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

Libyan Resistance Condemn UNSMIL’s Efforts to Undermine Saif Qaddafi’s Central Role in Rebuilding Libya


Libyan Resistance Condemn UNSMIL’s Efforts to Undermine Saif Qaddafi’s Central Role in Rebuilding Libya

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION:
LIBYAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEES MOVEMENT

ORIGINAL STATEMENT IN ARABIC:
بيان مؤتمر القوى الوطنية لأنصار النظام الجماهيري حول تصريح رئيس بعثة الأمم المتحدة للدعم في ليبيا

Statement by the Conference of National Forces of Supporters of the System of the Masses on Remarks of the Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya

The National Forces noted recent comments of Dr.Ghassan Salama, head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, in which he stated that he did not want dialogue with Dr. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, who represents the supporters of the system of the masses at home and abroad, on the pretext that he is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

The National Forces are surprised by the issuance of such a statement by the delegate of the international community, which was entrusted with contributing to the resolution of the Libyan crisis by facilitating dialogue between parties, which was reflected and expressed by the three-phase plan approved by the international body and considered a frame of reference for the political solution in Libya.

We emphasize that this latest statement is not in keeping with the path that has been set forth to resolve the Libyan crisis. Rather, he is adopting an approach that deepens the gap between the sons of one nation, because it impedes the rapprochement between them that would end the tragedies that Libyan people suffer every day.

Such a statement supports the continuation of isolationism and exclusion that led to the destruction of the Libyan state, the rise of armed militias, organized crime syndicates and the spread of armed terrorist groups throughout the country.

The National Forces of Supporters of the System of the Masses call upon Dr. Ghassan Salama and the United Nations Mission to distance themselves from all parties and to take full responsibility for conducting dialogue between parties without discrimination.

The National Forces of Supporters of the System of the Masses Emphasize and Declare:

  1. Dr. Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi lives among his people and they have the final say in determining his future and the future of their country. He did not seek to meet with the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, believing that the solution of the Libyan issue should be arrived at through inter-Libyan dialogue, without pressure or external intervention, and towards this end he is making great efforts through reconciliation and dialogue to unite his people, to confront the biased policies that have been and continue to be the main cause of the Libyan crisis.
  2. The International Criminal Court has placed a sword on the necks of developing countries to force them into political positions that serve the interests of colonial nations. Dr. Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi does not care about accusations made by a court which Libya is not a signatory to. Based on political differences, not legal ones, even countries that frequently use the International Criminal Court as a weapon and instrument of colonial subjugation, have not signed its charter to date.

  3. The Libyan people are free to define their options, as are other peoples who on numerous occasions have chosen leaders facing various politically motivated bogus charges issued by the ICC.

  4. Dr. Ghassan Salama’s statement is entirely based on the logic of exclusion, which will not contribute to a solution or a just political settlement because it is rooted in a lack of a understanding and inaccurate diagnosis of the Libyan situation. This is especially inappropriate from the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya who was assigned the task of conducting dialogue with all parties to reach a satisfactory solution for all.

  5. This negative approach will not affect the will and determination of the Libyan people looking to save their country through positive interaction with the upcoming electoral station in 2018. Therefore, we call on our people to respond by continuing to register in the voters register to choose those who represent the real interest of the Libyan people.

The Libyan people are the first and the last to determine the future of their country. Therefore, while they welcome the supporting role for a just political settlement, we do not accept foreign dictates.

Conclusion

The Conference of National Forces of Supporters of the System of the Masses continues to expand its work, activate its popular bases and spread the culture of legitimate peaceful struggle until the goodwill of Libya triumphs over all foreign agendas and conspiracies.

Issued on 28/12/2017
Conference of National Forces of Supporters of the System of the Masses

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

U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies


U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies

By chance, I came across this article, which was published on Salon.com over a year ago! A German friend and journalist sent it to me and if even this report has escaped me, then I suppose that apart from the Salon readers something hardly anyone has heard of it.

British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse

A new report by the British Parliament shows that the 2011 NATO war in Libya was based on an array of lies.
“Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options,” an investigation by the House of Commons’ bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly condemns the U.K.’s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.

