After Libya, NATO Intervention Threatens To Destabilize Entire Region

Source: Frontline
John Cherian

Slipping into Chaos
 
One year after the NATO intervention, Libya faces disintegration as the oil-rich eastern region seeks semi-autonomy

Libya seems to be on the verge of disintegration one year after the military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In the first week of March, leaders from its oil-rich eastern region, which includes Benghazi, the focal point of the Western-backed rebellion that ousted Muammar Qaddafi, announced their intention to seek “semi-autonomy” from the central government. The meeting in Benghazi, where the decision was taken, was attended by major political leaders, military commanders and tribal leaders from the region. The new “semi-autonomous” region, Cyrenaica, will extend from the central coastal city of Sirte, Qaddafi’s hometown, to the country’s border with Egypt. According to energy experts, the area holds around two-thirds of the country’s oil reserves.

Observers of the Libyan scene predict that the move is aimed at partitioning the country. At the Benghazi meeting, there was an open call for the re-adoption of the 1951 Constitution, which recognised Tripoli as the administrative capital and Benghazi as the financial capital of the country. 

Under King Idris, the pro-Western puppet ruler at the time, Libya was divided into three provinces, Cyrenaica in the east, Tripolitana in the west and Fezzan in the south. 

Benghazi, where the King resided, was the centre of decision making. The United States had military bases nearby while big Western oil companies monopolised the country’s oil resources. After Qaddafi came to power, he nationalised the oil industry and forced the U.S. to vacate its bases.

Stratfor Emails: US Government Contractor Was Involved In Gaddafi Killing; Now Aiding Syrian “Regime Change”

Source: Prison Planet
Steve Watson

Government “fact finding mission” used as cover for training terrorist fighters.

Emails obtained from intelligence gathering outfit Stratfor and leaked by Wikileaks show that a former director of Blackwater, the US mercenary contractor organization, was sent by the US government to fight alongside rebels in Libya, and was even involved in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi.

In addition, a US government committee has now overseen the mercenary’s assignment to Syria where he is tasked with protecting rebel fighters and finding ways to “help in regime change.”

Al-Akhbar English reports on the email stash leaked by Wikileaks, that shows former Blackwater director Jamie F. Smith struck up a rapport with Stratfor vice president Fred Burton.

Smith, now the chief executive of the security firm SCG International, was contracted by the US government to protect Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) members and train Libyan rebel fighters following the announcement of the NATO no-fly zone over Libya one year ago.

Smith fed intelligence back to Stratfor under the codename LY700, and was even apparently involved in the assassination of the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the town of Sirte.

In one email exchange, Burton praised Smith’s intelligence gathering efforts writing “Good skinny. This is what is defined as a credible source. Not some windbag Paki academic belching and passing gas.”

Smith continued to pass intelligence to Stratfor right up until the outfit’s email servers were hacked in December.

NGO's and the War on Libya - Julien Teil on GRTV

Source: Corbett Report

“The Humanitarian War” is a film about the demonization of Gaddafi in the run-up to the war in Libya. In this carefully researched documentary, Julien Teil examines the documents and interrogates the NGOs behind the campaign to oust Gaddafi, and shows the lack of evidence for the alleged war crimes that supposedly justified UN intervention. Join us for this week’s GRTV Feature Interview with documentary filmmaker Julien Teil as we discuss the lead-up to the war on Libya, and whether it can happen again in Syria.

Libyan Rebels Fought the Globalists' War

Source: Land Destroyer
Tony Cartalucci

Editor's Note: This is an update from an April 20, 2011 article titled, "Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists' War: How the Devil Pays."
November 25, 2011 - In April 2011, it was written:

"After rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi [aka Hakim Belhaj] admitted to being trained in Afghanistan and subsequently fighting American troops there, and admitting many of the rebel fighters now joining him in Libya had similarly returned from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it must strike them as tremendous irony that the same Americans they were filling pine boxes with overseas, are now protecting their lives and handing them an entire country to rule over.

Of course in life, nothing is quite that simple. The rebels seem to forget that just months ago Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was also the recipient of similarly ironic support from the West. In the end, it appears it was merely a ploy to disarm and infiltrate Qaddafi's regime ahead of a US funded, armed, and supported militant uprising. The betrayal does not end there, with the militant rebels in tanks and fighter jets, brandishing newly procured weaponry flowing over the Egyptian border with Washington's full knowledge and in direct violation of UNSC r.1973, the corporate owned media has continuously branded these militants as Libyan "civilians" and Qaddafi's attempts to restore order in his country as an inhumane "massacre."

The intent is to fully justify any means necessary to remove Qaddafi from power, and so the rebels think, hand the country and its riches over to the green shoots of democracy led by the valiant Al Qaeda-linked militants that toppled a tyrant. What woeful ignorance."

