New Report Suggests Extremist Views Winning in Libya

cyberhog

The Arab Spring may quickly become an Islamist Winter in Libya, reads a new report circulated among federal law enforcement and written for policymakers on Capitol Hill.

An advance copy of the report entitled "A View to Extremist Currents In Libya" and obtained by Fox News, states that extremist views are gaining ground in the north African country and suggests a key figure emerging in Libya formerly tied to al Qaeda has not changed his stripes.

"Despite early indications that the Libyan revolution might be a largely secular undertaking ... the very extremist currents that shaped the philosophies of Libya Salafists and jihadis like (Abd al-Hakim) Belhadj appear to be coalescing to define the future of Libya," wrote Michael S. Smith II, a principal and counterterrorism adviser for Kronos LLC, the strategic advisory firm that prepared the report.


...

In its report, Smith writes that a 400-page document authored by members of the LIFG in 2009 and widely depicted as a repudiation of al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism in general was largely misinterpreted by both media and policymakers in the West, and that helped foster support for the revolution in 2011.

"The resultant misapprehensions bolstered by insufficient analysis of the LIFG's 'revisions' have likely influenced decisions made in Washington and Brussels since February 17, 2011," reads the report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/04/islamist-winter-new-report-suggests-extremist-views-winning-in-libya/

I don't believe for a second they "misinterpreted" that document. I think the media and policymakers set out to convince the public the leopard had changed it's spots to allay fears that NATO was helping terrorists get rid of Gaddafi. Obama is going to look like a complete douche bag for violating the War Powers Act if it turns out extremists with ties to Al Qaeda rise to power in Libya. If people thought Gaddafi was bad, wait and see what happens when the jihadists are running things.

john reilly

Well who would have thought. I for one am shocked!

hmmm

And if it doesn't turn into a hotbed of Islamic extremism, will you be back here praising Obama for enabling the Libyan people to free themselves from a savage dictatorship, and give themselves a chance at a better future?

Thought not.

john reilly

hmmm wrote: »

And if it doesn't turn into a hotbed of Islamic extremism, will you be back here praising Obama for enabling the Libyan people to free themselves from a savage dictatorship, and give themselves a chance at a better future?

Thought not.

Thats a very big "IF". it still doesnt change the fact that this wasnt done for the benifit of the libyian people

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/04/islamist-winter-new-report-suggests-extremist-views-winning-in-libya/

I don't believe for a second they "misinterpreted" that document. I think the media and policymakers set out to convince the public the leopard had changed it's spots to allay fears that NATO was helping terrorists get rid of Gaddafi. Obama is going to look like a complete douche bag for violating the War Powers Act if it turns out extremists with ties to Al Qaeda rise to power in Libya. If people thought Gaddafi was bad, wait and see what happens when the jihadists are running things.

I'd agree that agencies such as MI6,the CIA and the various Euro Security bodies don't normally go around misinterpreting stuff to this extent.

Mr Belhaj in particular,along with a significant number of new Libyan leaders appears full set on shaking off the supposed benefits of Western Lifestyles,apart that is,from armament's,munitions and money.

One of the more telling quotes in the Guardian article is....

The British and US governments were certainly well aware of extreme Islamist currents in eastern Libya, with a WikiLeaks cable from February 2008 describing calls to jihad in mosques in Benghazi and especially nearby Derna, a stronghold for former LIFG fighters and conservative imams who had shut down "un-Islamic" social and cultural organisations such as sports leagues, theatres and youth clubs.

The British government encouraged and helped publicise the Libyan "deradicalisation" effort, modelled on what was being done with former jihadis in Egypt. In a programme overseen by Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, the LIFG produced a 400-page theological document entitled Corrective Studies explaining its renunciation of violence. Ironically, in an al-Jazeera film in March, Belhaj praised the mediation of Saif al-Islam for his release. Gaddafi's son said that the men who had been freed "were no longer a danger to society".