“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya,” the report states. “UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government “failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.”
The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

  • Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
  • The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
  • France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
  • The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar’s Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
  • The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Myth that Qaddafi would massacre civilians and the lack of intel

“Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence,” the Foreign Affairs Committee states clearly.
“While Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi,” the report continues. “In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty.”

The summary of the report also notes that the war “was not informed by accurate intelligence.” It adds, “US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as ‘an intelligence-light decision.'”
This flies in the face of what political figures claimed in the lead-up to the NATO bombing. After violent protests erupted in Libya in February, and Benghazi — Libya’s second-largest city — was taken over by rebels, exiled opposition figures like Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Europe-based Libyan League for Human Rights, claimed that, if Qaddafi retook the city, “There will be a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.”
The British Parliament’s report, however, notes that the Libyan government had retaken towns from rebels in early February 2011, before NATO launched its air strike campaign, and Qaddafi’s forces had not attacked civilians.
On March 17, 2011, the report points outtwo days before NATO began bombing — Qaddafi told 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.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee adds that, when Libyan government forces retook the town of Ajdabiya in February, they did not attack civilians. Qaddafi “also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops,” the report adds.
In another example, the report indicates that, after fighting in February and March in the city Misrata — Libya’s third-largest city, which had also been seized by rebels — just around 1 percent of people killed by the Libyan government were women or children.

“The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians,” the committee says.

Senior British officials admitted in the Parliament investigation they did not consider Qaddafi’s actual actions, and instead called for military intervention in Libya based on his rhetoric.
In February, Qaddafi gave a heated speech threatening the rebels who had taken over cities. He said “they are a tiny few” and “a terrorist few,” and called them “rats” who “are turning Libya into the emirates of Zawahiri and bin Laden,” referencing the leaders of al-Qaeda.
At the end of his speech, Qaddafi promised “to cleanse Libya, inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alley by alley,” of these rebels. Many Western media outlets, however, implied or reported outright that his remark was meant as a threat to all protesters. An Israeli journalist popularized this line by turning it into a song called “Zenga, Zenga” (Arabic for “alleyway”). The YouTube video featuring the remixed speech was circulated throughout the world.

The Foreign Affairs Committee notes in its report that, at that moment, British officials had a “lack of reliable intelligence.” William Hague, who served as the British secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs during the war in Libya, claimed to the committee that Qaddafi had promised “to go house to house, room to room, exacting their revenge on the people of Benghazi,” misquoting Qaddafi’s speech. He added, “A lot of people were going to die.”

Given the lack of reliable intelligence, both Lord Hague and Dr Fox highlighted the impact of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric on their decision-making,” the report notes, also referencing then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox.

George Joffé, a scholar at King’s College London University and an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, told the Foreign Affairs Committee for its investigation that, while Qaddafi sometimes used intimidating rhetoric that “was quite blood-curdling,” past examples showed that the longtime Libyan leader was “very careful” to avoid civilian casualties.
In one instance, Joffé noted, “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.”
Qaddafi “would have been very careful in the actual response,” Joffé said in the report. “The fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.”
Alison Pargeter, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and specialist on Libya who was also interviewed for the investigation, agreed with Joffé. She told the committee that there was no “real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians.”

“Émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene,” the report notes, summarizing Joffé’s analysis.

Pargeter added that Libyans who opposed the government exaggerated Qaddafi’s use of “mercenaries” — a term they often used as a synonym for Libyans of Sub-Saharan descent. Pargeter said that Libyans had told her, “The Africans are coming. They’re going to massacre us. Gaddafi’s sending Africans into the streets. They’re killing our families.”

“I think that that was very much amplified,” Pargeter said. This amplified myth led to extreme violence. Black Libyans were violently oppressed by Libyan rebels. The Associated Press reported in September 2011, “Rebel forces and armed civilians are rounding up thousands of black Libyans and migrants from sub-Sahara Africa.” It noted, “Virtually all of the detainees say they are innocent migrant workers.”

(The crimes rebels committed against black Libyans would go on to become even worse. In 2012, there were reports that black Libyans were put in cages by rebels, and forced to eat flags. As Salon has previously reported, Human Rights Watch also warned in 2013 of “serious and ongoing human rights violations against inhabitants of the town of Tawergha, who are widely viewed as having supported Muammar Gaddafi.” Tawergha’s inhabitants were mostly descendants of black slaves and were very poor. Human Rights Watch reported that Libyan rebels carried out “forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture, and killings are widespread, systematic, and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity.”)

