Beginning the Takedown: Five Libyan Names on the Terrorism List


Beginning the Takedown: Five Libyan Names on the Terrorism List

APPROXIMATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION VIA GOOGLE
VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF CRIMES

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/31d65392-c3e2-48c0-a20f-969b82247854/31d65392-c3e2-48c0-a20f-969b82247854_16x9_600x338.JPG
On Friday, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain listed 59 individuals and 12 entities linked to Qatar on its banned terrorist lists, including five Libyan nationals who, since the counter-revolution that destroyed Libya, continued to play suspicious roles in Libya and contributed to the continuation of chaos, promoting  the division of the country with Qatari support.

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/fec5ca8f-7800-4be8-bfcd-cba3cda32449/fec5ca8f-7800-4be8-bfcd-cba3cda32449.jpg

Ali Mohammed Mohammed Al-Salabi

Belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, a Salafist Libyan preacher, has a good relationship with the leaders of the Libyan Fighting Group, which contributed to the dialogue between the group and the Libyan state, ending in the release of members of the fighting group from Libyan prisons.

He has long lived in Qatar and holds dual nationality, and is a member of the Qatar-funded Union of Muslim Scholars.

Called Ali mamed mamed asalabi in Libya –  ” a man of Tamim in Libya” or “Al – Qaradawi to Libya,” he  was marketed by  Guenah aldzerh as the spiritual father of the Libyan counter- revolution. Defending its interests he often appeared on Al – Jazeera, sometimes as a sheikh, and sometimes a political analyst, sometimes as a military analyst.

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/81504a3b-2c77-4ef6-8af4-3129103256b7/81504a3b-2c77-4ef6-8af4-3129103256b7.jpg
Abdul Hakim Belhadj

He is described as a patron of Qatari interests in Libya. He is one of the most prominent leaders of groups indirectly associated with al-Qaeda , a former al-Qaeda terrorist and LIFG leader who took part in the war in Afghanistan.

The LIFG was founded in Libya in the 1990s, a jihadist organization formed by Libyan elements returning from fighting in Afghanistan.

He was arrested  Abd gam hadj in Malaysia in February 2004 by the passport and immigration office under the alias, Almkhabrat alomirkah , then deported to Bangkok for interrogation by the CIA, and then deported to Libya on March 8, 2004, where he was imprisoned in Abu Salim prison for six years, before his  released in March 2008.

After the counter-revolution that toppled Libya’s socialist government, Belhadj soon became a billionaire. He headed the Watan Party and assumed the role of commander of the military junta in Tripoli. He founded the Wings Aviation Company and owns several planes that provide dozens of flights daily between Tripoli and other countries.

After several countries cut ties with Qatar, Belhadj expressed his absolute sympathy with the State of Qatar, and expressed  his contempt for what he saw as an unfair attack on the  Libyan contras.

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/a1f714d9-bb10-4d18-99c0-c050a1f56476/a1f714d9-bb10-4d18-99c0-c050a1f56476.jpg
Mahdi Al-Harati

Is an Irishman of Libyan origin, commander of the Tripoli Brigade in Libya, a former assassin in Kosovo and  Iraq . He lived in Ireland for 20 years and came to Libya at the beginning of the 2011 counter-revolution. He led the Tripoli rebel battalion against the Libyan armed forces in 2011,  paving the way for the National Transitional Council to enter the city.

Mahdi al-Harati was the first to come to Syria to fight alongside the terrorist groups. He founded and led the militias of the Umma Brigade, which included Libyan and Syrian fighters.

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/9f287937-8f3e-4699-9d5e-6d8677c0207d/9f287937-8f3e-4699-9d5e-6d8677c0207d.jpg
Ismail Mohammed Al-Salabi

Commander of the February 17 battalion, he has deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of the most dangerous terrorists in Libya. He was converted to takfiri ideology at an early age and fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Libya.

Ismail al-Masalabi is currently the commander of the “Benghazi defence brigades” which have also been included in the terrorist list. They are linked with al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda organisations  which fought the Libyan army in the Crescent region a few months ago.

Many call him “the bat of darkness” in Libya because of his secret meetings and movements with suspicious parties, and he was closely associated with Qatari intelligence chief Ghanem al-Kubaisi, who is considered the first man of Qatar in Libya and supported by money and weapons.

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2017/06/09/7ff3d3aa-ae6f-4d16-ab5c-e9338478d09a/7ff3d3aa-ae6f-4d16-ab5c-e9338478d09a.jpg

Sadiq Abdul Rahman Ali Ghariani

Nicknamed Libya’s “Mufti of Terrorism”, issued fatwas to incite fighting and bloodshed in Libya. Al-Qaeda has on several occasions valued his positions on events in Libya.