Well whoop de doo,shades of 1950's Ireland and the Rose Tatoo....but seriously,it was long flagged that individuals such as Belhaj presented a definite threat to stability and peace in the wider North African/Arab theatre....It could equally be argued that the Gadaffi regime showed a degree of prescience and a good grasp of real-politik by keeping the same lad safely locked up.

Many other leaders in the region,presented with a challenger such as Belhaj,would have despatched him with extreme ferocity,however Gadaffi,not for the first time,did'nt step up to the expected level of bloodthirstiness...

Sadly for Libya,and perhaps for the wider world,Saif al-Islam Gadaffi actually believed in his own role as modernizer of Libya and of his liberal beliefs,which led to the release of Belhaj and hundreds of like minded Islamacists,an action which surely sealed his fathers and perhaps yet,his own fate.

This entire scenario has,for me,far too much going on to be an Uncle Sam presentation,I see the screenplay as far too Machivellian for them...however from my perspective,the Anglo-Franco-Italian trio of Security Services have just the required level of "background" to cover exactly the road-map of the Libyan "Popular" Unrising.

hmmm

john reilly wrote: »

Thats a very big "IF". it still doesnt change the fact that this wasnt done for the benifit of the libyian people

They're called "Libyans".

lagente

We bare a lot of responsibility in terms of Islamist rule in Libya and if it emerges in Syria. Many young men being sent over to these places from Ireland.

Primetime showing Sunni community had at least 11 known dead Irish suicide bombers sent to Iraq by end of 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wiGHbk6jIs

Some Libyans celebrating after Gaddafi and his sons torture and death in O'Connell Street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvtYUBTBnI

We are being used as a Launchpad for Sharia Law for a long time.

Syria is just as significant because Assad is relatively Secular, the rebels are Sunni with big tendencies towards fundamentalism.

I just got banned from the Islam thread for pointing out the above ( and giving out about halal meat in Ireland also).

john reilly

hmmm wrote: »

They're called "Libyans".

Deep and insightful comment!

RichieC

It is unfortunately true. Not just in libya but accross the entire world.

lagente

Abd al-Hakim Belhadj (Madrid suicide bomber affiliate), gone for a holiday in Syria now with a couple of good chums under him, obviously weighing up the needs of new Libya must have been getting to him.

Jonny7

lagente wrote: »

We bare a lot of responsibility in terms of Islamist rule in Libya and if it emerges in Syria.

This is a very strange statement - can you elaborate?

Why would "we" be responsible for Islamist rule in Syria? (I presume you are referring to Western powers)

The Egyptians look like they've voted in Islamists.

Many young men being sent over to these places from Ireland.

Who's sending them? and how many? and to which places exactly?

Some Libyans celebrating after Gaddafi and his sons torture and death in O'Connell Street.

Many would have preferred to see him in the dock, he wasn't exactly a popular guy around the world for obvious reasons. There were pretty huge celebrations all around Libya.

We are being used as a Launchpad for Sharia Law for a long time.

We rightly see Shariah law as a throwback to medieval times, and many of these places are still behind us in terms of religious development. I am guessing it will take many of these countries and regions (inc. the likes of Somalia) decades before they can learn themselves to separate religion and state (or even centuries like it took us in the West)

Syria is just as significant because Assad is relatively Secular, the rebels are Sunni with big tendencies towards fundamentalism.

I just got banned from the Islam thread for pointing out the above ( and giving out about halal meat in Ireland also).

Assad is unpopular because he runs an oppressive regime that has been in power for a few decades.

RichardAnd

This doesn't surprise me in the least. As bad as Gaddafi may have been (and that's open to debate), he kept his country under control. Without him there, it's likely the state of Libya could descend into a similar hole that Iraq fell into.

Mario007

That's democracy for ya....

AlekSmart

Mario007 wrote: »

That's democracy for ya....

True Mario007,or in Libya's case it would have been,had Libya been left to exercise it without erm....."outside assistance"..?