In July 2011, State Department spokesman Mark Toner acknowledged that Qaddafi is “someone who’s given to overblown rhetoric,” but, in February, Western governments weaponized this speech.
The Foreign Affairs Committee notes in its report that, despite its lack of intelligence, “the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention” as a solution in Libya, ignoring available forms of political engagement and diplomacy.
This is consistent with reporting by The Washington Times, which found that Qaddafi’s son Saif had hoped to negotiate a ceasefire with the U.S. government. Saif Qaddafi quietly opened up communications with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intervened and asked the Pentagon to stop talking to the Libyan government. “Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” a U.S. intelligence official told Saif.
In March, Secretary Clinton had called Muammar Qaddafi a “creature” “who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.” Clinton, who played a leading role in pushing for the NATO bombing of Libya, claimed Qaddafi would do “terrible things” if he was not stopped.
From March to October 2011, NATO carried out a bombing campaign against Libyan government forces. It claimed to be pursuing a humanitarian mission to protect civilians. In October, Qaddafi was brutally killed — sodomized with a bayonet by rebels. (Upon hearing the news of his death, Secretary Clinton announced, live on TV, “We came, we saw, he died!”)
The Foreign Affairs Committee report points out, nonetheless, that, while the NATO intervention was sold as a humanitarian mission, its ostensible goal was accomplished in just one day.

On March 20, 2011, Qaddafi’s forces retreated approximately 40 miles outside of Benghazi, after French planes attacked. “If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in less than 24 hours,” the report says. Yet the military intervention carried on for several more months.
The report explains “the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change.” This view has been challenged, however, by Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zenko used NATO’s own materials to show that “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”
In its investigation, the Foreign Affairs Committee cites a June 2011 Amnesty International report, which noted that “much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.”
Amnesty International also said it was unable to find evidence for the accusation that the Libyan government had given Viagra to its troops and encouraged them to rape women in rebel-held areas. Then-Secretary of State Clinton, among others, had contributed to this unproven myth.

Islamist extremism and the spread of Libyan weapons

Today, Libya is home to the largest base of the genocidal extremist group ISIS outside of Iraq and Syria. Other Islamist groups seized large swaths of territory after the Libyan government was destroyed.

“It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards,” the Foreign Affairs Committee states clearly.
“Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate,” the report adds. It cites former British Chief of the Defence Staff David Richards, who “confirmed that intelligence on the composition of the rebel militias was not ‘as good as one would wish.'”

The inquiry asked Richards if he knew if members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011. He said that “was a grey area.” Richards recalled that “respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that Islamist extremists would not benefit from the uprising, but admitted, “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.”

“The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight,” the committee comments. “Libyan connections with transnational militant extremist groups were known before 2011, because many Libyans had participated in the Iraq insurgency and in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda.”

NATO’s destruction of the Libyan government also caused some of its massive weapons and ammunition reserves to fall “into the hands of the militias” and to be “trafficked across North and West Africa and the Middle East,” the Foreign Affairs Committee notes.
“The international community’s inability to secure weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime fuelled instability in Libya and enabled and increased terrorism across North and West Africa and the Middle East,” the report states.

It cites a study by a U.N. panel of experts, which found the former Libyan government’s weapons in Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Gaza, Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Syria. The U.N. panel noted that “arms originating from Libya have significantly reinforced the military capacity of terrorist groups operating in Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia.”
A former British Parliament study cited by the report also found that Libyan weapons ended up in the hands of Boko Haram, the ISIS-affiliated extremist group that has carried out massacres of civilians in Nigeria.
Former Chief of the Defence Staff Richards told the inquiry that the U.K. had hoped to prevent the Libyan government’s weapons and ammunition from being seized, but he could not remember the British government “doing anything to achieve it.”

France’s economic and political motivations

The Foreign Affairs Committee confirms that “France led the international community in advancing the case for military intervention in Libya in February and March 2011.” The U.K. joined next, followed by the U.S.
The report also notes that the primary reasons France pushed for military intervention in Libya were Qaddafi’s “nearly bottomless financial resources,” the Libyan leader’s plans to create an alternative currency to the French franc in Africa, “Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa” and the desire to “Increase French influence in North Africa.”
Initially, the U.S. was undecided about military intervention in Libya, the report notes. “There were divisions in the American Government,” the investigation found. This is consistent with what President Obama has since said (he called the Libya war his “worst mistake”), and what The New York Times found in its own detailed investigation.

