clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

Libya: putting the lie to bed

I wonder how Cameron (or whichever European Commission rep occupies the chair) will respond when the pro democracy protests come to the UK? Will government forces fire on protesters, will they call in the EU gestapo with a licence to kill? Who will aid the Brits?

Putting the lie “it’s about protecting civilians” to bed:
Hillary Clinton: no decision on whether to arm Libyan rebels
An international coalition piled pressure on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to quit, resolving to continue military action against his forces until he complies with a U.N. resolution to protect civilians.

I wonder has anyone thought to approach the only legal government in Libya? People don’t talk to Rothschild when they want the UK to do something.

Reported yesterday Clinton (spokesperson for Soros and seemingly the US war councillor)
DT Libya live 29 March “21.06 There appears to be a split between Nato head Anders Fogh Rasmussen who says the role of the coalition is to protect civiliians and Hillary Clinton who has interpreted the 1973 UN resolution to mean that it would be legal to arm rebels. William Hague has insisted that arming rebels was not discussed at the summit in London today.”

The UN charter states that national laws apply. Libyan national law provides for the suppression of armed insurgency as do most if not all nations.
The intervention was permitted based on what might happen if the Libyan air force was allowed to fly that appears to based on the words of 2 deserting Libyan airmen seeking asylum and Gadaffi’s rants, while at the same time Gadaffi is claimed to be insane.
Clinton has an extraordinarily liberal interpretation of the UN resolution pertaining to the Libyan situation, presumably paragraph 4 that “authorises the use of all necessary means (short of an occupation force)“  that is about protecting civilian populated areas under threat of attack.
Lawyers paid to get justification out of the resolution have said it does not prohibit arming rebels. They have not said it supercedes the UN charter that prohibits supplying arms to combatants during conflict. The UN is a toothless doormat as well as a puppet. The puppets in charge of coalition countries are twisting the laws to justify what they want to do and are doing.
The UN appears to have been ignored before the question of arms was raised in that Cameron visited Egypt with arms dealers just prior to the intervention, Egypt has since supplied the insurgents. The US asked Saudi to do the same but they were too busy killing protesters in Bahrain and suppressing protests in their own country.
Considering the numbers the missiles, bombs and bullets from the coalition have killed, the additional deaths due to up-scaling and prolonging the insurgency, personally I question both the sanity of the warmongers, the moral justification for the intervention and the motives of all involved especially in view of the alacrity with which a cartel central bank and new oil company have been established by the insurgents’ council and the insertion of an ambassador by Sarkozy.
Additional factors that the secret services of the countries leading the charge must have been aware of prior to the action is the fact that terrorists involved in killing US and UK forces in Iraq are involved in the uprising. As a specialist in sharia law the head of the council, the insurgents’ leader appears to be an islamic extremist. The insurgents in the main are no more than a small number of amateurs, most ferried in private cars and pick-ups with no clue and no professional leadership that are easily chased away by regulars. In a proper confrontation they would be massacred, perhaps an objective of the coalition. The council certainly has widespread support in Benghazi but it is an extremely dubious assumption to think that it has majority support of the nation.
The Arab League was cajoled to call for the NFZ. Most are dictatorships. Many are seeing protests and responding similarly to Libya except their protesters are unarmed. The African Union was ignored because it called for a peaceful solution.
Vested interests: Sarkozy triggered the intervention. He had signed contracts to supply arms and nuclear energy to Libya that became an embarrassment due to his imminent end of term elections. The US had been mulling fomenting widespread M.E. disruption since 2007. Libya supplies 4% of the world’s oil and its supply and price is controlled by the Libyan government that Gaddafi influences. For other bank clerks like Cameron and Rompuy the state bank is not cartel owned, has a huge gold reserves and Libya has investments in many countries and money in many international banks that could be pocketed were Gaddafi killed and the present government ousted.

This is one kettle of fish a premier that is moral, sane, honest and with an IQ above that of a plank would have been well advised to avoid. Russia or Germany could have vetoed, I suspect Putin wanted to but his boss forbade him. Merkel is as much guided by Bilderberg as her addiction to power. Abstaining was the middle ground between what the “think tank” asses wanted and what the electorate would accept.

In summing up, the threat to Benghazi and permission of the UN were a pretence used to get into Libya and spread mayhem on behalf of interests other than those publicly stated. Fighting a war for a poorly supported insurgence with grandiose ideas was never part of the deal whichever way the UN regulations are contorted.

