No announcement yet.

Report on Libya: maybe we support the wrong side?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Report on Libya: maybe we support the wrong side?

    (I would quote the summary here but PDF won't copy/paste properly)

    In short, this report indicates that Khadaffi was workin on democratic reform. He was a short while away from announcing these when the uprising hit.

    Also, it claims the uprising was not spontaneous, nor peaceful to begin with. It reports atrocities commited by the rebel fighters, and contrasts it with situations where the Lybian army has behaved very correctly.

    I'm about halfway through now, and I'm beginning to think we might have made a mistake
    Last edited by Nightowl; 03 Jul 11,, 19:25. Reason: url fix, thnx double edge for making me aware it didnt work
    "Football is war."

    -Rinus Michels

  • #2
    Seems there was a problem with the link to the report, its here
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jul 11,, 19:23.


    • #3
      You might wanna watch this: Gaddafi’s son interview

      The video is on the Russian site, here is the text:

      USA looks upon Libya as fast food expecting a fast war and a quick victory, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader wanted by the ICC, told RT. But the West will never get what they want, he added.
      “Many countries, Iran and North Korea are among them, told us it was our mistake to give up, to have stopped developing long-range missiles and to become friendly with the West. Our example means one should never trust the West and should always be on alert – for them it is fine to change their mind overnight and start bombing Libya,” said Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
      “One of our biggest mistakes was that we delayed buying new weapons, especially from Russia, and delayed building a strong army. We thought Europeans were our friends; our mistake was to be tolerant with our enemies”.
      Gaddafi’s son was charged by the International Criminal Court on June 27 for a “state policy aimed at deterring by any means, including lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against the Gaddafi regime” alongside his father Muammar Gaddafi and his military intelligence chief General Abdullah al-Sanoussi. However the Libyan leader’s son sees the charge differently.
      “They do not accuse me of policy, they accuse me of killing people, and everybody knows it. For me to be responsible for killing people was a joke. This would have happened anywhere in the world if people in the street moved towards a military site trying to steal ammunition or arms. Of course the military would prevent them!” stated Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
      The son of the Libyan leader denied either he or his father had ordered the killing of protesters.
      “No, nobody ordered to kill them, the guards just fired, that’s it. And they do not need permission to do that.”
      “It’s a fake court. Under the table they are trying to negotiate with us a deal. They say if you accept this deal, we will take care of the court. What does that mean? It means this court is controlled by those countries which are attacking us every day! It is just to put psychological and political pressure on us. That’s it. Of course, it won’t work. The court is a joke here in Libya,” concluded the son of the Libyan leader.
      Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said the West has only one target – Libya. “The country is a like a piece of cake for them – it is rich, it has gas, oil and money, so they must kill my father to get the cake. What they don’t understand is that the fighting will not stop if my father goes. Libyans will continue fighting until one day the country will be back to the Libyans,”concluded Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
      “We told them ‘You want elections? OK – let’s do elections. We will bring observers from Russia, from America, from the African Union, from the European Union, from the United Nations to supervise the elections. And if we win – you should accept the results, if we lose – congratulations.’ They answered ‘no.’," Saif al-Islam Gaddafi went on. "Our goal is to march to Tripoli. We have to march to Tripoli and occupy Tripoli. By force. So, you want to fight? OK, we will fight. And you will lose. And soon, because you have no chance. You have 40 ships in front of our coast, you have hundreds of airplanes, you have 17 satellites from America and France, you have everything, but you are losing every day. Why? Because the people are not with you."
      “The Libyans are united not just around my father as a leader but they are united around other moral values. They are fighting for their country, for their people. They know that NATO is here and is bombing not because they want to help us, or because it is so nice to us or because it is so generous towards the Libyan people, but because they have their own interest. And the rebels are with NATO not because they are pro-democracy or fighting for freedom. It has nothing to do with this. They have their own interests. They want to share the cake – they want to share this country,” said Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
      The son of the Libyan leader acknowledged that the West won the media war at the outset because it planned to say Gaddafi was in Venezuela, the rebels were occupying Tripoli and the regime was gone.
      “They seeded big chaos in the whole country. We are still now suffering from that chaos. But now the Libyans are winning. The Security Council issued its resolution against Libya because of fake media reports saying that the Libyan air force is bombing civilian districts in Tripoli and killing – but go there and show me any evidence of such killings. We told everyone – please, send a fact-finding mission to Libya to find out what’s happened. They said no. We are going to bomb you."
      “Nobody will give up and raise a white flag. And the Libyans will not allow them to do that. And the fight will continue,” added Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
      At the end of the interview, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said it was time for Russia to step in to play a positive role in the escalating conflict and show that it is a superpower.
      “Libya is a great opportunity for Russia to become a superpower. It’s similar to what happened in Egypt when the Soviet Union managed to stop the French and the British. It’s exactly what is happening now in Libya. And from then on the Soviet Union became a super power, because at that time it said: you stop aggression against Egypt, or we are going to bomb London and Paris. It’s the same again.”
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.


