Lies about NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ Libya war exposed


This video says about itself:

Mystery Over Who Just Bombed Libya — Solved!

25 August 2014

“Twice in the last seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly launched airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior American officials said, in a major escalation of a regional power struggle set off by Arab Spring revolts.

“The United States, the officials said, was caught by surprise: Egypt and the Emirates, both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines. Egyptian officials explicitly denied to American diplomats that their military played any role in the operation, the officials said, in what appeared a new blow to already strained relations between Washington and Cairo.

“The strikes in Tripoli are another destabilizing salvo in a power struggle defined by old-style Arab autocrats battling Islamist movements seeking to overturn the old order. Since the military ouster of the Islamist president in Egypt last year, the new government and its backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have launched a campaign across the region — in the news media, in politics and diplomacy, and by arming local proxies — to roll back what they see as an existential threat to their authority posed by Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.”*

The Young Turks’ hosts John Iadarola (http://twitter.com/jiadarola), Ben Mankiewicz (http://twitter.com/benmank77) and Wesley Clark Jr. break down the story.

* For more, read the full New York Times story here.

By Ian Sinclair in Britain:

Another nail in the coffin of the case for Libyan ‘intervention’

Monday 23rd February 2015

More untruths surrounding the invasion are coming to light, says IAN SINCLAIR

THOUGH the British press have chosen to ignore it, a recent report in the Washington Times newspaper is the latest nail in the coffin that is the mainstream narrative of the 2011 Nato intervention in Libya.

An intervention, perhaps not coincidentally, which received the support of the vast majority of the British newspapers and 557 wise MPs, with just 13 opposed.

The mainstream narrative runs something like this. After the Tunisian-inspired protests erupted in February 2011, Libyan government forces responded with overwhelming, deadly violence, beating the rebels back to the eastern city of Benghazi. At this point Nato, authorised by the United Nations, set up a no-fly zone, supposedly to protect civilians in Benghazi.

Justifying the intervention, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Kosovo and the Rwandan genocide in an interview with ABC News.

“Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled,” she said. “The cries would be: ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’”

Likewise, speaking to Parliament a couple of days after the operation had begun, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Nato had helped to avoid a “bloody massacre” in Benghazi “in the nick of time.”

However, citing secret audio recordings between an intermediary working for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Libyan government, the Washington Times suggested genocide was not imminent: “Defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Muammar Gadaffi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties.”

The report goes onto quote Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and north Africa division: “At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to genocide-like levels.”

This conclusion is supported by Alan J Kuperman, associate professor of public affairs in the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.

“Gadaffi did not perpetrate a ‘bloodbath’ in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to Nato intervention … so there was virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi,” Kuperman argued in a 2013 policy brief prepared for the world-renowned Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School.

At the time there were shocking stories about Libyan government forces using mass rape as a weapon of war and Libyan aircraft bombing peaceful demonstrators. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found no evidence for the former. Hugh Roberts, a former director of the International Crisis Group’s north Africa project, found the latter claim to be false too.

“The story was untrue, just as the story that went round the world in August 1990 that Iraqi troops were slaughtering Kuwaiti babies by turning off their incubators was untrue and the claims in the sexed-up dossier on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were untrue,” he said.

The Washington Times also highlighted the various attempts made by the Libyan government to push for a negotiated settlement. Early in the conflict the head of the US African Command attempted to negotiate a truce but was ordered to stand down by Clinton’s State Department.

Again, this account chimes with many other reports that show Nato repeatedly ignored ceasefire proposals coming from Libya and the African Union. According to Roberts: “London, Paris and Washington could not allow a ceasefire because it would have involved negotiations… and all this would have subverted the possibility of the kind of regime change that interested the Western powers.”

Today, Libya is a chaotic mess. In November 2014 Amnesty International warned that “lawless militias and armed groups on all sides of the conflict in western Libya are carrying out rampant human rights abuses, including war crimes.” The same month the UN refugee agency reported that nearly 400,000 Libyans had been displaced by the ongoing violence, while the Associated Press noted the Libyan city of Darna had become the first city outside of Syria and Iraq to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group.

Misinformation and propaganda used as a pretext for war. A war that plays a significant role in destroying an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. Sound familiar? Like Iraq, we should demand a public inquiry into Britain’s involvement in this duplicitous aggression. At the very least all those journalists who backed the intervention need to start asking the searching questions they should have asked back in 2011.

Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair: An Oral History of 15 February 2003, published on Peace News Press.