RichieC

All these future wars must have the pentagon worried and the war profiteers mouths salivating.

lagente

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is a very strange statement - can you elaborate?
Why would "we" be responsible for Islamist rule in Syria? (I presume you are referring to Western powers)
Who's sending them? and how many? and to which places exactly?

I know that the Sunnis in Ireland have given up trying to deal politicallly with Assad and are looking to other means.
There is going to be another Irish group like this one ( 570 members) in Syria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli_Brigade
Amazing how wikipedia was used for propaganda in Libya war. We can expect the same in Syria.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Egyptians look like they've voted in Islamists.

I don't think that is a good argument.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Many would have preferred to see him in the dock, he wasn't exactly a popular guy around the world for obvious reasons. There were pretty huge celebrations all around Libya.
Assad is unpopular because he runs an oppressive regime that has been in power for a few decades.

Democracy for Islamists, 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
What's the price to install it? Some say 25,000 dead + another 4000 missing, others say 70,000 dead already in Libya.
War going to bring great change to Syria? Do you really think democracy is going to be a good thing with this lot in charge?
www.liveleak.com/view?=565_1325416006

Jonny7 wrote: »

We rightly see Shariah law as a throwback to medieval times, and many of these places are still behind us in terms of religious development. I am guessing it will take many of these countries and regions (inc. the likes of Somalia) decades before they can learn themselves to separate religion and state (or even centuries like it took us in the West)

But does Ireland or you DO anything about it? No, in fact quite the opposite, we allow the fundamentalists to use Ireland, and launch wars from here.
Must be stopped.

Mario007

AlekSmart wrote: »

True Mario007,or in Libya's case it would have been,had Libya been left to exercise it without erm....."outside assistance"..?

they specifically asked for outside assistance without the international community setting a foot in Libya and their wish was granted. It is up to them how they now chose the direction of their country or whether or not they'll remember the help from outside. Accordingly the international community will behave differently towards Libya depending on the direction that they chose. So free will, but with consequences, as with all of life's decisions

hmmm

Mario007 wrote: »

So free will, but with consequences, as with all of life's decisions

That's all very well, but it doesn't fit into some people's desperate need to blame NATO/The West/America for "stuff". It leads to unbelievably contorted and grotesque positions, like evident in this thread, where people try to argue that life under a brutal dictator was preferable to them being allowed choose their future path.

Jonny7

lagente wrote: »

I know that the Sunnis in Ireland have given up trying to deal politicallly with Assad and are looking to other means.
There is going to be another Irish group like this one ( 570 members) in Syria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli_Brigade
Amazing how wikipedia was used for propaganda in Libya war. We can expect the same in Syria.

That's a Libyan-Irish guy (who I believed featured in a video posted on here) who commanded a brigade in Libya to fight Gaddafi. Those 570 members are not "Irish" you do realise?

Show us evidence of the "Irish group" that will be fighting in Syria.

War going to bring great change to Syria?

What war? the people are trying to rise up against the Assad family. If they manage to overthrow him they will hopefully hold elections. If the Islamists get in, well, nothing can really be done about that.

Do you really think democracy is going to be a good thing with this lot in charge?

Genuine democracy rarely happens overnight, a country has to earn it, often through blood. We in the West have collectively gone through decades and centuries of religious extremism. Unless you want the West so start installing/supporting dictators (not even an option any more), then the people will be governed by who they vote for.

But does Ireland or you DO anything about it? No, in fact quite the opposite, we allow the fundamentalists to use Ireland, and launch wars from here.
Must be stopped.

What are you talking about? If some Libyan-Irish person wants to go and fight somewhere that is their situation. If you have an issue with it, take it up with that individual and not the country collectively.

If, however, you can show us that large numbers of Irish are going to these conflicts, then please do, I am unaware of it anyway.

cyberhog

Mario007 wrote: »

they specifically asked for outside assistance without the international community setting a foot in Libya and their wish was granted.

