Taking a closer look to the Major players who initiated the WAR AGAINST LIBYA
UN: a council of murderers
The fact that the United Nations (UN) Security Council has voted to create a “no-fly zone” over Libya has led many to claim that West’s air attacks are legitimate.
But the UN is an instrument of the world’s powers.
It was set up after the Second World War to ensure the victors got their way.
The UN has played a terrible role in partitioning Palestine and assisting in the murder of the radical leader of the Congo Patrice Lumumba.
It has brought bloodshed and terror to a number of countries, including Somalia.
The Security Council has five permanent members who can all veto decisions—the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.
There are ten other members of the council, which the main powers—with the US at the fore—can usually cajole or threaten to get their way.
The brutal powers at the heart of the UN do not become nicer because they sit round a table making agreements together.
They, and their allies, have all been able to get away with slaughter on a massive scale.
The US has devastated Vietnam, Iraq and countless other countries as the UN looked on.
Russia invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Chechnya with impunity.
No one should have any faith in the council of murderers that sits at the UN.
Western intervention in Libya means devastation and war
The West’s interference in Libya began a new chapter this week.
Framed as humanitarian intervention, French, British and US forces began bombing “military targets”.
The words “humanitarian intervention” are a cover for the horror being unleashed on the Libyan people.
The West frequently deploys these words before asserting its power over a country.
The idea of humanitarian intervention was developed during the 19th century to justify colonialism on the basis that it was “helping” to “ civilize” a population.
It was a lie then, and it is a lie now.
The idea that forces are bombing Libya to protect the population is paper thin.
The uprisings across the country were inspired by the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
Millions believe that they can fight for a better life—free from oppression.
But the West is hijacking these aspirations in order to move in and protect their oil supplies and the network of private companies that make billions out of the country’s resources.
The same has been the case for generations as the US, Britain, France and Italy—Libya’s previous colonial rulers—rampaged around the world stealing resources.
Sudan is an example of what really happens when the US and Britain intervene in other countries.
For the British and later the US ruling classes, Sudan was an entry point to the Suez Canal and the Middle East.
It was also a vital staging post into sub-Saharan Africa.
That is why it was one of the biggest recipients of US aid until the 1980s.
But it came at a price—the four biggest African recipients of US aid are all now in the grip of war and social collapse.
Iraq and Afghanistan were also sold to us as humanitarian interventions.
You only have to look at the death, destruction and division there to see just how hollow the lie is.
The reality is that humanitarian intervention means war.
Since the international bombing started in Libya, Gaddafi’s forces have continued to attack the revolutionary strongholds.
People have been killed on both sides—but the rebel forces continue to fight back.
But having to cope with a war and Gaddafi’s forces will make it so much harder for the rebels to win.
The cost of Britain’s war on Libya – £3 million a day
While the government claims there is no money to fund public services, it is prepared to spend millions of pounds on bombing Libya at a moment’s notice. These are some of the costs of going to war:
£900,000 for each Tomahawk cruise missile
£40,000 per hour, per jet in the air
£1,000,000 a week on each submarine
£750,000 on each Storm Shadow cruise missile
£2 million a day on Navy ships in the Mediterranean
(****Now here is something that makes me laugh because Britain is caught red handed!!!! on something they really do not want to share with the rest of the world. One of their dirty secrets is coming out.)
Britain and Libya: tortured friends
by Simon Basketter
New documents expose years of murderous interventions in Libya by British governments.
Within days of celebrating their role in overthrowing former dictator Gaddafi, the shallowness of British claims to support democracy in Libya was shown in evidence of their support for torture.
After years of denial and cover-up by both Labour and Tory governments there is now panic in the political establishment.
One secret letter shows that MI6 provided intelligence which led to the torture of a Libyan dissident. It is among hundreds of documents found by Human Rights Watch in the offices of the Libyan foreign ministry.
The letter “for Musa in Tripoli from Mark in London”, about Abdel Hakim Belhadj, was written by Sir Mark Allen, MI6’s then counter-terrorism chief. Allen now works for BP (see below). It was addressed to then Libyan foreign minister Musa Kusa.
Belhadj, who is now a senior military commander in the anti-Gaddafi army, was interviewed by British agents and repeatedly tortured in Libya.
Allen writes, “This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over recent years.”
Allen congratulates Musa Kusa on the arrival of Belhadj and says the rendition was carried out by the US on the basis of British intelligence.
Calling Belhadj “air cargo”, he thanks Kusa for the support shown to an MI6 agent. “I am so glad,” he says. “I was grateful to you for helping the officer we sent out last week.”