Libya war based on lies


This video says about itself:

Libya War 2014: Government warplanes bomb Greek-operated oil tanker ARAEVO

5 January 2015

Libyan warplanes carried out a series of airstrikes on a Greek-operated oil tanker on Monday.

By Solomon Hughes in Britain:

Libya and the ‘stupid, stupid facts’

Just as Libya turns a very dark corner, with Isis setting up its bloody camp, comes news that the intervention which hurried the nation into chaos was based on a false prospectus.

The Washington Times has got hold of tapes of conversations between Saif Gadaffi and US officials from summer 2011.

Back then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton — the US equivalent of the foreign secretary — was lobbying hard for more intervention.

She argued that, faced with a revolution, Muammar Gadaffi’s government would launch a massacre of the rebels and their families, justifying Nato bombing.

But it turns out the US joint chiefs of staff distrusted Clinton so much they opened their own negotiations with people around Gadaffi. The talks show that the Pentagon did not believe this massacre was coming.

The Pentagon intermediary told Gadaffi’s government: “You should see these internal State Department reports … that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,”

The State Department was Clinton’s department. The “stupid, stupid facts” were the arguments for war.

The Pentagon’s intermediary told the Gadaffi government that the adviser to the chair of the joint chiefs of staff — the US’s highest ranking officer — “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”

The Pentagon’s negotiator told Gadaffi’s people that “I can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him,” suggesting other intermediaries for negotiations.

Lots of “cruise missile liberals” got overexcited and had a kind of Iraq flashback during the Libyan intervention, backing the bombing as some kind of “liberation.”

But, like Iraq, it was based on a false premise.

The Washington Times files make this case, but it was known at the time. I wrote a series of articles (again, for the Independent) based on conversations with Libyan government figures and intermediaries.

They were, in truth, shocked and surprised that Western governments that had been so friendly to Gadaffi had now turned 180 degrees and were rushing to war against him.

The Libyan government was suing for peace with the revolution.

It was looking for a deal to edge Gadaffi out of power and bring the rebels into government.

Ultimately the decision on any negotiations with the dictator’s regime had to be one for the Libyan rebels themselves. But Nato’s decision to start bombing wiped out any chance for compromise.

It did not, however, prepare the ground for a new Libya. Bombers can’t build anything, let alone a new society.

The bombing meant that neither Libyan group — rebel or government — had to try build a new consensus or create a national coalition.

Unsurprisingly the result is a dark, chaotic country which is fragmenting and creating space for Isis, just like Iraq.

Algiers — Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra reaffirmed Thursday in Algiers that military intervention in Libya and the supply of weapons to the conflicting parties will not promote the expected consensual solution: here.

Libya, from bloodshed to more bloodshed


This video says about itself:

Women refugees flee Libyan violence

8 March 2011

As the world marks the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, euronews went to the Libyan-Tunisian border to meet some of the female migrants who are fleeing the violence in Libya.

By Joseph Kishore in the USA:

US imperialism and the catastrophe in Libya

17 February 2015

This weekend, the Islamic State (ISIS) released a video of the horrific beheadings of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in the town of Sirte in eastern Libya. This barbaric act was the latest in a series of such killings, including the beheading or immolation of hostages from the US, Britain, Japan and Jordan.

The latest ISIS atrocity has triggered predictable expressions of shock and anger by news anchors and editorialists in the United States, along with further massacres. Within hours of the release of the video, Egypt, led by US-backed dictator General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, launched a wave of air strikes killing 64 people, including seven civilians.

Washington and its political allies are politically and morally responsible for these atrocities. The Islamist beheadings in Libya are the product of a monumental crime: the 2011 NATO war in Libya to oust the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Prior to the intervention of NATO, there were no sectarian murders of Christians in Libya and Islamist militias tied to Al Qaeda were small groups with no broader influence. These forces were armed and promoted when, in 2011, the Obama administration and its allies in Europe, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, took the decision to topple Gaddafi.

The imperialist powers funneled massive amounts of money and weaponry to Islamist militias and Al Qaeda operatives, providing them with air support through a mass bombing campaign that killed tens of thousands of Libyans.

As the World Socialist Web Site wrote at the time: “Far from a ‘revolution’ or struggle for ‘liberation,’ what the world is witnessing is the rape of Libya by a syndicate of imperialist powers determined to lay hold of its oil wealth and turn its territory into a neo-colonial base of operations for further interventions throughout the Middle East and North Africa.”

The disastrous consequences of the rape of Libya are now all too clear to see.