Asking for assistance does not in itself justify intervention when the true nature of the rebellion was by no means a settled issue. The huge pro Gaddafi rallies that took place in Tripoli which you have completely written out of your narrative were a clear indication that it was not a mass popular revolution.As much as the rebels wanted to oust the Libyan leader they knew they couldn't do it by themselves not because of Gaddafi's firepower but because they had not mobilised a majority of the Libyan people behind them!

The only way the rebels could win was to bring NATO into the fray so in mid march they started spreading a cock and bull story in the media that Gaddafi would commit a genocide like massacre in Benghazi.

Libyan League for Human Rights chief Soliman Bouchuiguir, said in Geneva if Gaddafi attacked Benghazi, a city with 670,000 people and the rebels' provisional National Council, there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda."

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE7270JP20110315

At no point did Gaddafi threathen to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in Benghazi in fact the rebels were well known for making "vastly inflated claims"

the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E3D91531F931A15750C0A9679D8B63


Nevertheless a few days later NATO started bombing Libya based on regurgitated rebel propaganda.

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama said. "It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/obama-stopping-libya-slaughter-justified-military-regime-change-20110328-171728-820.html

conorhal

Mario007 wrote: »

That's democracy for ya....

Sadly, it's not.
Several commentators have pointed out that one of the major flaws with these 'twitter uprisings' is the fact that the liberal, tech savvy instigators of these popular movements lack any real leadership to coalesce around.

The problem with a 'leaderless revolution' with disparate and unclear aims beyond 'we want this dictator gone!' is of course that the movement can be quickly taken over by those on the ground who do have political muscle and community based organizational structures to capitalize on the change, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for example. As a result you end up with a democratic deficit and all these under represented twitter revolutionaries suddenly starting to wonder, 'hey, who stole our revolution?'

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

Asking for assistance does not in itself justify intervention when the true nature of the rebellion was by no means a settled issue. The huge pro Gaddafi rallies that took place in Tripoli which you have completely written out of your narrative were a clear indication that it was not a mass popular revolution.

These were organised by the state. Similar rallies are commonly held in North Korea. There have been absolutely none since Gaddafi was toppled.

As much as the rebels wanted to oust the Libyan leader they knew they couldn't do it by themselves not because of Gaddafi's firepower but because they had not mobilised a majority of the Libyan people behind them!

The people never responded to Gaddafi asking the nation to rise up, never once did they take up arms against the rebels. The rebels faced only Gaddafi military forces and mercenaries.

The only way the rebels could win was to bring NATO into the fray so in mid march they started spreading a cock and bull story in the media that Gaddafi would commit a genocide like massacre in Benghazi.

Gaddafi threatened Benghazi multiple times and mobilised his entire army.

At no point did Gaddafi threathen to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in Benghazi in fact the rebels were well known for making "vastly inflated claims"

The UN, Arab League, US, Europe and NATO intervened. There has been rebel propaganda throughout the conflict, however you are vastly exaggerating it in an attempt to try to twist all reasoning behind the conflict.

Nevertheless a few days later NATO started bombing Libya based on regurgitated rebel propaganda.

NATO started bombing military only targets under the mandate of the UN.

Sadly I expect this revisionist nonsense in respect to Syria if Western intervention ever takes place.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

These were organised by the state.

Gaddafi had plenty of genuine support.

BBC

With his government teetering - Col Gaddafi is organising the tribes who stand by him, gathering the loyalties that have kept him in power these 41 years.

No doubt some of the supporters were bussed in. But there is no discounting the genuine support that exists.

"Muammar is the love of millions" was the message written on the hands of women in the square.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14208352

The National

Colonel Qaddafi has much genuine support in Tripoli and elsewhere.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/africa/libyans-in-tripoli-chafe-secretly-under-qaddafis-rule

Jonny7 wrote: »

The people never responded to Gaddafi asking the nation to rise up, never once did they take up arms against the rebels.

That is a "Red herring" because you haven't refuted my argument that the rebels failed to mobilse a majority of Libyans behind them.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Gaddafi threatened Benghazi multiple times and mobilised his entire army.

