aligning themselves with al-Qaeda linked extremist groups.

France seems to have its finger in every Middle East disaster, although, to be fair, it is hardly alone. Britain and the U.S. also played major roles in the Libya war, and the Obama administration is deep into the ongoing wars in Syria and Yemen. In the latter case, Washington supplies the Saudis with weapons, targeting intelligence, and in-air refueling of its fighter-bombers.

But the collapse of Libya was a particularly catastrophic event, which—as the African Union accurately predicted—sent a flood of arms and unrest into two continents.

The wars in Mali and Niger are a direct repercussion of Qaddafi’s fall, and the extremist Boko Haram in Nigeria appears to have benefited from the plundering of Libyan arms depots. Fighters and weapons from Libya have turned up in the ranks of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. And the gunmen who killed 22 museum visitors in Tunisia last March, and 38 tourists on a beach July 3, trained with extremists in Libya before carrying out their deadly attacks.

Clinton was aware of everything the French were up to and apparently had little objection to the cold-blooded cynicism behind Paris’s policies in the region.

The “news” in the Benghazi emails, according to the New York Times, is that, after denying it, Clinton may indeed have solicited advice from Blumenthal. The story ends with a piece of petty gossip: Clinton wanted to take credit for Qaddafi’s fall, but the White House stole the limelight by announcing the Libyan leader’s death first.

 

THE REAL ROLE OF KING BERNARDINO LEON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UN IN LIBYA


THE REAL ROLE OF KING BERNARDINO LEON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UN IN LIBYA

My very good friend and activist for Libya did a fantastic work, so without further due  I will post her article and diagram, explaining the role of the UN representative of Libya Bernardino Leon.

 

 

 

KING BERNARDINO LEON IN LIBYA AND HIS ROLE

KING BERNARDINO LEON IN LIBYA AND HIS ROLE

 

Bernardino Leon, the UN envoy to Libya, supposedly to resolve the situation in the country, he has intensified its “work”.

UN REPRESENTATIVE LYON TOGETHER WITH THE MOST WANTED TERRORIST ABDULHAKIM BELHAJ

UN REPRESENTATIVE LYON TOGETHER WITH THE MOST WANTED TERRORIST ABDULHAKIM BELHAJ

Since he arrive in Libya he has participated in all the meetings allegedly to bring Libya to reconciliation, though it does not meet with the Libyan tribes, I mean with the Libyans, or the Libyan People’s National Movement, or with tribal leaders, or with the assembly of elders, or the Tribal Government that was formed when NATO bombed Libya after a three-day meeting in 2011 where more than 3,000 leaders were talking to reaching agreement and elect a group of people who would be responsible of the country in case that Libya need it.
Libyans knew from the beginning of the NATO bombing that aimed to destroy and kill the government Jamahiriyah and knew it would happen as in Iraq. The Libyans have access to all information in the world and made daily television debates, during hours run by political scientists, sociologists, journalists and interviewing people to understand the situation in which they were under the NATO bombing. However, and as much as believed know, no one could even imagine the humanitarian disaster and the destruction of the country under NATO and the United Nations has led to Libya. Libyans stopped to receive information when NATO bombed all media.

Bernardino Leon has been sent by the United Nations to Libya to finish the job of NATO, that is to completely eliminate the control of Libyans or Libyan tribes and divide the country into three: Cyrenaica (eastern North), Tripolitania (northwest ), Fezzan (south).

According Ahmed Warfalla explains, Bernardino Leon is trying to create a government in Libya like in Pakistan, looking for a new Karazi.

The “Libyan rebels”, the new Libyan, and aggressors, like Libya Dawn and the Muslim Brotherhood (Un-muslim Brotherhood) accept the decisions of the United Nations because they work as a team trying to eliminate the vast majority of Libyans and complete the division and invasion of Libya.

Libya has always had a very direct and intense relationship with the United Nations. A person who worked in the Libyan government tells us that Libyan government met twice a week with representatives of the United Nations before 2011, to explain the things that were happening in Libya.

We all know that the United Nations and NATO are the same and now control Libya, under different faces.