The war culminated in the carpet bombing of Sirte and the torture and murder of Gaddafi, after which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gloated, “We came, we saw, he died.” Since then, Libya has collapsed into an ever-bloodier civil war between various Islamist factions and rival militias vying for state power. The country has also served as a training ground for CIA-backed Islamist forces preparing to fight the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Less than four years after the war, the American media report on ISIS atrocities in Libya as if US imperialism had nothing to do with them. No one reading the editorial produced Sunday by the New York Times (“What Libya’s Unraveling Means”) would have any inkling of Washington’s role in producing this catastrophe, or the US media’s role in supporting the operation. One of the key figures in the war, the late US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed in an Islamist raid in Benghazi after the war, was himself a friend of many Times journalists.

The Times worries that “this oil-rich nation [is veering] towards complete chaos,” and that “the growth and radicalization of Islamist groups raise the possibility that large parts of Libya could become a satellite of the Islamic State.” It manages to describe the conflict that led to Gaddafi’s ouster simply as a “civil war,” without even mentioning NATO’s six-month bombing of Libya.

ISIS is now strongest precisely where Washington has intervened most aggressively. Another article published in the Times over the weekend warns, “The Islamic State is expanding beyond its base in Syria and Iraq to establish military affiliates in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Libya.” The Times does not mention that the US has invaded or financed Islamist proxy wars in four of the six countries mentioned: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The world is now witnessing the consequences of the recklessness, brutality, greed and limitless stupidity of Washington and its NATO allies.

Responsibility for the disaster in Libya lies squarely with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the initial champion of a NATO war in Libya; President Obama, whose administration provided the bulk of the firepower that shattered Libya’s armed forces and its major cities; and the NATO allied powers that joined in this murderous adventure.

What is unfolding across the Middle East today is an indictment of imperialism, its ruling elites, its political servants and its lying media.

Britain: David Cameron’s ‘free Libya’ is no-go area, Foreign Office says: here.

LIBYA: ISIS‘ NEW HOME BASE “The beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians by Islamic State followers has finally drawn the global spotlight to the group’s rising clout in Libya, which not long ago was touted as a successful example of Western intervention. The killings prompted Egyptian airstrikes on Islamic State strongholds in Libya and spurred calls for more active international involvement in what is fast becoming a failed state on Europe’s doorstep.” [WSJ]

Egypt’s Sisi becomes ‘key anti-IS ally’ after Libya raids. Egyptian strikes against IS in Libya likely to improve Cairo’s ties with US, as human rights ‘take a back seat’, say experts: here.

Thousands of migrants nearly die in a week trying to reach Italy from Libya: here.

Italian colonial war in Libya, yet again?


This video is called Lion of the Desert (1981) Trailer. That film is about Italian dictator Mussolini’s colonial war in Libya.

Translated from NOS TV in the Netherlands:

Italy ready for military intervention in Libya

Today, 14:58

Italy wants to intervene militarily in Libya soon. Premier Renzi is just waiting for a UN resolution that allows him to send troops. Italians who are still in Libya are asked to leave the country. …

Developments in Libya are traditionally followed closely in Italy. In the first part of the 19th century, Libya was an Italian colony.

NOS TV does not seem to know Italian colonial history well. Libya was an Italian colony, not in ‘the first part of the 19th century’, but in the first part of the 20th century. It became a colony after bloody colonial war by the fascist generals of Italy’s ‘Duce’ Mussolini. About one third of Libyans were massacred.

Mr Renzi also does not seem to know Italian colonial history well. During the second world war, Italy lost Libya as a colony, and then World War II, as not even Adolf Hitler sending general Rommel to Libya was able to keep that African country under Italian colonial rule.

Mr Renzi also does not seem to know recent Italian neo-colonial history well. In 2011, Renzi’s predecessor Silvio Berlusconi along with his NATO allies fought a neo-colonial war, officially ‘about human rights’, in practice about oil, for regime change in Libya. That war led to the present bloody war in Libya, in which half of NATO’s 2011 Libyan allies are now allies of NATO allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt; and the other half are now allies of NATO allies Qatar and Turkey. The two sides kill each other, and mostly civilians. Before the NATO military intervention in Libya, there was no Al Qaeda there. Today, Al Qaeda and similar violent groups are spreading out from Libya to other countries. ISIS terrorists, even worse than Al Qaeda, have a strong presence in the ‘new’ Libya.

Is Mr Renzi really under the illusion that another neo-colonial war would have any better results than previous colonial and neo-colonial wars?

German army association demands massive armaments increase: here.

German President Gauck’s human rights imperialism: here.