Gaddafi never threatened to slaughter civilians in Benghazi. His threats were specifically directed towards the rebels.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The UN, Arab League, US, Europe and NATO intervened. There has been rebel propaganda throughout the conflict, however you are vastly exaggerating it in an attempt to try to twist all reasoning behind the conflict.

There is no exaggeration on my part. The head of the rebel council said he would welcome any step that stopped "genocide" happening in Benghazi.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-east-rebel-idUKTRE72G89F20110317

Talk about "genocide" was pure rebel propaganda and clearly worked on dupes like you.

Jonny7 wrote: »

NATO started bombing military only targets under the mandate of the UN.

UN mandates don't just magically materialise. The "genocide" propaganda was used by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy to secure the UN resolution. They admitted as much in a joint op-ed.

We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place... In an historic resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorized all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them. By responding immediately, our countries, together with an international coalition, halted the advance of Qaddafi’s forces and prevented the bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi.

Tens of thousands of lives have been protected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html?_r=1

It is clear to all but the most blinkered individuals that the West used rebel propaganda to justify military action.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

Gaddafi had plenty of genuine support.

BBC

Strange how he needed mercenaries to supplement that support isn't it.

That is a "Red herring" because you haven't refuted my argument that the rebels failed to mobilse a majority of Libyans behind them.

Really, explain to me how people are eager to fight against a dictator who will use T72's against them, and have no qualms about butchering them.

Gaddafi never threatened to slaughter civilians in Benghazi. His threats were specifically directed towards the rebels.

The rebels were Libyan civilians, from all walks of life, whom he threatened to cleanse house by house. Not wise words considering history. Far from empty words either, unless you think using Grad rocket launchers on residential areas is in way shape or form acceptable?

There is no exaggeration on my part. The head of the rebel council said he would welcome any step that stopped "genocide" happening in Benghazi.

Its not an exaggeration, it's an obsession on your part to revise the conflict according to your own narrative.

UN mandates don't just magically materialise. The "genocide" propaganda was used by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy to secure the UN resolution. They admitted as much in a joint op-ed.

Arab league and international support to launch military intervention in an Arab country doesn't "magically materialise" either. Unlike you, they didn't seem so interested in waiting and seeing if they could call Gaddafi's bluff.

It is clear to all but the most blinkered individuals that the West used rebel propaganda to justify military action.

Gaddafi called on all his people to arm themselves and cleanse the "rats" in the country, he called on everyone, including women to pick up weapons against their own countrymen, he called all the tribes to rally to his support and march on Tripoli

He wanted his entire country to burn rather than leave power.

He actually wanted a civil war, rather than step down.

And those who opposed him are the extremists? **** me.

cyberhog

So let's be clear Jonny7. You won't ackknowledge that Gaddafi had a lot of genuine support in Libya. You won't acknowledge that rebels said they were expecting genocide in Benghazi. You won't acknowledge that the West decided it had to intervene militarily to protect Benghazi from that alleged fate. You won't acknowlegde that removing Gaddafi has given salafists and jihadis an opportunity to impose a totalitarian Islamist regime.And if I told you that genocidal murderers like Omar al-Bashir are now welcome in Libya you probably won't acknowledge that either.

You give no consideration for the effect intervening in Libya is having on regional stability.

“The region has been turned into a powder keg,” Mohamed Bazoum, the Niger foreign minister said. “Things have changed and degraded since the Libya crisis and the region is on a war path. With stolen weapons circulating, al-Qaeda’s total impact is growing.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8748445/Libya-arms-flooding-out-of-country-has-strengthened-al-Qaeda.html

A sharp surge in terrorist attacks, attributed to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqim), is threatening pro-western Algeria's political stability

...

a connection between the surge in violence and the British and French-led intervention in Libya is the most persuasive explanation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/28/aqim-violence-algeria-libya

As far Jonny7 is concerned it was time for Gaddafi to go and we should all be celebrating. Mission accomplished. Roll credits.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

As far Jonny7 is concerned it was time for Gaddafi to go and we should all be celebrating. Mission accomplished. Roll credits.

