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.

Advertisements

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

Khamis Gaddafi neighborhood recently fought in the south of Libya


Khamis Gaddafi neighbourhood recently fought in the south of Libya

Agencies-Mashreq News:
Radio Cameroon source revealed that the son of the former Libyan Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Captain Khamis Gaddafi, which was broadcast that he was killed during the Libyan revolution, is still alive, and recently participated in the battles along with former officers in southern Libya.
The Web site, “Cameron’s Voice” Cameroon, that during the war, which NATO-led armed militias in Libya has shown the Revolution, it was broadcast that Khamis Gaddafi has been injured pounding NATO by targeting his battalion “Battalion 32”, which was the attack against the militias in Bani Walid, and the impact this injury, Khamis Gaddafi announced that he died in the hospital.
But a new source, depending on the location, the loyal to Gaddafi who, during his injury took him from the hospital in Bani Walid and take him out of the city in secret, after it was believed that the fall of Gaddafi has become inevitable, pointing out that Khamis body was not found.
He noted the new source, who Unnamed site, that Khamis is still in Libya, and it is surrounded by a circle of 32 officers, including generals, explaining that Khamis Gaddafi took part in one of the battles that took place recently in the south of Libya, with the participation of these officers.

His picture and the article which is in Arabic is in this link: http://mashreqnews.com/post/70698/إذاعة-الكاميرون-خميس-القذافي-حي-وقاتل-مؤخرا-بالجنوب-الليبي

Militiaman who became Libya’s oil kingpin


Militiaman who became Libya’s oil kingpin

By ADAM NATHAN

RA’S LANUF, Libya — Ibrahim Jadhran has gone from an alleged car thief imprisoned in Colonel Muammar Qadhafi’s most notorious prison to a warlord in charge of a powerful militia sitting on billions of dollars of oil money.

Now he’s one of the most important players in an effort to end the chaos that has torn Libya apart since Qadhafi’s overthrow in 2011: He has thrown his weight behind the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), signing a breakthrough deal to reopen Libya’s oil ports.

Jadhran is the chief of the Petroleum Facilities Guard (PFG), a militia force of more than 20,000 men that is supposed to protect the country’s vital oil industry. Speaking in the large boardroom of his office complex in the deep-water port of Ra’s Lanuf, in the oil crescent of central Libya, he spelt out his supposed conversion.

Jadhran’s voice matters both because of the men and the money he controls.

“I am a Muslim but I consider myself a moderate,” said Jadhran, who had shed his normal military uniform for a dark suit. “And it is because of that I chose the middle … The area where we sit now is in the middle of Libya. It is my country’s security valve and it is the beating heart of Libya’s wealth.”

His voice matters both because of the men and the money he controls. Jadhran has been an extremely skillful player in the turmoil of post-Qadhafi Libya as militias, tribes and rival governments — an internationally recognized one in the eastern city of Tobruk, and a more Islamist one called the General National Congress (GNC) based in the capital Tripoli in the west — battled for control.

In mid-2013, Jadhran closed two major oil export terminals, demanding the GNC government give eastern Libya more autonomy, particularly over oil revenues, and branded the former management of the National Oil Company corrupt.

His brand of maverick separatism increased and, in March 2014, he allowed an oil tanker named the Morning Glory to set sail from the eastern port of Sidra under the North Korean flag. It was promptly stopped and boarded by the U.S. Navy.

Jadhran claims the Morning Glory crude oil shipment had been authorized by the Tobruk government, but the Tripoli government tried to stop the tanker, and the incident led to the ousting of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan.

Now Jadhran denounces all sides. He accused the GNC of being dominated by Islamic extremists. Jadhran in turn was accused of not doing enough to stop ISIL when the terror group seized part of the central Libyan coast that had been under the control of his forces.

Jadhran is also critical of the eastern legislature in Tobruk, which he claimed was seeking a military dictatorship under General Khalifa Haftar****(that is not true Khalifa Haftar is not under the HoR), who led an assault on the GNC government and remains a powerful warlord.

“We stood by the government, but at the time the National Congress started to lean toward the Islamists and then the parliament [House of Representatives in Tobruk] leaned towards the militarization of the state and the return of a dictatorship. So we saw that we were the only ones standing in the middle,” said Jadhran.

Jadhran supported a national political dialogue and it was this process that led to the December formation of the new U.N.-backed government in Tripoli. “We released a statement of support three hours after the GNA was formed despite the fact it was almost political suicide to support its newly-born presidential council,” he said.

Call to arms

Others point out that Jadhran’s loyalty to the GNA came at a price, the payment of his 20,000 plus PFG forces of all their back salaries.

Mattia Toaldo, policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, is critical of what he called Jadhran’s “opportunistic choices” but is pragmatic about his importance to Libya’s political future.

“Jadhran remains in the eyes of many Libyans a very controversial figure,” he said. “Yet, the truth is that along with Defence Minister Mahdi Al-Barghathi, he’s the only easterner who supported the GNA from day one and the GNA needs not just the oil he sits on but his loyalty.”

That support for a new and internationally recognized government, complete with a signing ceremony — attended by tribal leaders — to reopen the ports is something of a change for Jadhran. He’s been embroiled in his country’s violent politics since the war that ousted Qadhafi.

The son of an army officer, the muscular 34-year-old had spent the previous six years in the notorious Abu Slim prison, where he was sent at 22 for a life sentence for what he says was his political activism, but which records suggest was for car theft. However, Qadhafi never called anyone a political prisoner and inmates were branded pretty thieves, traitors or spies.

