Posts Tagged ‘kadafi’

These articles by debkafile are interesting. According to them, Assad said he would consider the attack on Syria by the US as originating from Israel and will respond accordingly. Is Israel confident that it can prevent Syrian rocket attack? Or is the government of Israel ready to sacrifice its own people?

The highest commanders of the US, UK, French, German, and Italian militaries along with totalitarian Arab Suni states of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Jordan are meeting in Jordan for the last meeting before the attack on Syria. If Syria waits until the bombs start raining it may not have a chance and from its view, it should start the conflict that is unavoidable at its own timing and terms. Or Assad will end up like Sadam and Gadhafi that too waiting until the US invaded.

The US and world economy will tank and Obama and Democrats and Western governments should be removed from power. Bankrupt governments ready to borrow more to start new wars until their houses explode. The problem is that there is no real opposition anywhere in the “democratic” world. The only response the people have is a revolution.

 

First Iraq that is in constant chaos after US troops withdrew. Sunni rule was replaced by Shia rule. US involvement led to half of its ancient, pre-muslim population Christian population to leave. al-Qaeda of Levant has now bases in the Sunni areas od Iraq and expanding into Syria.

Then came Libya where gangs of “militia” effectively rule parts of the country while the “government” has no power. Powerful Misrata militias were said to persecute darker Libyans and other tribes they dislike. Everybody shooting at everybody. And US ambassador Stevens killed by those US supported against Gadhafi under still somewhat foggy circumstances.

Now Syria. “Alawites into grave and Christians to Lebanon” say those that US arms. If Assad goes, that’s what will happen.

In Egypt, a unholly alliance of the likes of Obama and McCain became really agitated when the population-supported military removed an islamic government that was trying to institute an islamic dictatorship. The argument that a democratically elected government is always a good thing does not work when that government does not obey universal rights, as the history of 1930s Germany clearly demonstrates.

Each of these countries was ruled by a dictator that kept peace among its various religious and tribal groups and provided for basic needs to prevent a revolt. Then came the first revolt in Tunisia caused by high food prices which in turn were at least partially caused by burning food in Western countries (yes, burning corn to supplement gasoline led to higher food prices, in addition to China and India population getting wealthier and eating more).

Democracy is meant to allow people to vote for ideas how to run their country but in multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-tribal Arab countries it only means that a more populous groups can “democratically” oppress other groups.

The result will be decades up upheaval, inter-communal hatred and distrust, and millions of refugees full of hate and bitterness entering the US and Europe. If you doubt it, look for the former Yugoslavia where inter-ethnic and inter-religious marriages were once common.
Nobody is a winner, except for the asylum patients living in Brussels and Washington laughing on the way to their shrink.

Much of the world hails Moammar Gadhafi’s death as a triumph for the West. But the war that toppled him remains misguided and illegal.

Seven months after NATO’s misguided war in Libya began, Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. While there has not been as much celebration of this in the West as there might have been before the Iraq war, the conventional wisdom seems to be that this outcome has proved the intervention to be right because it “worked.” However, far from vindicating the decision to attack Libya, Gadhafi’s bloody end represents much of what was wrong with the intervention from the start.

Instead of protecting the population of Libya — which is what the U.N. authorized — the West’s intervention allowed the conflict to continue and consume perhaps as many as 30,000 Libyan lives, including many thousands of civilians, in addition to tens of thousands wounded and hundreds of thousands displaced. Rather than the “limited” war presented by the intervention’s defenders, it immediately expanded into a policy of regime change. The official goal of protecting civilians was subordinated very early on to the real purpose of the war — namely, the destruction of the existing government and the elimination of its leaders.

Contrary to the hope that Libya would provide a deterrent to regime violence elsewhere, the political fallout from the war has stalled any international response to Syria’s crackdown. By exceeding the U.N. mandate they received in March, the U.S. and its allies have poisoned emerging democratic powers such as India and Brazil against taking any action in other countries. Libya has confirmed every skeptic’s worst fears that in practice, the “responsibility to protect” is little more than a pretext for toppling vulnerable governments.

Equally troubling from an American perspective is the ease with which the current administration launched a war against a government that had abandoned its former hostility, renounced unconventional weapons and terrorism, and provided some degree of security cooperation to the U.S. Pariah states now have no incentive to negotiate similar deals with the U.S. and its allies, and they have clear incentives to acquire the means of deterring a future intervention. This reduces diplomatic and political options in coping with these states in the future and makes conflicts with some of them more likely.

U.S. foreign policy has already become very militarized in the last decade, and the quick resort to the use of force in this instance significantly lowers the bar to justify future military action. The sidelining of Congress and the American public on the Libya war continues an increasing and unhealthy tendency of the executive to use military force without authorization or respect for constitutional requirements. The executive now appears to be free of all constraints as to when and how to use force abroad, so long as the action can be deemed a success. And there are evidently no consequences for openly waging an illegal war.