Judicial annexes by the Libyan House of Representatives, held him responsible for the murderous bloodbath in eastern Libya, and called on the Court of International Tribunals to investigate his involvement in war crimes.

SaveSave

Advertisements

Rival Militias Are Terrorists Belonging to the Presidential Council (GoA)


Rival Militias Are Terrorists Belonging to the Presidential Council (GoA)

Armed confrontations between the Baqarah and Da’a forces continued in Muaitika (Mitiga) of the Al-Wefaq government (Government of Accord) and the number of wounded and killed on both sides increases. Many of the abductees managed to escape and return to their homes.

It is noteworthy that the Government of Accord’s special deterrent force (Al Qaeda-LIFG) have been holding hundreds of citizens for years without presenting them to the Public Prosecution.

Many of the detainees were abducted by kidnappers for ransom. Criminal gangs have been bargaining with their families to obtain substantial sums of money in exchange for their release.

Image may contain: outdoor
Image may contain: people standing, car and outdoor
No automatic alt text available.
A day of clashes between rival militias at Mitiga airbase and surrounding areas

Image may contain: 1 person, sitting
No automatic alt text available.
Image may contain: one or more people

The destruction of an African Airlines plane at Mitiga

Image may contain: airplane and sky
Statement from Al Buraq Air:

Gentlemen travelers,

Al-Buraq flights are being stopped until further notice due to the recent clashes in the vicinity of Maitika airport, which resulted in the injury of two Boeing 737-500 / 800 aircraft belonging to Al-Buraq Airlines. The flights will resume based on an assessment of damage to aircraft, The company also transferred the aircraft to Tripoli International Airport for preliminary detection by the technical staff of the company, in preparation for transporting them outside Libya for maintenance.
Image may contain: one or more people and outdoor

LIBYAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEES MOVEMENT

Who is at Fault for the Manchester Tragedy?


Who is at Fault for the Manchester Tragedy?

When I started this blog I promised that I will always write the truth. Looking the Internet newspapers although they try to write the truth some covered some saying the plain truth but only the half of it not the whole truth.

Adam Garrie he writes at the Duran electronic newspaper an analysis about how the British deep state turned Manchester into al Qaeda Town UK. He explains that the savage terrorist atrocity in Manchester was a classic case of terrorist blowback, phenomenon describing how Western governments fund, arm and aid terrorists, they often come back to commit (sic) horrific crimes against the citizens of the countries which funded and aided them.

In my opinion these terrorists where under the payroll of the deep state. These terrorists have one thing in common which all shadowy governments want; when suited to destroy another sovereign country to steal resources or to commit a false flag they are hired. It’s not an easy task to sacrifice their own people in the name of freedom but if you want a NWO that is what you have to do. Bringing such terror to its population makes it easier for the shadowy government to take away their freedom. I know it is hard to accept this reality, it took me years to accept it. Once you see the big picture then you can understand how the system works.

Let’s get back to the Manchester tragedy which I condemn full heartedly. Worst tragedies from the same shadowy governments suffer the consequences of their actions (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan,, Pakistan, Sudan these are only a few that I have in mind). Britain has been funding the Libyan Islamic fighting group(LIFG) since the mid 80s they helped them by organising the group, funding them, arming them and training so that they could topple Qaddafi. The Libyan Islamic fighting Group was affiliated to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and till today they still have ties to this terrorist group and other groups like them. Here is a link that you can read for yourself to understand all the connections of LIFG with other terrorist organisations.

Here is another link that proves my point.

Rebels ‘Went to Libya With MI5 Blessing’ Amid Abedi Probe

So Salman Obeidi’s father was a police officer in Tripoli till 1991 when for his own reasons he joined the radical group called L.I.F.G <= Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Qaddafi had banned it for its Islamic radicalism aka the reason for escaping the same year and asking for asylum in Britain. The father Ramadan Abdulgassem Obeidi never stopped his affiliation with the group and continued to work with the leaders of LIFG who are Belhaz who has a British passport & one of the worst terrorist known, the other is Abdul Basset Gweli from Zliten and has Caribbean passport. I’m sure the above information is already known to you. What isn’t mention is Faousi Camoucha who is more dangerous than Belhaz & Gweli put together is a diplomat in the LIBYAN embassy in Britain and was in an everyday contact with Salman Obeidi which is believed that CAMOUCHA gave the order. Please do not forget that all the above people were working with MI5/6 and the deep state of Britain.

Now Belhadj was made commander of the Tripoli Military Council since the illegal war finished. For the sake of diplomacy towards Britain, someone gave the order in Tripoli to have the father Ramadan Abdulgassem Obeidi and one of his sons arrested. You realize that Belhaj who belongs to LIFG has the upper hand in Tripoli, you think they will stay arrested for long?