Kusa fled Libya with the assistance of MI6 in February.
Another document, a CIA fax, reveals Britain set up a torture flight for Gaddafi.
The fax from March 2004 says that the CIA is aware that Libyan intelligence were “co-operating” with British spies “to transfer a suspect to Tripoli”.
MI6 were arranging the extraordinary rendition of Abu Munthir from Hong Kong via the Maldives. The current whereabouts of Munthir is unknown.
British special forces helped to prop up Gaddafi. SAS soldiers trained Gaddafi’s internal security forces.
A letter from one British official also offered to provide training from private company Arturus, with the SAS on hand to “provide quality assurance”.
The shifting sands of who the US and Britain wanted as allies in the Middle East shaped this poisonous web. The oil industry decided the pace of events.
The sands shifted again in response to the revolt in the country. But Britain’s involvement then and now has been purely for its own imperial interests.
The British establishment promoted Gaddafi’s regime in the interests of the oil industry.
That meant collecting details of dissidents in Britain for the Libyan government—and encouraging torture.
Both Labour ministers and the current Tories claimed torture flights did not happen—now they say they have stopped.
Both David Miliband and William Hague have insisted that Britain wasn’t involved in torture.
Former Labour home secretary Jack Straw said in December 2005, “Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, I’m lying and that behind this there is some kind of secret state in league with some dark forces in the US… there is simply no truth in claims that the UK has been involved in rendition.”
In response to the new allegations, David Cameron defended the work of MI6 as vital to security and urged people not to “rush to judgment”.
He then palmed off an investigation to the Gibson inquiry into torture. Lawyers of the victims of torture have boycotted the inquiry.
The inquiry is a whitewash—sitting in secret regardless of whether someone gives evidence that is secret.
Gibson may need some more paint.
Linking MI6, BP, LSE and Libya
While Sir Mark Allen ran MI6’s Middle East desk, he fixed a BP-Libya oil deal. He went to work as a special adviser to BP after he left the Foreign Office in 2004.
Allen is a senior adviser to the Monitor Group—“a global consultancy and private equity firm”. The firm is headed by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and adviser to BP.
Monitor drew up a strategy to “enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi”. It helped write Saif Gaddafi’s PhD thesis at the LSE.
Allen is still on the advisory board of the LSE’s centre for the study of international affairs, LSE Ideas.
Oil firms hit the jackpot in Libya
Western business interests have arrived in Libya. Lord Green, minister for trade and investment, led a British delegation including representatives of BP and Shell for talks in the capital Tripoli on Monday.
The same companies happily profited from their links with Gaddafi. Now they want to benefit from the gratitude that opposition leaders feel they owe to Nato.
National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil has indicated that Nato countries will receive preferential treatment in investment deals.
Hotels in Benghazi and Tripoli are swarming with executives and their fixers. Financial papers say Libya will offer around £130 billion in “investment opportunities” over the next decade.
It has plenty of money to dish out. Up to £110 billion worth of frozen Gaddafi-era assets alone should help pay for reconstruction.
Estimates for the cost of Britain’s intervention in Libya have soared to seven times what the government originally claimed.
Some estimates are as high as £1.75 billion. Still, business leaders will consider it money well spent if the profits start to flow.
*This is one version of several stories. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of “Libya Against Superpowermedia”
Gadhafi’s crime: Making Libya’s economy work for Libyans
“Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.”—Muammar Gadhafi, 2006.
The Wall Street Journal of 5 May offers evidence, additional to that already accumulated, that last year’s NATO military intervention in Libya was rooted in objections to the Gadhafi government’s economic policies.
According to the newspaper, private oil companies were incensed at the pro-Libyan oil deals the Gadhafi government was negotiating and “hoped regime change in Libya…would bring relief in some of the tough terms they had agreed to in partnership deals” with Libya’s national oil company. 
For decades, many European companies had enjoyed deals that granted them half of the high-quality oil produced in Libyan fields. Some major oil companies hoped the country would open further to investment after sanctions from Washington were lifted in 2004 and U.S. giants re-entered the North African nation.
But in the years that followed, the Gadhafi regime renegotiated the companies’ share of oil from each field to as low as 12%, from about 50%.
Just after the fall of the regime, several foreign oil companies expressed hopes of better terms on existing deals or attractive ones for future contracts. Among the incumbents that expressed hopes in Libyan expansion were France’s Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
‘We see Libya as a great opportunity under the new government,’ Sara Akbar, chief executive of privately owned Kuwait Energy Co., said in an interview in November. ‘Under Gadhafi, it was off the radar screen’ because of its ‘very harsh’ terms, said Mrs. Akbar. 