It seems that in due time, the folly of Libya's rebels has been completely realized. After it was revealed that the newly unelected "PM" of Libya, Abdurrahim el-Keib, is in fact a long time servant of Western powers, in particular, oil giants British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, it is now revealed that his government is moving swiftly to exclude the most vicious fighters involved in his NATO-backed ascension to power. The Guardian has reported this week that Al-Qaeda/LIFG commander Hakim Bilhaj has been excluded as defense minister from el-Keib's cabinet in favor of Osama al-Juwali, chief of the Zintan military council.

The Guardian's article is literally titled, "Libyan PM snubs Islamists with cabinet to please western backers," and could provide no better bookend for April 2011's analysis as to the true nature of Western power projection and the betrayal that awaits all who help propel it along. Belhaj's well-being is now related directly proportional to the resistance he puts up to his predetermined fate. Should he decide to hang up his hat as a mass-murdering terrorist and quietly disappear, he may live a long, uneventful life. Should he attempt to contest his betrayal, the same fate met by those he helped remove from power will be his own.

El-Keib's days are also numbered should he stray from the path laid before him by Wall Street and London. Knowing this would give those like Belhaj and others seeking power the perfect opportunity to test his resolve in executing the West's directives in the face of a mobilized Libyan opposition. Should el-Keib heed the anger of his people, he will be the next one hiding in Tripoli's tunnels from NATO bombs. Conversely, should he decide to crush the will of the Libyan people and those being shunted out of power, NATO's ground troops may still make landfall to provide "stabilization" while el-Keib carries out his treacherous work.

The Struggle For Syria: Syrians Sacrificed On Alter of US Imperialism

Source: Al Jazeera
Joseph Massad

As the uprising proceeded in Tunisia last December and January and as it picked up in Egypt in January and February, developments seemed clear. Despite attempts to suppress the press, much of the news of what was unfolding reached national and international audiences immediately. The situation changed dramatically when the uprisings began in Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. While a quasi news blackout suppressed coverage of the ongoing popular revolt and its violent suppression in Bahrain by Bahraini and Saudi forces (and only intermittent coverage of Oman was allowed), we continued to get important updates from Yemen. It was in Libya where the lies and propaganda started from the first week of the revolt. It was there that international forces, extending from the Gulf to Europe to the US, took charge of propagandising against Gaddafi (that he used his forces to strafe demonstrators, that his forces received Viagra and raped hundreds of women, that he used “African” mercenaries against his own people, that he was preparing to use chemical weapons against his people, that he had already killed 50,000 Libyans, etc. – all proved to be lies that international observers and agencies finally exposed as baseless fabrications) and ultimately of overthrowing Gaddafi’s dictatorship under the guise of the popular uprising led by NATO forces who actually bombed and killed hundreds of Libyan civilians.

We have seen similar developments on the Syrian scene with much propaganda by the regime and its international enemies who also began to speak for the popular revolt, whether in the Gulf-controlled press and satellite television stations, or by the Western media, and the Western “representatives” of the Syrian demonstrators.

In the cases of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen (not to mention Morocco, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia where less massive but substantial demonstrations have continued for months), the Arab League, under US instructions, made no move to intervene at all, while in the cases of Syria and Libya, following US instructions, the League moved swiftly. This is not the first time that the League moves against a member state to facilitate foreign invasions. The dress rehearsal for this was the Iraq situation in 1990/1991, when the Arab League (like the United Nations following the fall of the Soviet Union) became another arm of US imperial power. It was then that the League joined forces with US and European powers to invade the Gulf, which was the first step in legitimising the second American invasion in 2003 to unseat Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a brutal dictator that the US and France helped sponsor in the 1980s and who did their bidding when he invaded Iran, an invasion that led to the death of one million Iranians and four hundred thousand Iraqis. But Saddam was not fully obedient to imperial will and retained a measure of independence from US imperialism despite his valuable services to it. At the time, many cautioned the so-called Iraqi opposition in exile, which called for the invasion, that the US invasion would result in an imposition of a regime that is at least as bad as Saddam if not worse. The loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and the total destruction of the country, the massive current repression and corruption of the American-installed regime, one would think, should be a cautionary tale to any Arab who seeks US help in overthrowing Arab dictators.

But if the story of Iraq is ignored, could anyone ignore the calamity that is hitting Libya as we speak under the guise of the new NATO-led government, and the first dose of violence and repression this government has unleashed on the Libyan people in the name of NATO democracy (more doses are in store of course)? Did the Libyan people revolt against the brutal dictatorship of Gaddafi to replace it with NATO-sponsored pillage and repression?

Gaddafi's Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar

Source: The New American
Alex Newman

It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other theories have been floated.

Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.

According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."

The Assassination of Gaddafi

Source: Corbett Report and Global Research.ca
James Corbett

The killing of Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of NATO-backed, Al Qaeda-linked forces marks the end of a campaign expressly aimed at the assassination of a head of state and overthrow of a sovereign country in direct violation of international standards that have held sway since the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II and the establishment of the Geneva Conventions.