This just came in:

A Notorious terrorist Abdel Raouf Kara takes the family of the terrorist Salman al-Obeidi into Hiding although Kara was put under pressure from some of the leaders for their release Kara enabled them to escape and disappear in an unknown place. So as you can see no arrests are done.

Further more I read that the British Prime Minister raised the country’s terror threat level to critical, the first time it has been raised to that level since 2007. But she still sells arms to Saudi Arabia and still wants a Regime change in Syria…. Instead of backing out of these things and doing the bidding of the United States she continues to ruin lives in Yemen by the Saudis and in Syria telling a sovereign country it needs to change as they did in Libya and you see the outcome.

It’s about time the English people wake up before it’s too late.

Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails


Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

by ELLEN BROWN

a katz / Shutterstock.com

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails, dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1 A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

2 Increase French influence in North Africa,

3 Improve his internal political situation in France,

4 Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

5 Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called “fractional reserve” lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar’s gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar.” Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard. Libya’s al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, “hard currency.”

Under al-Qadhafi’s leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification. The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL). The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent. Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya. The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country’s 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya’s Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

Libya, David Cameron’s “Iraq”? Damning Report Shreds Another War Monger.


Libya, David Cameron’s “Iraq”? Damning Report Shreds Another War Monger.

By Felicity Arbuthnot

Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron is consistent in just one thing – jumping ship when the going gets tough. He announced his resignation in the immediate wake of the 23rd July referendum in which Britain marginally voted to leave the EU, a referendum which he had fecklessly called to appease right wing “little Englanders”, instead of facing them down.

He lost. The result is looming financial catastrophe and the prospect of unraveling forty three years of legislations (Britain joined the then European Economic Community on 1st January 1973.) No structure was put in place for a government Department to address the legal and bureaucratic enormities should the leave vote prevail. There is still none.

Cameron however committed to staying on as an MP until the 2020 general election, vowing grandiosely: “I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed”, he said of the small island off Europe which he had potentially sunk, now isolated from and derided by swathes of its continental neighbours – with the sound of trading doors metaphorically slamming shut reverberating across the English Channel.

David Cameron has now jumped again, resigning unexpectedly and immediately as an MP on Monday 12th September, giving the impression that he was not in agreement with certain policies of his (unelected) successor, Theresa May. He stated: “Obviously I have my own views about certain issues … As a former PM it’s very difficult to sit as a back-bencher and not be an enormous diversion and distraction from what the Government is doing. I don’t want to be that distraction.” What an ego.

Over the decades of course, the House of Parliament has been littered with former Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers who have remained constituency MPs without being a “distraction.”

DEVASTATING INDICTMENT

The following day the real reason for his decision seemed obvious. Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee released their devastating findings on Cameron’s hand in actions resulting in Libya’s near destruction, contributing to the unprecedented migration of those fleeing UK enjoined “liberations”, creating more subsequent attacks in the West – and swelling ISIS and other terrorist factions.

“Cameron blamed for rise of ISIS”, thundered The Times headline, adding: “Damning Inquiry into Libya points finger at former PM.” The Guardian opined: “MPs condemn Cameron over Libya debacle” and: “Errors resulted in country ‘becoming failed state and led to growth of ISIS.’ ”

The Independent owned “I”: “Cameron’s toxic Libya legacy”, with: “Former PM blamed for collapse in to civil war, rise of ISIS and mass migration to Europe in Inquiry’s scathing verdict” and “Cameron ignored lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan …”

The Independent chose: “Cameron’s bloody legacy: Damning Report blames ex-PM for ISIS in Libya.”

No wonder he plopped over the side.

The Report is decimating. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluding: “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 disasters leading to that final verdict include the UK’s intervention being based on “erroneous assumption” an “incomplete understanding” of the situation on the ground, with Cameron leaping from limited intervention to an: “opportunist policy of (entirely illegal) regime change”, based on “inadequate intelligence.”

Once Gaddafi had been horrendously assassinated, resultant from the assault on his country: “ … failure to develop a coherent strategy … had led to political and economic collapse, internecine warfare, humanitarian crisis and the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in North Africa.”

After his death, Gaddafi’s body, with that of his son, Mutassim, was laid out on the floor of a meat warehouse in Misrata. (“I”, 14th September 2016.)

“We came, we saw, he died”, then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told the media, with a peal of laughter. (1) Just under a year later US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three US officials were murdered in Benghazi. Payback time for her words, taken out on the obvious target?

Muammar Gaddafi, his son Muatassim and his former Defence Minister were reportedly buried in unmarked graves in the desert, secretively, before dawn on 25th October 2011. The shocking series of events speaking volumes for the “New Libya” and the Cameron-led, British government’s blood dripping hands in the all.