I'm responding to your repeated threads on the matter. I'm probably the only one stupid to enough to do at this stage really.

From your selective "concern" for the people of Libya suffering from NATO (whilst Gaddafi forces were inflicting hundreds if not thousands of deaths throughout the country) to your sudden change of focus to the rebels.

Instead of attacking the cause, the root problem, the instigator - you conveniently bypass the "Hitler" of the situation and go straight for the revisionism.

Oh my eyes are fully open, I've read about the lynchings, the extremists within rebel ranks, the deaths from "collateral damage" - yet all these pale in significance when compared the original source of all this strife and violence.

If you can't sort the wheat from the chaff then by all means keep making these threads.

lagente

Jonny7 wrote: »

Instead of attacking the cause, the root problem, the instigator - you conveniently bypass the "Hitler" of the situation and go straight for the revisionism.

Oh my eyes are fully open, I've read about the lynchings, the extremists within rebel ranks, the deaths from "collateral damage" - yet all these pale in significance when compared the original source of all this strife and violence.

You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know. During the Persian Gulf war, those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." "How do you know that?" "Uh, well … we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears, we're goin' in. What time's the bank open? Eight? We're going in at nine. We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a fetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you ****ing need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!"
- Bill Hicks

john reilly

it doesnt matter if these groups have a majority or not. if america supports them they are freedom fighters and if they dont they are terrorists, either way america will arm them

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh my eyes are fully open....

Your eyes are not as open as you think they are. The so called "peaceful" protesters demanding "humanitarian" intervention were slaughtering innocent African migrants and black Libyans from the outset.

During 18 and 19 February, there were major retaliatory attacks by the opposition forces against the mercenaries. 50 African mercenaries were executed by the protesters in Bayda. Some died when protestors burned down the police station in which they locked them up and 15 were lynched in front of the courthouse in Bayda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Benghazi

But the truth is those Africans weren't mercenaries! Amnesty International's chief investigator for the Middle East and Africa checked the claims and found no evidence.

“We examined this issue in depth and found no evidence. The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”

http://derstandard.at/plink/1308680482845?sap=2&_pid=21929887

Ms Rovera adds

" the consequence of such a myth is that we have a situation where Libyan citizens have attacked Africans in the street based only on the color of their skin."

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012344751-il-y-a-eu-des-dizaines-de-cas-de-soldats-assassines

"Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released," says Ms Rovera. "Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents."

...

She says: "The politicians kept talking about mercenaries, which inflamed public opinion and the myth has continued because they were released without publicity."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html


Politicans that spread the myth of black mercenaries included members of the NTC in Benghazi, British Defence Minister Liam Fox and NATO spokesperson Oana Longescu.


We also had the the prosecutor of the ICC claiming he had "information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government. Apparently he [Colonel Gaddafi] used it to punish people".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

That was of course just another myth that was used to strengthen the case for military intervention.

A report from International Crisis Group adds

"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".

Meanwhile rebels continued to round up and execute large numbers of innocent African migrants and black Libyans.

A Turkish construction worker told the British radio station BBC: ‘We had seventy to eighty people from Chad working for our company. They were massacred with pruning shears and axes, accused by the attackers of being Gaddafi’s troops. The Sudanese people were massacred. We saw it for ourselves.’ ”

...

Julius Kiluu, a 60-year-old construction manager, told Reuters: ‘We were attacked by people from the village. They accused us of being murderous mercenaries. But in reality they simply refuse to tolerate us. Our camp was burnt down. Our company and our embassy helped us get to the airport.’

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml

The reality is this was not a people's revolution and whether you like it or not Gaddafi had a huge amount of genuine support in Libya. The rebels made false claims about mercenaries, mass rape and aircraft attacking civilian protestors while they themselves were attempting to ethnically cleanse any areas they captured of their dark-skinned inhabitants. This doesn’t make Gaddafi "the good guy" but it does cast a huge shadow on the whole "oppressed people gather to oust the hated dictator" story line.