The U.S. and our allies attacked a government that had done nothing to endanger international peace and security. It posed no threat at all to any NATO nation. No Western security interests were served by this war, and some may have been harmed as a result. Successfully deposing Gadhafi is bound to encourage future administrations to take similar risks. The U.S. and our allies may not always be so lucky in targeting such an unusually weak, isolated state.

While Gadhafi’s death will mark the end of Western military involvement in Libya, we should not assume that it means that Libya will not be wracked by violence for months or years to come. We should not forget that the worst of the post-invasion violence in Iraq came well after Saddam Hussein’s capture and execution. Just as it was Iraqi civilians who bore the brunt of the war over the last eight years, it has been and continues to be Libyan civilians who are suffering the most from prolonged conflict.

When dictatorships are violently overthrown, their successor regimes tend to devolve into some form of authoritarian government. Political culture, weak institutions, and post-conflict disorder all make it unlikely that Libya will be that much freer in the years to come than it was under Gadhafi. As in Iraq, it is questionable whether the possible gains will be worth the real losses that have already been and will continue to be suffered. As in Kosovo, which is often wrongly held up as a model of “successful” intervention, the post-war regime is liable to be criminal and corrupt. Twenty years ago, the liberation of Eritrea and Ethiopia from the brutal dictatorship of Mengistu was an inspiring story that very soon degenerated into authoritarianism and war. There is no reason to think that Libya’s story will be all that different.

Yesterday, Gadhafi was killed by joint US (Predator) and French aerial attacks. Libyan “heroes” who then found gravely injured Gadhafi beat him and kicked him until one of them shot him to the death.

Killing a POW is a war crime and those who help it are equally reponsible just as a lookout is responsible for a murder commited by those he helped. Howver, it was obvious that Western “leaders” and especially French Sarkozi did not want a trial that would have brought to light their past dealings with Gadhafi.

Gadhafi was a tyrant but he kept a peace among the so called Libyans: Hundreds of Arab, Berber, Tuareg and other tribes of a color scale from brown to black. That peace may now be over and Libya may be entering a period of terrorist attacks and interna strife.

Compared to Saddam, Gadhafi died fighting foreigners (NATO) and their local collaborators (islamic “rebels”). The images of him dying along his people will likely motivate others to avenge his death.

But it may be less about Gadhafi and more about the instability brought by the US which brought to the power small, fundamentalist tribes and helped them defeat large and less fanatical tribes. As the history teaches, majority eventually wins, but not before a sea of blood is shed.

The defense of Sirte and Bani Walid cannot be called anything else but heroic. Against relentless NATO bombing and katyusa/grad widespread destruction they continue resist the invaders.

On the other side, NATO wards from Misrata are plundering Sirte, taking full trucks of anything that is not tied to the ground.

In the meantime, the emergency relief fund in Libya will not help refugees from former Gadhafi bastions Sirte and Bani Walid. The head of the fund said let others help them, we have to spend the money to create a civil society in Libya. That civil society in Libya means not helping people who lost everything is obvious.

Is this the way the US wants to create a unified, harmonious, and liberal society in Libya?

In Libya, Sirte, NATO is pulverizing the city as much as it can to “protect civilians”. Still not enough and “rebels” cannot win. But civilians are starving. NATO and rebels are really winning hearts of Sirte people on the road to democracy. But is not democracy when people do not want to be occupied by foreign tribes?

In Serbia, NATO and EU occupational force (called sometimes NATO and sometimes EULEX) is shooting with live amunition at unarmed demonstrators that are throwing rocks in self defense against buldozers. They sure could not shoot at people in EU or US but Serbs are certainly not human and so it is OK. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they meekly accept what the Sultan (or is Obama Cesar?) decides for them?

Libya is now set to be a scene of multiple battles. Opportunistic and corrupt pro-western former Gadhafi’s henchmen versus Al-Qaida -alied fundamentalists.

The same fundamentalists that US (Obama), France (Sarkozi) and UK (Cameron) armed, trained, and assisted with air support and on-the-ground special forces to win the civil war. Does it sound like Afghanistan and mujahedeens in 1980s?

Ron Paul calls is a “blowback” – when US does “something” (because “something has to be done”) and the result is much worse than if nothing were done.

Guardian is now catching up to what many people have said in the past few months. A growing rift between the National Transitional Council and local leaders exposes conflicting visions for Libya’s future.

And it is not going to be just 2 groups as they both consist of multiple fractions. In adition to that, the foreign powers are not unified either: France, Italy, UK, US will not necessarily have the same policy towards various groups in Libya. Add to it other Saharan countries and China and it may feel like Somalia was just a kiddie play.

As the kids are told: “Don’t play with a knife, you can cut yourself.”

What kind of democracy is in the West that this kind of ruthless and yet totally incompetent dictators (called presidents or prime ministers) get elected?! Roman Empire again, in its last phase…

The best at the end: “liberated” Libyans are quietly waiting for a moment to rise up against their “liberators”.

“In [‘liberated’] Ajaylat, several people said they were still hoping that Gaddafi could make a comeback and were prepared to fight on his behalf.”

“People want Gaddafi. I can’t deny this,” said a resident named Khaled, 40. “We can’t live under the invasion. Even though they are afraid, in a few days people can fight again — men, women and children.”