“I was released three days after the spark of the February 17th revolution,” said Jadhran. “Because the demonstrators calling for change were met with live fire and mortars from the Qadhafi regime, peaceful protest was not possible and we were forced to take up arms. Young men found themselves forced to carry arms and return fire on an enemy.”

He formed a battalion of volunteers to defend Libya’s oil crescent around Ra’s Lanuf and Ajdabiya, his hometown. “I managed to gather 16 battalions under the one flag, all of which participated in the revolution.”

In a deeply divided country, Jadhran defended Cyrenaica, the east of the country that has traditionally been hostile to the Tripoli-dominated west and slowly took over Libya’s oil infrastructure.

Now he controls the four main oil ports of Ra’s Lanuf, Zueitina, Sidra and Brega, many oil wells and hundreds of miles of pipelines and says that his goal is to protect the oil wealth that accounts for 97 percent of Libya’s economic output

His forces helped oust ISIL fighters from key oil terminals and in recent weeks have led assaults on key ISIL locations along Libya’s coast. He has also followed through on his promise to allow for renewed oil exports under a unified National Oil Company.

“The issue of selling and marketing oil is strictly the business of the National Oil Company, it has been entrusted to carry out this mission by the government and the people of Libya,” he said.

This week, the House of Representatives voted against the GNA in a no confidence motion. The vote means that Jadhran’s commitment to the GNA, together with his influence in the east and control over the security of oil exports, are even more vital to Libya’s future.

So the question is, what does Jadhran want? The answer seems to be political respectability and to present the PFG as an example of good governance to encourage investment back into Libya.

“There is no doubt that I have high expectations in assuming a high and honorable position and that this position should be for the good of the people,” said Jadhran. “If Libya becomes independent, its institutions secured within a real democratic and good governance blueprint, then this will enable international investment companies to re-enter Libya.”

The return of Bashir Saleh right arm of Gadhafi’s Libya’s political scene


The return of Bashir Saleh right arm of Gadhafi’s Libya’s political scene

Newspaper “Afrique Monde” French report which spoke of return; Bashir Saleh, right arm of the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s political landscape.

The newspaper said in the report that translated “English 21”, the most prominent tribal leaders in Libyan city of Fezzan, located in southwestern Libya, met at the beginning of the month of June in response to the appeal of Bashir Saleh, private Secretary to Gaddafi and most prominent men close to his regime.

The newspaper said Bashir Saleh worked to rally Libyan tribal leaders in the city of Fezzan, from his residence in South Africa where for a while. Valid aims through these efforts to form a third pole parallel to poles of Tobruk and Tripoli, and betting on the site of the town of Fezzan in natural resources and oil.

The newspaper reported that Bashir Saleh wrote to the Libyans, apt Conference convened by Libyan tribes in Fezzan sponsored by city, during this speech stressed the need to resort to peaceful means to resolve disputes that entangles Libya for years.

In his speech pointed out that Libya needed to avoid the most dangerous scenarios, learning from the mistakes made by neighbouring countries, such as Angola, Ivory Coast, Mali, which lived through difficult times because of war and violence, played during which he put Libya plays a pivotal role in reducing differences between all parties, he said.

The newspaper reported that the Libyan tribes participating in the work of this conclave; concluded perchance on joint statement consists of 14 chapters, sparked some controversy among the Parties present, before a final version which contained positive indications about the role of city of Fezzan in the Libyan conflict.

First point stressed in the statement on the role of Fezzan in Libyan national reconciliation, so “the tribes in the Libyan city, from this perspective, refused any meeting or Conference or seminar involving Libya, in General, Fezzan, in particular, outside their home territory, in addition to rejecting meetings that did not get the approval of the Supreme Council in Fezzan, as the legitimate representative of the local authority represented in the local legislature.

First point included reference to the Vienna meetings about Libyan conflict, erected around mid May and saw the participation of Foreign Ministers from 21 countries, met to discuss putting Libya, without that emerge from this meeting any tangible results.

The newspaper pointed out that the meeting of Fezzan went beyond that, when I consider that all these international diplomatic efforts were doomed to failure, said that like the Vienna meetings were an attempt to destabilize the Fezzan and outside interference in the internal affairs of the region.

The newspaper reported that the communiqué of the meeting of Fezzan maintained the need for a dialogue among the Libyans, without mediators, with a view to putting an end to the conflicts ravaging the country and the ongoing political crisis in years, restoring the rule of law.

Fezzan meeting statement opposed “foreign interventions” in Libyan Affairs and international parties considered “undesirable” brokers, so it must be a national dialogue without intermediaries.

The final statement that “the frequency of various Governments, and the establishment of a State governed by the desire of international financial institutions without regard for the law or the Libyan sovereignty,” caused the disaster in Libya for years.

The Council called the Libyan tribal youths Fezzan to leave armed militias and return to civilian life or join the military life within the framework of the regular army. And meanwhile stressed the importance of betting on officers and soldiers role in guaranteeing State authority and configure a team serves.

The statement also included an invitation all Libyans, “without exception”, the unit of their own destiny, and stressed the need to free all prisoners, return displaced people and refugees, at home and abroad as a first step towards national reconciliation.

The paper says that the meeting portends the emergence of a third force in Libya, Bashir Saleh endeavours to ensure within the influential role in Libyan political scene for the next phase.