The Journal had earlier noted the “harsh” (read pro-Libyan) terms the Gadhafi government had imposed on foreign oil companies.
Under a stringent new system known as EPSA-4, the regime judged companies’ bids on how large a share of future production they would let Libya have. Winners routinely promised more than 90% of their oil output to NOC (Libya’s state-owned National Oil Corp).
Meanwhile, Libya kept its crown jewels off limits to foreigners. The huge onshore oil fields that accounted for the bulk of its production remained the preserve of Libya’s state companies.
Even firms that had been in Libya for years got tough treatment. In 2007, authorities began forcing them to renegotiate their contracts to bring them in line with EPSA-4.
One casualty was Italian energy giant Eni SpA. In 2007, it had to pay a $1 billion signing bonus to be able to extend the life of its Libyan interests until 2042. It also saw its share of production drop from between 35% and 50%—depending on the field—to just 12%. 
Oil companies were also frustrated that Libya’s state-owned oil company “stipulated that foreign companies had to hire Libyans for top jobs.” 
A November 2007 US State Department cable had warned that those “who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector” and that there was “growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism.” 
The cable cited a 2006 speech in which Gadhafi said: “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.” 
Gadhafi’s government had forced oil companies to give their local subsidiaries Libyan names. Worse, “labor laws were amended to ‘Libyanize’ the economy,” that is, turn it to the advantage of Libyans. Oil firms “were pressed to hire Libyan managers, finance people and human resources directors.”  (***HOW TRAGIC FOR THE FOREIGNERS)
The New York Times summed up the West’s objections. “Colonel Gadhafi,” the US newspaper of record said last year, “proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands.” 
To be sure, that private oil companies and the US government objected to Gadhafi’s pro-Libya economic policies doesn’t prove that NATO intervened militarily to topple the Gadhafi government. But it is consistent with a panoply of evidence that points in this direction.
First, we can dismiss the West’s claims that it pressed its military alliance into service on humanitarian grounds. As civil strife heated up in Libya, a Saudi-led alliance of petro-monarchies sent tanks and troops to crush an uprising in Bahrain. The United States, Britain and France—leaders of the intervention in Libya—did nothing to stop the violent Bahraini crackdown. Significantly, Bahrain is home to the US Fifth Fleet. Equally significantly, its economic policies—unlike Libya’s under Gadhafi—are designed to put foreign investors first.
Second, without exception, countries that are the object of Western regime change efforts—North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Iran—have set the economic interests of some part of their populations, or all of it, above those of foreign investors and foreign corporations. True, the economic policies of India, Russia and China are nationalist to some degree, and yet these countries do not face the same extent of regime change pressures, but they are too large for a US alliance to conquer without an onerous expense in blood and treasure. The West targets the weak.
Finally, Western governments are dominated by major investors and corporations. Corporate and financial domination of the state happens in a number of ways: lobbying; the buying of politicians through political campaign funding and the promise of lucrative post-political jobs; the funding of think-tanks to recommend government policy; and the placement of corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers in key positions in the state. To expect that foreign policy is shaped by humanitarian concerns and not the profit-making interests of oil companies, arms manufacturers, exporters, and engineering firms seeking infrastructure and reconstruction contracts aboard is to ignore the enormous influence big business and big finance exert over Western states.
In some parts of the world, the arrangement is different. There, governments have organized their economies to serve their citizens, rather than organizing labor, the country’s markets and its natural resources to serve outside investors and foreign corporations.
For refusing to give their citizens’ lives over to the enrichment of foreign titans of finance and captains of industry, these countries are made to pay a price. Their leaders are vilified by scurrilous propaganda and threatened with prosecutions by international criminal tribunals funded and controlled by Western states; they’re targeted by economy-disrupting blockades and sanctions whose chaotic effects are dishonestly blamed on the governments’ “mismanagement” and “unsound” economic policies and whose aim is to create widespread misery to pressure populations to rise up against their governments; fifth columns are created with Western funding and support to engineer regime change from within; and the omnipresent threat of outside military intervention is maintained to pressure the countries’ governments to back down from putting their citizens’ interests first.
Gadhafi’s sins weren’t crimes against humanity but actions in its service. His reputation blackened, government overthrown, country besieged from without and destabilized from within, his life was ended for daring to enact a radical idea—pressing the economy into the service of the people of his country, rather than the people of his country and their natural resources into the service of foreign business interests.