      • #4
        That was an interesting report, mentions the use of media to shape opinions that allowed govts to exaggerate the humanitarian situation to justify intervention and succeed at it domestically.

        troung & Mihais have mentioned the terrorist links of the TNC ad nauseaum but the bit i think might be good for discussion is the stated reasons or strategies of the various countries pushing for intervention, ie the WHY.

        According to the report...

        The US Strategy

        The United States have a strong interest in controlling Libya, or at least having it as their satellite. Certainly this country only supplies 2% of worldwide oil production, but it holds the largest reserves in Africa. Its hydrocarbons are of better quality and the extraction is easy and also profitable.

        In addition Washington would like its revenge on Gaddafi who refused in 2008 to join the US Africa Command (Africom) a regional command centre installed by the Pentagon to fight terrorism and the penetration by China into Africa. The Libyan Guide said he was opposed to this ‘imperialist venture which was trying to buy the continent’.

        However the real aim of the operation in Libya was not only oil nor revenge. It is primarily against the Chinese penetration on the African continent where Beijing seeks to develop its access to energy sources.

        The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently published a report which explains that the era of the USA is near its end and the American economy will be surpassed by China during the next five years. Washington is trying to stop this development of the Chinese economy, by limiting its access to natural energy resources which are indispensible to its growth. The manoeuvres we are involved in, without always seeing the connections, are relevant to this strategy.

        Washington wants to overthrow Gaddafi since they want to expel China form Libya. Beijing has made enormous investments into energy in Libya and depends on this country for part of its energy needs. China had 30,000 workers in Libya; it had to evacuate 29,000.
        The interests of some other players

        The engagement- or the reservations- of the European states is equally tied to their economic interests. Italy which has for a long time had good relations with Libya, due to its colonial past, and Germany, are the two main beneficiaries of Libyan oil, and have made significant investments in this country, which is also a market for their exports. However France and the UK have not been able to conclude good contracts with Gaddafi. So they did not hesitate to get involved and take sides with the insurgents so as to overthrow the regime in Tripoli.

        Apart from the economic approach, Germany warned its partners that this military venture was high risk. The Berlin authorities emphasised that this could end in a partition of Libya which would lead to a terrorist state and/or a failed state on Europe’s doorstep. However they were not heeded.

        Europe is therefore divided into ‘interventionists’ UK and France and ‘wait and see’ Italy and Germany. Europe is playing the American game rather than its own and takes liberties with the UN resolution 1973.

        This Europe looks for and finds alliances with regimes where the dictatorships are more dictatorial than that of Gaddafi: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates.

        The Saudi and Doha regimes played a decisive factor in the early hours of the revolution via their intermediaries, the TV stations Al+Arabia and Al+Jazeera, who ‘made opinion’ on the bases of factual errors, if not deliberate lies. This curious sponsorship of a revolution that wants to be democratic and respect human rights, by petromonarchies, does not resemble in any way genuine liberal regimes in the West. Certain sources claim that Qatar and Saudi Arabia – with the support of the UAE would be in favour of a ‘Sanusi’ Petroleum Monarchy’ in Eastern Libya.

        The last, but not least, country interested in the conflict is Egypt. It has never accepted the joining of Cyrenaica and its oil reserves to Tripoli, after the independence of Libya, proclaimed in 1951. On the occasion of an attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1991, Washington apparently promised Cairo that Cyrenaica would be given to them.

        The new masters of Egypt are playing a dangerous game and their internal outcomes, as of those in Libya, will have a determining factor on the future of the region.

        The revue of interested parties would be incomplete without mentioning Israel, concerned in the first place at the destabilisation of regional regimes that it has spent many decades managing to keep in balance, and by the rise of Islamism; Netanyahu’s cabinet, which certain members of the TNC are ready to recognise, meanwhile remains cautious.

        On the 10th March 2011, France was the first country to recognise the TNC as the only ‘legitimate representative of the Libyan people’. This decision by Sarkozy caused astonishment in his European partners. Three reasons seem to be at the root of this:

        -The frustration of French diplomats at having been surprised by the Arab revolution. The Quai de Orsay harboured, we are told, a feeling of having been overtaken by events in the winter of 2011 in Tunisia and Egypt. It wanted therefore to retake the diplomatic initiative. The Libyan crisis offered an opportunity. France therefore exploited the strong anti Gaddafi sentiment that existed in our diplomats.

        - The games of internal politics. To start a military operation abroad in the year of a presidential election is not an innocent act. From the perspective of 2012 a victory against a long vilified Arab dictator could only be helpful and reinforce the status of military commander for the president, whose popularity is historically weak.

        -The situation at the time of the presidential decision is also to be taken into account. The French President made this risky decision at a time when his main advisor, Claude Gueant, expert on Libya, left the Elysee for the ministry of the Interior, and when Bernard Bajolet, the national co-ordinator of intelligence, a recognised expert on the Arab world, left his position to become ambassador in Kabul. Consequently the President found himself without his faithful watchdogs, succumbed to the influence of Bernard Henry-Levy and the Emir of Qatar, who pushed him to receive, recognise and support the TNC.