The UK’s meddling hands were involved from the start. France, Lebanon and the UK, supported by the US, proposed UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Britain was the second country, after France, to call for a “no fly zone” over Libya in order to: “to use all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians. “It neither explicitly authorised the deployment of ground forces nor addressed the question of regime change or of post conflict reconstruction”, reminds the Committee.

Moreover: “France led the international community in advancing the case for military intervention in Libya … UK policy followed decisions taken in France.” Former Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder confirmed to the Committee: “Cameron and Sarkozy were the undisputed leaders in terms of doing something.” (Emphasis added.)

The US was then “instrumental in extending the terms of the Resolution” to even a “no drive zone” and “assumed authority to attack the entire Libyan government’s command and communications network.”

INSTITUTIONAL IGNORANCE

On the 19th March 2011, a nineteen nation “coalition” turned a “no fly zone” into a free fire zone and embarked on a blitzkrieg of a nation of just 6.103 million (2011 figure.)

All this in spite of the revelation to the Committee by former UK Ambassador to Libya Sir Dominic Asquith, that the intelligence base at to what was really happening in the country: “… might well have been less than ideal.”

Professor George Joffe, renowned expert on the Middle East and North Africa, noted: “the relatively limited understanding of events” and that: “people had not really bothered to monitor closely what was happening.”

Analyst Alison Pargeter: ‘expressed her shock at the lack of awareness in Whitehall of the “history and regional complexities” of Libya.’

Incredibly Whitehall appeared to have been near totally ignorant as to the extent to which the “rebellion” might have been a relatively small group of Islamic extremists.

Former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Richards was apparently unaware that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other Al Qaeda linked members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were involved. “It was a grey area”, he said. However: “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islam would not benefit from the rebellion. “With the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best”, concluded his Lordship.

“The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight. Militant connections with transnational militant extremist groups were know before 2011, because many Libyans had participated in the Iraq insurgency and in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda”, commented the Committee. (Emphasis added)

Iraq revisited. Back then it was the “respectable” Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi and their ilk selling a pack of lies to the seemingly ever gullible, supremely unworldly Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Much was made by William Hague, Foreign Secretary at the time and by Liam Fox, then Defence Secretary, of Muammar’s Gaddafi’s threatening rhetoric. The Committee pointed out that: ”Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

Further, two days before the 19 nation onslaught: ‘On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”

Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi’s forces re-took Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. “Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.”

Professor Joffe agreed that Gaddafi’s words were historically at odds with his deeds: “If you go back to the American bombings in the 1980s of Benghazi and Tripoli, rather than trying to remove threats to the regime in the east, in Cyrenaica, Gaddafi spent six months trying to pacify the tribes that were located there. The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood (that military assault was the answer.) Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response…the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.”

In June 2011 an Amnesty International investigation failed to find corroborative evidence of mass human rights violations by government troops but did find that: “the rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence” and that: “much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events …”

CONDEMNATION; AIDING ISIS

The Committee wrote damningly:

We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed.

It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.

Moreover: “The deployment of coalition air assets shifted the military balance in the Libyan civil war in favour of the rebels”, with: “The combat performance of rebel ground forces enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by States such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.” Lord Richards informed that the UK “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces.

Arms and tanks were also provided to the rebels by members of the “coalition” in contravention of Resolution 1973.

Was the aim of the assault regime change or civilian protection? Lord Richard said: “one thing morphed almost ineluctably in to the other.”

The Committee summarized: “The UK’s intervention in Libya was reactive and did not comprise action in pursuit of a strategic objective. This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means.” (Emphasis added.)

The Cameron-led UK government had “focused exclusively on military intervention”, under the National Security Council, a Cabinet Committee created by David Cameron.

The Committee’s final observation is:

We note former Prime Minister David Cameron’s decisive role when the National Security Council discussed intervention in Libya. We also note that Lord Richards implicitly dissociated himself from that decision in his oral evidence to this inquiry. The Government must commission an independent review of the operation of the NSC … It should be informed by the conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry and examine whether the weaknesses in governmental decision-making in relation to the Iraq intervention in 2003 have been addressed by the introduction of the NSC.

Cameron who said he wanted to be “heir to Blair” seems to have ended up as just that, pivotal cheerleader for the butchery of a sovereign leader, most of his family, government and the destruction of a nation.

Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa . However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa ‘s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development. (2)

End note: David Cameron jumped ship yet a third time – he refused to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The full text of the Committee’s findings: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11905.htm#_idTextAnchor023

Notes

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/
http://www.countercurrents.org/chengu120113.htm

The original source of this article is Global Research