1,2. Benoit Faucon, “For big oil, the Libya opening that wasn’t”, The Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012
3, 4. Guy Chazan, “For West’s oil firms, no love lost in Libya”, The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2011.
5,6,7. Steven Mufson, “Conflict in Libya: U.S. oil companies sit on sidelines as Gaddafi maintains hold”, The Washington Post, June 10, 2011
8. Clifford Kraus, “The scramble for access to Libya’s oil wealth begins”, The New York Times, August 22, 2011.
Libya: How Many Dirty Hands?
by Felicity Arbuthnot
Oh what a tangled web they weave
When first they practice to invade
A sovereign nation and deceive
The world about their dark crusade.
(Michael Leunig, Poet, Cartoonist, 1945)
This weekend a detailed article (i) suggested that a: “French secret serviceman, acting on the express orders of the then President Sarkozy, is suspected of “the murder of Colonel Quaddafi” on the 20th of October last year.
Whilst bearing in mind that the NATO-backed insurgents now in power, who have near destroyed much of Libya, de-stabilised, terrorized and hope to carve up Libya’s resources for their, rather than the country’s benefit, have every reason to wish to disassociate themselves from the butchery of Colonel Qaddafi’s terrible death, the new allegations illuminate interesting points.
The French assassin, it is claimed, infiltrated the mob rabidly manhandling the Colonel, and shot him in the head.
“The motive, according to well placed (Libyan) sources,” was to prevent any chance of interrogation into Sarkozy’s links with Colonel Qaddafi.
The Mail previously revealed (ii), quoting a French governmental briefing note published by an investigative website, that fifty million euros has been, “laundered though bank accounts in Panama and Switzerland … from Colonel Qaddafi to fund (Sarkozy’s 2007) election as President,” which if correct, “would have broken political financing laws.” Sarkozy’s “numerous visits to Libya” were also cited.
Further claims are that, “The Swiss account was opened in the name of the sister of Jean-Francois Cope, the leader of Mr Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, and the President’s right-hand-man.”
Qaddafi’s son, Saif alIslam, whose life hangs in the balance and no doubt further so, should he be subject to the Libyan “judicial system,” has stated unequivocally regarding the Sarkozy campaign funding, “We have all the details and are ready to reveal everything … We funded it.”
No wonder Saif, also generous funder (£1.5 million) to his former place of, advanced study, the prestigious London School of Economics – where he also delivered the annual Ralph Miliband Lecture in May2010, named for the renowned academic and father of the former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and his brother Ed, current Leader of the Labour Party – has been abandoned by the Western powers who had formerly welcomed him – then conspired in another illegal coup, this time in his country.
Sarkozy of course, on becoming President, memorably welcomed Colonel Quaddafi on a State Visit to Paris in December 2007, greeting him as “Brother Leader” and hosting his famed Bedouin tent next to the Elysee Palace.
Tony Blair, of course, visited Qaddafi on many occasions, even flying in the Colonel’s private plane, pushing mega business deals. He too is mute on the horrors of the death and the fate of his children, grandchildren and country.
The Mail also makes the points that, “The United Nations mandate which sanctioned (the misnamed ‘no fly zone’) expressly stated that the Western allies could not interfere in the internal politics of the country. Instead the almost daily bombing runs ended with Qaddafi’s overthrow, while both French and British military ‘advisers’ were said to have assisted on the ground.”
“Now Mahmoud Jibril, who served as interim Prime Minister following Gaddafi’s overthrow, has told Egyptian TV, ‘It was a foreign agent who mixed with the revolutionary brigades to kill Gaddafi.’ “
Another Tripoli source, according to the paper, stated, “Sarkozy had every reason to try to silence the Colonel and as quickly as possible,” with a further “diplomatic source” also stressing Qaddafi’s threats to reveal the financial details of the funding to the 2007 French Presidential elections donations.
An interesting point, if correct, is made by Rami El Obeidi, the “former head of foreign relations for the Libyan Transitional Council (who) said he knew that Qaddafi had been “tracked through his satellite telecommunications system as he talked to the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.” Which begs an elephantine question: are the two murderous Western backed rampages against Libya and Syria and their leaders connected?
How much of alleged murky financial deals does Syria’s President also know?
Interestingly, Ben Oman Shaaban (22) one of those who attacked Colonel Qaddafi was badly injured, seemingly by those loyal to the Colonel, in an attack in July. Flown to Paris for treatment, he died in hospital last week. Shabaan was said to have frequently brandished the handgun said to have killed the Colonel. If true, he would have interesting knowledge about the appalling events of the day.