Jonny7 I know it's a hard pill to swallow but the plain fact of the matter is you were duped by rebel propaganda. The side you chose to publicly support are just as evil as the regime they toppled.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

Your eyes are not as open as you think they are. The so called "peaceful" protesters demanding "humanitarian" intervention were slaughtering innocent African migrants and black Libyans from the outset.

No they weren't "slaughtering" innocent African migrants and black Libyans from the outset. Gaddafi was employing black mercenaries mainly from sub-Saharan Africa to fight his own people. There was an initial huge exodus from the country of migrants, expats, foreign workers, many countries scrambled to get their people (dispatching ships, helicopters, etc) - they were all fleeing the violence, conflict and the threat of violence from the state.

But the truth is those Africans weren't mercenaries! Amnesty International's chief investigator for the Middle East and Africa checked the claims and found no evidence.

Absolute rubbish, they were mercenaries, many were caught, I have linked a multitude of stories on this. Live pictures of the capture of various towns, and large numbers of black mercenaries captured along-side pro-Gaddafi forces.

Politicans that spread the myth of black mercenaries included members of the NTC in Benghazi, British Defence Minister Liam Fox and NATO spokesperson Oana Longescu.

Rubbish again, as a world war two history buff I have come across this kind of revisionism before.

We also had the the prosecutor of the ICC claiming he had "information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government. Apparently he [Colonel Gaddafi] used it to punish people".

That was of course just another myth that was used to strengthen the case for military intervention.

Rape is common in conflict, this story exploded because of the angle "viagra", its still unconfirmed, so it easily may not be true. Also the ICC prosecutor also backed the story of Saif Gaddafi being captured on the night Tripoli was taken, which was also false.

Meanwhile rebels continued to round up and execute large numbers of innocent African migrants and black Libyans.

I don't condone it in any way shape or form. The use of black mercenaries by Gaddafi triggered it.

The reality is this was not a people's revolution and whether you like it or not Gaddafi had a huge amount of genuine support in Libya.

No he didn't. Pol Pot, Saddam, Kim Il Yong received support through fear by use of their apparatus of fear (internal state security, etc). You clearly do not grasp this concept.

The rebels made false claims about mercenaries, mass rape and aircraft attacking civilian protestors while they themselves were attempting to ethnically cleanse any areas they captured of their dark-skinned inhabitants.

The rebels used their own propaganda, as Gaddafi used his.

Gaddafi initiated violence against peaceful unarmed protesters. This triggered a response. Gaddafi subsequently used more force, violence, mercenaries, on the protesters (I have linked all this many times in the past across multiple debates) - this triggered more responses from his own people and subsequently from the international community.

You are attacking these responses as if they are the cause and completely ignoring the extreme measures and gross human rights violations that Gaddafi was inflicting and committing.

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

The reality is this was not a people's revolution and whether you like it or not Gaddafi had a huge amount of genuine support in Libya. The rebels made false claims about mercenaries, mass rape and aircraft attacking civilian protestors while they themselves were attempting to ethnically cleanse any areas they captured of their dark-skinned inhabitants. This doesn’t make Gaddafi "the good guy" but it does cast a huge shadow on the whole "oppressed people gather to oust the hated dictator" story line.

The side you chose to publicly support are just as evil as the regime they toppled.

My take on it also.

The reality of this "nasty little war",was that until Mr Obama and Mr Cameron managed to freeze some $50 Billion of Libyan State Funds,the fighting was to'ing and fro'ing in the way such conflicts tend to.

What did for Col G was having his ability to pay the bills suddenly removed,this left him relying on dwindling cash on hand to pay for the machine of state to function...so once his employees could not be paid it was only a matter of time until they were forced to look to the "other side" for their income.

It would not necessarily be the soldiers who failed the man,but the ordinary Libyan Mechanic,Butcher,Shopkeeper,Policeman who,up until quite late in proceedings,had not embraced the revolutionary ideal with any great zeal>

Money talks,and the lack of it tends to SHOUT !!!