        The unilateral decision by Nicholas Sarkozy stunned his German and Italian allies - it is one of the reasons Berlin abstained on the vote at the UN - and his interior minister Alain Juppe was placed in a position like that of Colin Powell in 2003, when at the start of the invasion of Iraq, he had to defend a position he had not chosen and with which he did not appear to want to be associated with.
        Nothing to do with Lockerbie
        Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 11,, 23:57.


        • #5
          The Ugly Truth: Video Of Libyan Rebel Beheading Gadhaffi Soldier And Other Nato War Crimes :

          The Bad Guys

          These videos look awfully like Al Qaeda to me. But don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

          A warning: these videos are graphic and horrific. They’re posted at, because it’s got hefty security around its site and rock solid courage to speak truth to power.

          FederalJack will not back down, and will update the videos on as new footage arrives.

          * The first video shows a Libyan rebel beheading a Libyan soldier. If it looks like Iraq, well golly, the highest percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq (and Chechnya and Afghanistan) came from Eastern Libya. Unhappily for NATO, there’s no avoiding that this video was shot in Libya: The men are speaking a Libyan Arab dialect with its own distinct accent.
          * The second video shows gruesome footage of a Libyan rebel cutting up the rotted flesh of a dead soldier and forcing it into the hands of Libyan Prisoners of War, who are lined up in a row so they must eat it.
          * Another video shows a group of Rebels sodomizing a civilian with a pistol.
          * Another shows a crowd of Rebels hanging and beheading a Libyan soldier.
          * Another video shows CIA operatives working side by side Rebel forces, driving around in trucks— proof that U.S. forces are already on the ground and active participants in the atrocities.
          * Another video shows several dead Libyan soldiers with their throats cut, lying in the back of a truck. The killings violate the Geneva Conventions of War, which protect enemy soldiers after capture. In the excitement, NATO Rebels encouraged a frightened on-looker to video the butchery and claim that Gadhaffi’s forces were responsible. Afterward, the man with the video grabbed his family and fled the Rebel stronghold. That’s how the video reached the fact-finding group in Tripoli.


          Intel Hub Note – These videos, especially the beheading, are very hard to watch and make a lasting impression on those that do. I would advise MOST people to NOT watch the beheading video.

          It’s so barbaric that it defies understanding how NATO could have envisioned these Rebels as holding any leadership potential at all.
          Winter is coming.


          • #6
            This was a stupid,stupid,stupid (civil)war to get tangled in from the begining,and,as usully, we're stuck there until Gaddafi is gone.
            I'm actually curios what will happen after ...another failed state? or NATO ground trops guarding the locals so they don't kill each other ,Kosovo style?


            • #7
              Gaddafi threatens attacks in Europe

              Libyan leader says he will send hundreds of supporters to 'martyr' in Europe in revenge for NATO campaign

              Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to send hundreds of Libyans to launch attacks in Europe in revenge for the Nato-led military campaign against him.

              In a speech on Libyan television the Libyan leader said: "Hundreds of Libyans will martyr in Europe. I told you it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But we will give them a chance to come to their senses."

              The Canary Islands, Sicily, other Mediterranean islands as well as Andalusia in southern Spain were Arab lands that should be liberated, he said.

              Gaddafi, whose forces have been battling rebel fighters increasingly encroaching on his territory and Nato warplanes, was speaking to a crowd of about 50,000 in the desert town of Sabha, about 500 miles south of Tripoli.

              The speech appeared designed to show that he still enjoys support in the areas of Libya still under his control.

              "You will regret it, Nato, when the war moves to Europe," he said.

              "The Libyan people have no problem, the colonial powers are the ones who have a problem. They want to control our oil. They are jealous because God gave us the gift of oil," Gaddafi said.

              "We do not fear them. We have no choice but to resist, become martyrs and fight on till the end."

              However, the Free Generation Movement in Tripoli, believed to be an underground activist network said Gaddafi's speech shows he is 'desperate' and 'alienated'.

              "With every speech, he appears more desperate, more psychotic and delusional, more threatening to our neighbours, more detached from society ... and more alien to the Libyan people. Gaddafi does not have the ideological sway on people. He is not capable of bringing terror to Europe," said Niz, who claimed to be a representative of the network.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.


              • #8
                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                However, the Free Generation Movement in Tripoli, believed to be an underground activist network said Gaddafi's speech shows he is 'desperate' and 'alienated'.

                "With every speech, he appears more desperate, more psychotic and delusional, more threatening to our neighbours, more detached from society ... and more alien to the Libyan people. Gaddafi does not have the ideological sway on people. He is not capable of bringing terror to Europe," said Niz, who claimed to be a representative of the network.
                Bottom line ;)


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Bottom line ;)
                  I was thinking the same when I read the title. However I remember he was pretty explicit towards Reagan that USA will pay for bombing his house...
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.