At present, under the direction of Bernardino Leon, they are organizing a new government and presumably vote between them, to see who will be in the new government. Obviously the Libyan people not involved in all this dirty game. One of the person inside the government has offered his place selling it for $ 1 million.
These days it is producing a black market for buying / selling “positions” in the new government, which more gangster, thief and others.
Bernardino Leon tries to dissolve the Tobruk Government (Coalition Government) accepted by the International Community, on behalf of the United Nations … the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Bernardino Leon only speaks with Libya Dawn and the Muslim Brotherhood which obviously means that they want to build a government fully controlled by the US and be an Occupation Government

Leonor Massanet

In Spanish

 

Bernardino León, el enviado de la Naciones Unidas a Libia, supuestamente para resolver la situación ha intensificado su “trabajo”.
Desde que llegó a Libia ha participado en todas las reuniones supuestamente para llevar a Libia a la reconciliación, sin embargo no se reúne con las tribus libias, es decir con los libios, ni con el Movimiento Nacional Popular Libio, ni con los líderes tribales, ni con la asamblea de ancianos, ni con el gobierno tribal que se formó cuando la OTAN bombardeaba Libia tras una reunión de tres días en el 2011 donde más de 3000 líderes estuvieron hablando hasta llegar a acuerdos y elegir un grupo de personas que serían las responsables del país en caso de vacío de gobierno.
Los libios sabían desde el principio del bombardeo de la OTAN que pretendían destruir y matar al gobierno de la Jamahiriyah y sabían que iba a ocurrirles lo mismo que en Irak. Los libios tienen acceso a toda la información del mundo y las televisiones hacían diariamente debates de horas dirigidos por politólogos, sociólogos, periodistas, así como entrevistando a la gente para comprender la situación en la que estaban bajo los bombardeos de la OTAN. Sin embargo, y por mucho que creyeran saber, nadie podía ni imaginar el desastre humanitario y la destrucción del país a la que la OTAN y las Naciones Unidas ha llevado a Libia. Los libios dejaron de poder informarse cuando la OTAN bombardeó todos los medios de comunicación.

Bernardino León ha sido enviado por las Naciones Unidas a Libia para terminar el trabajo de la OTAN, es decir eliminar completamente el control de los libios o las tribus libias y dividir el país en tres : Cirenaica (el nor este), Tripolitania (el noroeste), Fezzan (El sur).

Según nos explica Ahmed Warfalla, Bernardino León está intentando crear en Libia un gobierno como en Paquistan, busca un nuevo Karazi.

Los “rebeldes libios” , los nuevos libios, y los agresores, es decir la Libya Dawn y los Hermanos musulmanes ( Unmuslim Brotherhood) aceptan las decisiones de las Naciones Unidas porque trabajan en equipo intentando eliminar a la gran mayoría de los libios y completar la división e invasión a Libia.

Libia siempre ha tenido una relación muy directa e intensa con las Naciones Unidas. Una persona que trabajaba en el gobierno Libio nos dice que se reunían dos veces por semana con los representantes de las Naciones Unidas ya antes del 2011, para explicar las cosas que iban ocurriendo en Libia.

Todos sabemos que las Naciones Unidas y la OTAN son lo mismo y en estos momentos controlan Libia, bajo diversas apariencias.

En estos momentos, bajo la dirección de Bernardino león, están organizando un nuevo gobierno y supuestamente votan entre ellos, para ver quién estará en el nuevo gobierno. Obviamente el pueblo libio no participa en todo este juego sucio. Uno de los parlamentarios ha ofrecido su puesto a cambio de 1 millón de dólares.
Estos días se está produciendo un mercado negro de compra/venta de “posiciones” en el nuevo gobierno, a cual más gangster, ladrón y demás.
Bernardino León intenta disolver el gobierno de Tubruk aceptado por la Comunidad Internacional, en nombre de Naciones Unidas…el lobo vestido de cordero.

Bernardino León solo habla con Libya Dawn y los Hermanos Musulmanes lo que implica obviamente que quieren formar gobierno totalmente controlado por EEUU, un gobierno de ocupación.

Leonor Massanet Arbona