Now a new conundrum presents. NATO has taken over the NFZ control from the US. NATO is an impartial organisation, it is not allowed to take sides.

With the insurgents that were to attack Sirte still running, currently 70km east of Sirte and beyond the oil town of Ras Lanuf, my recommendation to NATO is to have the insurgents declare a cease fire before an insurgent massacre occurs in Benghazi without a Libyan air force. Let the AU and Turkey mediate a peaceful solution that, unlike Cameron, Sarkozy and Clinton’s methodology, will save lives. Tell the egotists to swallow their personal ambitions and oil and bank vested interests to get TF out.

Western air and naval strikes against Libya are threatening the Arab Spring.
Ironically, one of the reasons many people supported the call for a no-fly zone was the fear that if Gaddafi managed to crush the Libyan people's uprising and remain in power, it would send a devastating message to other Arab dictators: Use enough military force and you will keep your job.
Instead, it turns out that just the opposite may be the result: It was after the UN passed its no-fly zone and use-of-force resolution, and just as US, British, French and other warplanes and warships launched their attacks against Libya, that other Arab regimes escalated their crack-down on their own democratic movements.
In Yemen, 52 unarmed protesters were killed and more than 200 wounded on Friday by forces of the US-backed and US-armed government of Ali Abdullah Saleh. It was the bloodiest day of the month-long Yemeni uprising. President Obama "strongly condemned" the attacks and called on Saleh to "allow demonstrations to take place peacefully".
But while a number of Saleh's government officials resigned in protest, there was no talk from Saleh's US backers of real accountability, of a travel ban or asset freeze, not even of slowing the financial and military aid flowing into Yemen in the name of fighting terrorism.
Similarly in US-allied Bahrain, home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, at least 13 civilians have been killed by government forces. Since the March 15 arrival of 1,500 foreign troops from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, brought in to protect the absolute power of the king of Bahrain, 63 people have been reported missing.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said: "We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is."
But she never demanded that foreign troops leave Bahrain, let alone threatened a no-fly zone or targeted air strikes to stop their attacks.
More (22 March)

The rebel interim council is demanding the right to buy arms to defend the insurgency and their gains against liberation by gov't forces.
Sorry, I'll right that.
The rebel interim council is demanding the right to buy arms to defend the freed cities against capture by Gaddafi.
Media is taking on board the fact that the coalition has enabled a civil war to develop from a protest.

BBC 18:25: RANsquawk tweets: "Libya rebel military spokesman says fighting under way in Brega. Ajdabiya will be new line of defence."
18:33: Following on from that last tweet, rebel spokesman Ahmad Bani tells Reuters that civilians are under threat from the advancing Libyan army and he called on coalition planes to "take out" Gaddafi's forces. He added: "We are seeking weapons that will be able to destroy the heavy weapons they are using against us such as tanks and artillery."
If the rebels lay down their arms and declare a cease fire then the call to protect them as citizens can be justified imo.

First indication of the size of the Libyan forces from Sirte:
BBC 1850: Wednesday's chaotic retreat by rebel forces from a number of towns and villages they had seized in recent days came after they were confronted by thousands of Chadian Republican Guards, rebel spokesman Col Ahmed Bani told reporters in Benghazi.

Amnesty International has released a briefing report about those forcibly "disappeared" in Libya.

Libyan rebels are reportedly fighting Gaddafi's troops in the oil town of Brega, and have asked coalition forces for arms supplies and air support.
Ahmad Bani, a rebel army spokesman in the stronghold of Benghazi, said they had to pull back after the better-equipped Libyan military gained ground. Bani said civilians were under threat and that warplanes should "take out" Gaddafi's forces.
" Fighting is now under way at Brega and Ajdabiya will be a new defence point. We are seeking weapons that will be able to destroy the heavy weapons they are using against us such as tanks and artillery."
2:59am Nancy Soderberg, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, says the United States may consider providing "defensive weapons" to anti-Gaddafi fighters in Libya - but doing so "quietly".
She tells Al Jazeera that officials will always seek to further their strategic interests, but that the US did not create the armed rebel groups, and doesn't entirely know who they are.

[Via Qatar? (Note, the country has a history of hospitality to terrorists.)]

16.44 An air strike was carried out on Gaddafi's forces near Ajdabiyah, where rebels are sheltering after having been routed from their front lines, an AFP reporter witnessed. The strike, about 10 kilometres (6.5 miles) west of Ajdabiyah, sent a huge plume of smoke rising into the sky and brought cries of jubilation from the rebel fighters, who had earlier called for air support by coalition jets. The air raid was the first in two days in eastern Libya, where rebel forces were pushed back some 200 kilometres on Wednesday by Gaddafi's forces who blazed through town after town with tanks and heavy artillery.
[Ajdabiyah (deserted when the insurgents arrived) is the last stop before Benghazi. What if The Libyan forces go for the council?
NATO has officially stepped beyond neutrality and is now an aggressor.]