The NATO campaign, known as “Operation Unified Protector,” was a continuation of the US-led Operation Odyssey Dawn. It formally began on March 23rd, 2011 and was ostensibly an operation to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. From the outset, the NATO coalition partners insisted that the aim of the mission was not to assist a rebel insurgency in overthrowing the Gaddafi government, but to “protect civilians” in accordance with UN resolutions.

The real intention of the operation was revealed shortly thereafter, however, in a joint op-ed in the pages of the International Herald Tribune penned by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy:

“Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force,” they wrote in their editorial. “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.[...]It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.”

Within a month, the true aim of the intervention to assassinate Gaddafi was confirmed when NATO forces bombed the personal residence of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi, Muammar’s youngest son in an admitted attempt to kill the Libyan leader himself. While Gaddafi himself was not caught in the strike, his son and three of his grandchildren were killed in the bombing.

Libya Shattered As Per NATO Plan; Gaddafi's Family Seeks Justice at the Hague

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett on RT

Relatives of the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are reportedly looking to The Hague with a ‘war crimes’ lawsuit against NATO. They accuse the Alliance of deliberately targeting Gaddafi’s convoy, which they say posed no threat to civilians. NATO was only allowed into Libya by the UN solely to protect citizens. Meanwhile, the military alliance has postponed its preliminary decision to end its Libya mission by the end of this month, following calls from the interim government to stay on.

Gaddafi Flying White Flag When Killed

Source: Infowars
Kurt Nimmo

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen said his sources in Libya provided information revealing Moammar Gaddafi was set-up in an assassination plot.

Early on October 19, Twitter messages from Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte reported the presence of white flags across the devastated town. Flags were reported at multiple locations in the town, leaving some to believe the rebels were surrendering.

The use of white flags to signal surrender is an ancient tradition going back to the Eastern Han dynasty in China and the Roman Empire. Violating the widely accept convention is considered an act of extreme treachery.

Under both the Geneva and Hague protocols of international humanitarian law, it is forbidden to kill or injure persons hors de combat (outside of combat) and doing so constitutes a major war crime.

Assassination of Gaddafi: Part of Global Regime Change

Source: RT

As some European leaders demonstrate a celebratory mood over the violent death of Colonel Gaddafi, they are no less terrorists themselves, claims international consultant and author Adrian Salbuchi.

­Salbuchi said Gaddafi’s death was undoubtedly a message for the whole world, as it is not just about Libya.

“We are seeing how Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State expressed it very clearly: ‘We came, we saw, he died,’ and then started laughing. This is a message to the world of how this new world order model actually works,” he stated. “When they decide to change the regime, they do so with the utmost violence, and it is a whole model. First they target a country by calling it a rogue state; then they support local terrorists and call them freedom fighters; then they bring death and destruction upon civilians and they call it UN sanctions. Then they spread lies and call it the International Community’s opinion expressed by the Western media. Then they invade and control the country and call it liberation and finally they steal appetizing oil and call it foreign investment and reconstruction,” Salbuchi explained.

NATO’s Libya Terrorist Puppets Claim Murder of Gaddafi; Civil War Will Spread Across Africa, Mediterranean

Source: Tarpley.net
Dr. Webster G. Tarpley on Infowars


 

Clinton Laughs About Murder of Gaddafi

Source: Infowars
Kurt Nimmo

Secretary of State Clinton was unable to keep her professional composure yesterday when told about the alleged murder of deposed Libyan leader Gaddafi at the hands of al-Qaeda. She had a good laugh over the gruesome act.

“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked in between formal interviews.

Clinton’s remark is a take on Julius Caesar, who reportedly said after his war with Pharnaces II of Pontus: “Veni, vidi, vici” (“I came, I saw, I conquered’). 

Paraphrasing Caesar is appropriate – the dictator took Rome from a republic to an empire. Like Caesar, Clinton’s boss, Obama, took the nation to war without consulting Congress or gaining the consent of the American people. 

Clinton’s gleeful if ghoulish comment also reveals the degree of her psychosis. Most people do not laugh when told about the murder of others, even rivals. Clinton is unable to contain herself and displays her joy at the news of Gaddafi’s violent death.

Killing Gaddafi Spares ICC Embarrassment for US & Britain

Source: Prison Planet.com
Paul Joseph Watson

The death of Muammar Gaddafi, killed by NATO and US-backed rebels, will be hailed by western powers, not merely because they have now seized control of another oil-rich country under the dubious auspices of the “Arab Spring,” but because Gaddafi will be prevented from exposing western support for Al-Qaeda terrorists under the glare of a UN International Criminal Court trial.

Initial reports suggest that Gaddafi attempted to flee the town of Sirte but his convoy was bombed by NATO warplanes. Rebels then captured and killed the former Libyan leader by putting a bullet through his head.

The former Libyan leader’s untimely death conveniently avoids the embarrassment of having to put him in front of a United Nations tribunal at the Hague.