Sarkozy has consistently denied receiving money from the Libyan Leader and was not available to give a comment to the Mail. Enquiries into “alleged financial irregularities ” are ongoing.
Worthy of mention is that in November 2007, just before Qaddafi’s Paris visit, “A US State Department cable had warned that those ‘who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector’ and that there was ‘growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism.’ “
The cable cited a 2006 speech in which Qaddafi said, “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money. Qaddafi’s government had forced oil companies to give their local subsidiaries Libyan names. Worse, ‘labor laws were amended to ‘Libyanize’ the economy, ‘that is, turn it to the advantage of Libyans.” Goodness, shocking.
“Oil firms ‘were pressed to hire Libyan managers, finance people and human resources directors.’ “ (iii)
Perhaps then it is no wonder all round, that on hearing of Colonel Qaddafi’s horrific death, President Nobel Obama declared it was a, “momentous day.” (BBC, 20th October 2011) Madam Clinton followed with a raucous laugh and, “We came, we saw, he died.”
There is only one certainty, in the whole shaming “regime change” in Libya, there are no clean hands.
And where is Colonel Qaddafi’s body?
*This is one version of several stories. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru’s editors, correspondents or contributors.
Prepared for publication by:
Libya:Siege of Bani Walid, Moussa Ibrahim False? “Capture” claims, anniversary of Gadaffi’s death
IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH Khamis death today and ibrahims capture are false yet again. I have never believed them before- but I fell for it this time. So many lies.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=54870http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=16456 http://www.libya-alyoum.com/news/index.php?id=21&textid=12253 http://www.libya-alyoum.com/news/index.php?id=21&textid=12315 http://www.libya-alyoum.com/news/index.php?id=21&textid=12253http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/2012101883633221527.htmlhttps://docs.google.com/a/microtopia.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=b…http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=54870
The Last Major Stronghold resisting the New Libya has been re-entered by its worst foes, Bani Walid has a rival with Misurata that dates back 100 years. And the New Libyan Government authorized militias with hearts filled with hatred to enter the city and purge it of loyalist elements.
Go to Map
The Libya of today is a creation of Hilarry Clinton. We are 100% responsible. It was the US that enabled the overthrow of Libya — which enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa and most of the mid east, protected women and minorities rights — and was indeed an autocracy and police state in many ways, there was not much state violence — but there was an iron discipline. The previous government thought it had entered the commity of nations by disarming and surrendering and dismantling its WMD program, and releasing the LIFG prisoners as part of a reconciliation, and by late June 2011 16 months ago they were ready under the auspices of Moussa Ibram & Saif Al Islam Al Gadaffi to have immediate elections. We declined and liquidated a large amount of their population — creating a nation deeply scarred by division and violence which was totally unnecessary.
The blood on Hilary’s hands can be shared by all NATO countries, Turkey and the Petro-monarchies.
So when I describe what has happened we each of us — a small part of us — our humanity dies as well — for you and I are responsible for our inaction in calling this for what it really was. If a party is willing to site for peace talks — and we decline — bombing the country cannot be considered humanitarian — at best blundering but essentially mass murder.
Bani Walid has been fiercely assaulted on the anniversary of the slaughter of Gadaffi, the immolation of the men and women in his caravan, the beheading of his dread-locked guards, and the summary execution of 67 of his supporters.
The blood sport was enjoyed by many
A US drone called the attack in as he fled, a French jet launched missiles into the fleeing Caravan from the city of Sirte, already a war crime site, as NATO had bombed and apartments and hospitals in addition to other sites, due to snipers presence. The city was encircled and collectively punished, people leaving the city as refugees were abused, beaten and arrested if suspected of having sympathies for their government.
Today blood sport returns. Khamis Gadaffi the youngest son, already disfigured has been killed AFTER CAPTURE — in a “cross fire” — just like his father. Most likely he was executed in cold blood. Many many civilians have been killed. He was thought dead, announced to be dead to hide him.
So for those who wish to rewrite history, and sanitize it of any objections to the NATO installation of what they thought would be a pro-western regime. (cite reference) — as this was not a civil war initially — it was an insurrection that’s ultra conservative violent interpreters of Islam were armed by the West — and the Sunni Petro-monarchies in violation of UN 1973 — for those who rejoice in giving Gadaffi a birthday present of the death of many of his supporters and his son — will they reap a bitter or a sweet harvest?
Additionally the spokesman for the Libyan Government, who I found to be an articulate intelligent man, a PhD, Moussa Ibrahim has barely survived the same fate as Khamis.
(****Thank Allah both of them are still alive and kicking asses!! )
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)