20:09 The influential chairman of the US House of Representatives' intelligence committee has just said he opposes supplying arms to the rebels. Republican Mike Rogers said:
Quote As we publicly debate next steps on Libya, I do not support arming the Libyan rebels at this time. We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them.

Is Libya being bombed by bloody U.S. Zio thugs because Gaddafi wants to introduce gold dinar?
Doubtful it is the whole reason but it could be an additional factor.

2040: The Libyan government has warned foreign companies against signing oil deals with the Benghazi-based rebels. "No country can leave the management of this commodity to armed gangs to tamper with it as a commodity or with its revenues," the statement by the General People's Committee said. It was carried on the state news agency Jana, as translated by BBC Monitoring.

BBC quicky leaks
2105: President Obama has signed a secret order authorising covert US support for the Libyan rebels, Reuters reports, citing government sources. The CIA and the White House have declined immediate comment.
Get Gaddafi? Not much time left before the oil fields are recovered if the push continues. As the number of fronts dwindles more Libyan forces can be deployed to Misurata and Ajdabiyah. Maybe they'll keep Misurata at stalemate, bypass Benghazi and go for Tobruk or the softer towns in between. Either way that will leave the insurgents with 1/2 Misurata, Benghazi and maybe Tobruk isolated.
(I'm off to the bookies. Damn, too late. )

Like watching a chess game.
Was the CIA permission backdated? Does it comply with the UN resolution?
The facade the UN presents has been undermined and contributions to the empty drum should be stopped immediately.
The UN needs to state whether the UN resolution has greater authority than the charter. That will resolve the arms issue and if the UN follows the script, they will approve arms supply to parties in conflict opening a whole new era of conflict escalation.
NATO, the UK should withdraw as it can no longer be relied on to be neutral.
The UK could actually end up better off for once.
Just the EU left. The European Council is "the buck stops here" nomination. They sanctioned an apparently illegal intervention in an internal affair.
Time to get out of the EU before the country gets screwed any further.

2124: Another tweet from CNN's Nic Robertson: "This woman w/injured leg is only purported civilian injury we hv seen despite govt claims numerous civilians wounded and killed n air strikes"

Business is bombing
No Business Like War Business: Who Stands to Profit from Intervention in Libya?
From the Pentagon to the French government to the water privatizers, here are some of the beneficiaries of the campaign in Libya.
March 30, 2011
Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. The mind boggles with so many black holes engulfing this splendid little war that is not a war (a "time-limited, scope-limited military action", as per the White House) - compounded with the inability of progressive thinking to condemn, at the same time, the ruthlessness of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and the Anglo-French-American "humanitarian" bombing.
...Incidentally, the "coalition of the wiling" fighting Libya consists of only 12 NATO members (out of 28) plus Qatar. This has absolutely nothing to do with an "international community".
Freudian slip, Wiling?

Did Levy mislead Sarkozy? Here is some propaganda.
A Washington Post correspondent visited Tripoli and was convinced that Muammar Gaddafi is still a "beloved leader for much of the population".
"To all outward appearances, this is a city deeply enamored of Muammar Gaddafi. His portraits hang from lampposts, adorns shopping centers and sprouts from the gleaming new office blocks rising from the seafront.
Sayings from his Green Book are posted in government buildings - says journalist of The Washington Post. - How deep that support runs in a populace is impossible to tell. But six days into the allied bombardment of Libyan military targets, it is clear that Gaddafi can count on the fierce loyalties of at least a significant segment of the population in the vast stretches that lie beyond the enclave of rebel-held territory in the east".
After just six days, writes, in turn, the French Le Figaro, Europe has already started to think over how to implement some (! - KC) national reconciliation (i.e., how to get out of the military adventure without losing face - KC). On the background of the U.S. that distanced from the role of coordinator in the operation of the allies, the European Union began to worry about its image".
Meanwhile, a well-known former Soviet-era dissident of Orthodox-Nationalist orientation, Vladimir Osipov, who is living in Alexandrov, Vladimir region (Russian-occupied Muromia), condemned the attacks of the Western crusaders on Libya and told about the religious aspects of this dirty war:
For "enlightened" West, which renounced Christ, it is not enough to have two "teaching" wars in Asia. It needed a new, a third war - this time in Africa. They wanted to torture Libya. The West needs oil, and to kill the rebellious leader who causes it trouble. All the states are unanimous in that.
All of them line up before the main Tyrant (Obama - KC). And only a few countries, just a few that can be counted on fingers on one hand, refuse to obey America. Refusing to kneel before the godless alliance in the name of Globalization. The Antichrist globalization. In front of the New World Order. In front of information and mobile society with a chip from Antichrist. In front of the World Government.
The rest of the article has some startling (if proved right) implications for the actors.