France and the U.K. were first to pressure the international community to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, ostensibly to protect civilians, the report says. Once it was on board, nonetheless, the U.S. pushed for more aggressive military intervention.

“The United States was instrumental in extending the terms of [U.N. Security Council] Resolution 1973 beyond the imposition of a no-fly zone to include the authorisation of ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians,” the report notes. “In practice, this led to the imposition of a ‘no-drive zone’ and the assumed authority to attack the entire Libyan Government command and communications network.”

Explaining France’s motivations, the report cites an April 2011 email to the U.S.’s then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which noted that “Qaddafi has nearly bottomless financial resources to continue indefinitely.”

“Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” Clinton’s assistant Sidney Blumenthal wrote, citing “sources with access to advisors to Saif al-Islam Qaddafi,” Muammar Qaddafi’s son.

This gold “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar,” Blumenthal said, citing “knowledgeable individuals.” He added, “This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc.”

“French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya,” Blumenthal wrote, referencing France’s then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, of the right-wing Union for a Popular Movement party.

The French intelligence officers articulated five factors that motivated Sarkozy:

“a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

Crucial role of foreign intervention

The U.K. Parliament report notes that the NATO bombing “shifted the military balance in the Libyan civil war in favour of the rebels.”

“The combination of coalition airpower with the [foreign] supply of arms, intelligence and personnel to the rebels guaranteed the military defeat of the Gaddafi regime,” the Foreign Affairs Committee adds.

Resolution 1973, the March 2011 U.N. Security Council resolution that imposed a no-fly zone in Libya, was supposed to ensure a “strict implementation of the arms embargo,” the report further points out. But “the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels.”
Rebel ground forces inside Libya were “enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by” the U.K., France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the investigation reveals.
Then-British Chief of the Defence Staff David Richards also told the inquiry that the U.K. “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces on the ground.
Richards emphasized “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris … played a major role in the success of the ground operation.”

Citing The Guardian, the report notes that Qatar secretly gave French-manufactured antitank missiles to certain rebel groups. The investigation also says Qatar, a theocratic monarchy, “channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.”
Moreover, Alison Pargeter, the Libya specialist, told the committee, “I also think the Arab media played a very important role here.”
She singled out Al Jazeera, a Qatari news outlet, and Al Arabiya, a Saudi outlet, for spreading unsubstantiated stories about Qaddafi and the Libyan government. These news outlets “were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true,” she said.  —–(how about BBC, CNN, FOX they also did their part)

Humanitarian disaster and echoes of the Iraq War

The Foreign Affairs Committee report blames the U.K., U.S. and France for failing to articulate “a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya.”
The result of this, the report notes in the summary, “was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”
The committee cites Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2016, which indicated:

“[Libya is] heading towards a humanitarian crisis, with almost 400,000 people internally displaced and increasing disruption to basic services, such as power and fuel supplies. Forces engaged in the conflict continued with impunity to arbitrarily detain, torture, unlawfully kill, indiscriminately attack, abduct and disappear, and forcefully displace people from their homes. The domestic criminal justice system collapsed in most parts of the country, exacerbating the human rights crisis.”

Before the 2011 NATO bombing, on the other hand, Libya had been the wealthiest nation in Africa, with the highest life expectancy and GDP per capita. In his book “Perilous Interventions,” former Indian representative to the U.N. Hardeep Singh Puri notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands. Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that had been applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council in January 2011, on the eve of the war that destroyed the government.
Today, Libya remains so dangerous that the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee was in fact unable to travel to the country during its investigation. It notes in the report that a delegation visited North Africa in March 2016. They met with Libyan politicians in Tunis, but “were unable to visit Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk or anywhere else in Libya due to the collapse of internal security and the rule of law.”
The U.K. Parliament’s Libya report comes just two months after the Chilcot Report, the British government’s Iraq War inquiry, which also admits that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was based on numerous lies, and likewise reveals that the war only strengthened al-Qaeda and other extremists.
Citing the Iraq War inquiry, the Libya report draws comparisons between the actions of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration and that of David Cameron. In 2010, Cameron created the National Security Council, ostensibly to provide a form of oversight that was lacking before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The Libya report, however, calls on the British government to commission an independent review of the National Security Council. This review “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,” the report says.
In the lone moment of humor in the otherwise macabre report, the Foreign Affairs Committee summarizes the humanitarian situation in Libya today writing, “In April 2016, United States President Barack Obama described post-intervention Libya as a ‘shit show’. It is difficult to disagree with this pithy assessment.”