We first Aligned with Gadhafi against Al-Qaida then with Al-Qaida against Gadhafi. We won in both cases.

Who si the Torturer?

It is coming to light that the British government asked Gadhafi to torture Libyan islamists to find out about their Al-Qaida links, something they could not do themselves in UK. The same Gadhafi who British now say had to go because he was a torturer.

It will be interesting to see how the current UK-Libyan rebel cooperation goes as it appears that many in the rebel leadership were in the past tortured on requests from UK government and they feel “bitter” about it. One of them feels already so strong that he is asking US and UK governments to appologize to him.

Qatar, the Supporter of Al-Qaida and Democracy

It is being reported that Qatar in cooperation with islamic terrorists had tried to kill Gadhafi’s son in UK in the past. It seems that Qatar’s support for rebels and “democracy” is really just a plot to expand hard line islam in more Arab countries.
What’s more, it seems US, UK, and France also do not have a high opinion of Qatar.

“The French told UK officials at the time that ‘the Qatari Interior Minister was known to be an Islamist extremist sympathiser’.”

“…in 2003, the same minister was likewise believed by members of the US intelligence community to have links to al-Qaida. In a Los Angeles Times report in March of that year, Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani was said to have sheltered terrorists at his farm. Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism director, said that his role as security chief inside Qatar presented a serious danger to US forces posted there.”

Trusting US is a Very Risky Business
“Col Gaddafi had needed to be reassured that the Americans and the British did not have a hidden agenda for regime change in Libya. ‘Once they assured us they did not, everything went forward,’ said Saif, declaring that the development was a ‘new page in Libya’s history’.”

It sure was.

So Who Is Next, Syria or Algeria?

Enchorouk newspaper reported that “Algerian security forces had seized 157 different types of munitions ranging from missile-launchers to bullets.
It said serial numbers and stamps indicated the materiel was manufactured in France and Britain between 2008 and 2011.”

Sounds like the plans are fresh.

I wish we had such good, democracy-dedicated leaders as Libya!

Abdel-Hakim Belhaj was named the new military leader of largely secular Tripoli. He fought with Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, then led Libyan Islamic Fighting Group with the goal of fighting “all the deviant groups that call for democracy or fight for the sake of it.” Later he was on his own account tortured by CIA that eventually rendered him to Gadhafi who, after Belhaj denounced violence, let him go. Gadhafi, you were too mellow!
The unholly aliance that US forged with Osama in Afghanistan is back. Except this time it is not to defeat an evil empire (that is now US), but for special interest groups to get rich from Libyan oil and post war repairs. And the old revolutionary Belhaj may well cooperate. After all, who wants to be poor?

No, this war was not about oil

“Diplomatic and oil industry sources denied a French newspaper report saying the NTC had agreed in April to give France priority access to 35 percent of Libyan oil in return for its backing.” What were they supposed to say? That yes, we did it?

You don’t fix what ain’t broken

So you break it first in order to get the contracts for fixing it.

“British Foreign Secretary William Hague said he wanted to see a closer trading and economic relationship between Europe and Libya. He also said British companies would not be “left behind” French and Italian rivals in jockeying for new business.”

And there are money to be paid for fixing

By some estimates, Libya has $110 billion in frozen bank accounts and other assets around the world. Most are expected to go to the new government once the United Nations agrees on how to unwind its freeze.”

Obviously, Gadhafi did not run budget deficit and so the bankers decided he had to go. Will the rebels steal all the money for themselves or to finance jihad against US? The latter would be much welcomed by the homeland security industrial complex.

Mission Accomplished

“Yet, no one is firmly in control of the vast swathe of land stretching between Bani Walid, home to Libya’s biggest and most important tribe, the Warfalla, and Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte on the Mediterranean coast.”

To attack and masacre population of the town that is a centre of the largest Libyan tribe (1 million people out of 6 milion) is a sure way to built a lasting peace in Libya. Not.

Stratfor confirmed that the Tripoli offensive was accomplished by NATO special forces, not “rebels”

“After six months, NATO got tired, and we wound up with the assault on Tripoli. The assault appears to have consisted of three parts. The first was the insertion of NATO special operations troops (in the low hundreds, not thousands) who, guided by intelligence operatives in Tripoli, attacked and destabilized the government forces in the city. The second part was an information operation in which NATO made it appear that the battle was over. The bizarre incident in which Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, announced as being captured only to show up in an SUV looking very un-captured, was part of this game. NATO wanted it to appear that the leadership had been reduced and Gadhafi’s forces broken to convince those same forces to capitulate. Seif al-Islam’s appearance was designed to signal his troops that the war was still on.

Following the special operations strikes and the information operations, western rebels entered the city to great fanfare, including celebratory gunfire into the air. The world’s media chronicled the end of the war as the special operations teams melted away and the victorious rebels took the bows.”

Libya Descending into Chaos as Islamist Militias Squable for Domination

According to Deutche Welle, the situation is most similar to Afghanistan after they expelled non-islamic pro-soviet government with a free for all fighting for control.