American media silent on CIA ties to Libya rebel commander

It has been six days since Khalifa Hifter was appointed the top military commander for the Libyan rebel forces fighting the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. His appointment was noted by reporter Nancy Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers, a US regional chain that includes the Sacramento Bee and the Kansas City Star.
Two days later, another McClatchy journalist, Chris Adams, wrote a brief biographical sketch of Hifter that left the implication, without saying so explicitly, that he was a longtime CIA asset. It headlined the fact that after defecting from a top position in Gaddafi’s army, Hifter had lived in northern Virginia for some 20 years, as well as noting that Hifter had no obvious means of financial support.
The World Socialist Web Site published a perspective March 28 taking note of both the McClatchy articles and earlier reports providing more details of Hifter’s connections to the CIA. These included a 1996 article in the Washington Post and a book published by the French weekly Le Monde diplomatique. (See A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels” )

Former Libyan Al Qaeda Leader Says There Are 1000 jihadists Amongst Rebels
US, UK still wants to supply them with weapons
A former leader of an al Qaeda linked group in Libya claims that there are around 1000 fundamentalist Islamic fighters in the country that have joined the uprising against Col. Moammar Gaddafi’s forces, a number that jives with intelligence reports and independent estimates. Yet still the allied NATO forces are considering arming the rebels.
Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya, reports the Washington Times.

Newly appointed Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi has said that his country is ready to promote ties between Tehran and Cairo.§ionid=351020101

Ouattara forces seize Ivorian capital
Latest reports indicate that forces loyal to Ivory Coast's internationally-recognized president Alassane Ouattara have taken control of the capital, Yamoussoukro.§ionid=351020506
DT 30 March [defected, didn't defect, did too]
A British official said Mr Koussa's decision to resign represented a significant blow to the Gaddafi regime but warned that there were delicate issues to be worked through in talks with the foreign minister. Late last night it was said to be impossible to predict the outcome of the negotiations.
As head of Libya external intelligence, Mr Koussa was an MI6 asset for almost two decades. He was charged with conducting negotiations to bring Libya in from the cold and giving up its weapons of mass destruction in 2003.
The British government has announced controversial plans to ban protestors from taking part in public gatherings following the weekend anti-cuts rallies, which were marred by violence.

Despite the Bahraini regime's violent suppression of pro-democracy protestors, the British ambassador to the Persian Gulf kingdom is calling for even closer ties with the regime.
The ambassador, Jamie Brown, introduces visitors of the website of the British embassy in Bahrain to the “long history of… friendship” between London and Manama regardless of the ongoing bloody crackdown on Bahraini demonstrators.

Summary for my time challenged friends.
Government forces have gained the upper hand with the insurgents chased back to Ajdabiyah, the last major town before Benghazi.
The coalition appear to be in a quandary having apparently seriously overestimated the strength and capability of what the Libyan government termed armed gangs.
Sarkozy may be looking for a graceful exit before he is likely less than gracefully exited from politics by (a pretty-for-her-age far-right National Front VP or) Dominique de Villepin who established a new political party on Saturday, the "Republique solidaire" (United Republic).
Is the French ambassador still in Benghazi? Silly man.
NATO appears to have gone from neutral defender of the innocent to aggressive attacker - there Yugo again.
Syrian protests continue and a reinforced security presence is evident. Only one death AFAIK 30 March
Syria claims a terrorist cell has been found.
BBC sometimes types faster than DT live journos.
I suspect real reporters have been let off the leash there as DT and other reportage makes propaganda irrelevant. No wonder the political classes that think they are a dictatorship want a policeman to accompany every internet connection. Ha. If it was so easy.
Doesn't it make you sick? All those criminal cannabis abusers are less likely to get some common cancers. Some cancer victims are likely to see remission. Official. I'll dig out the link tomorrow 'cos it's g'night from me.

Screen cap from NYT Map of the Rebellion in Libya, Day by Day


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.