The last country we “liberated” from an “evil” dictator is now openly trading slaves


The last country we “liberated” from an “evil” dictator is now openly trading slaves

 

 

By Carey Wedler

It is widely known that the U.S.-led NATO intervention to topple Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 resulted in a power vacuum that has allowed terror groups like ISIS to gain a foothold in the country.

Despite the destructive consequences of the 2011 invasion, the West is currently taking a similar trajectory with regard to Syria. Just as the Obama administration excoriated Gaddafi in 2011, highlighting his human rights abuses and insisting he must be removed from power to protect the Libyan people, the Trump administration is now pointing to the repressive policies of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and warning his regime will soon come to an end — all in the name of protecting Syrian civilians.

But as the U.S. and its allies fail to produce legal grounds for their recent air strike — let alone provide concrete evidence to back up their claims Assad was responsible for a deadly chemical attack last week — more hazards of invading foreign countries and removing their heads of state are emerging.

This week, new findings revealed another unintended consequence of “humanitarian intervention”: the growth of the human slave trade.

The Guardian reports that while “violence, extortion and slave labor” have been a reality for people trafficked through Libya in the past, the slave trade has recently expanded. Today, people are selling other human beings out in the open.

“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, head of operation and emergencies for the International Office of Migration, an intergovernmental organization that promotes “humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all,” according to its website. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”

The North African country is commonly used as a point of exit for refugees fleeing other parts of the continent. But since Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011, “the vast, sparsely populated country has slid into violent chaos and migrants with little cash and usually no papers are particularly vulnerable,” the Guardian explains.

One survivor from Senegal said he was passing through Libya from Niger with a group of other migrants attempting to flee their home countries. They had paid a smuggler to transport them via bus to the coast, where they would risk taking a boat to Europe. But rather than take them to the coast, the smuggler took them to a dusty lot in Sabha, Libya. According to Livia Manente, an IOM officer who interviews survivors, “their driver suddenly said middlemen had not passed on his fees and put his passengers up for sale.”

“Several other migrants confirmed his story, independently describing kinds of slave markets as well as kinds of private prisons all over in Libya,” she said, adding IOM Italy had confirmed similar stories from migrants landing in southern Italy.

The Senegalese survivor said he was taken to a makeshift prison, which the Guardian notes are common in Libya.

Those held inside are forced to work without pay, or on meager rations, and their captors regularly call family at home demanding a ransom. His captors asked for 300,000 west African francs (about £380), then sold him on to a larger jail where the demand doubled without explanation.

When migrants were held too long without having a ransom paid for them, they were taken away and killed. “Some wasted away on meager rations in unsanitary conditions, dying of hunger and disease, but overall numbers never fell,” the Guardian reported.

“If the number of migrants goes down, because of death or someone is ransomed, the kidnappers just go to the market and buy one,” Manente said.

Giuseppe Loprete, IOM Niger’s chief of mission, confirmed these disturbing reports. “It’s very clear they see themselves as being treated as slaves,” he said. He arranged for the repatriation of 1,500 migrants just in the first three months of this year and is concerned more stories and incidents will emerge as more migrants return from Libya.

“And conditions are worsening in Libya so I think we can also expect more in the coming months,” he added.

As the United States government continues to entertain regime change in Syria as a viable solution to the many crises in that country, it is becoming ever-more evident that ousting dictators — however detestable they may be — is not effective. Toppling Saddam Hussein led not only to the deaths of civilians and radicalization within the population, but also the rise of ISIS.

As Libya, once a beacon of stability in the region, continues to devolve in the fallout from the Western “humanitarian” intervention – and as human beings are dragged into emerging slave trades while rapes and kidnappings plague the population — it is increasingly obvious that further war will only create even further suffering in unforeseen ways.