Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 18, 2016

International Policy On Libya: Arm *Someone* And Hope For The Best

by Richard J. C. Galustian

The decision on Monday in Vienna to provide 'arms' to a Libyan Government that exists in name only, the GNA, has taken the international communities stance from the sublime to the completely ridiculous.

Exactly what military kit is being supposed to be supplied? This is a critical question which needs a whole article devoted to it and cannot be dealt with herein because of space.

To keep it simple, the West has decided to supply 'arms' to a not yet in existence Government of National Accord (GNA) sometimes referred to as a Unity Government yet its core, the nine-man Presidential Council and its Prime Minister were not at all selected by any Libyan but by a combination of the UN, EU, US and UK. Within the EU the primary mover with the most commercial interests of that side being Italy.

The GNA/PC means seven men (as two dropped out) who are essentially two or three members sometimes available to be seen by visiting dignitaries at a heavily fortified Naval Base a couple of miles away from the Militia controlled Mitega Airport. The PC of seven, if you will can be considered as a quorum for a yet to be selected 90 member government comprising of 30 ministers and 60 deputy ministers. The PC/GNA control no territory, no area of either Tripoli or Libya except for the one naval 'bunker' they can meet people in to maintain the facade that they are legitimate. Its a ' Potemkin Village' lie of epic proportions.

But wait, the best I save till last. Their military component is an assortment of militias of varying shades of extremist mainly from Tripoli, Sabratha, Zuwaia and importantly Misrata. Not forgetting in addition the forces that represent the coalition between former LIFG (read for them an Al Qaeda affiliate) which has aligned itself squarely with the Muslim Brotherhood, best described as the Sinn Fein political wing to IRA terrorists of the 70s.

So as in Syria, the Americans are going to give 'arms' to the 'good' guys but not the 'bad' ones. Good luck with that one!

How will they - the Americans - determine where these weapons will end up. IS have friends amongst the GNA's militias. Can America guarantee such weapons will not end up on IS hands?

When considering the above also consider this; a democratically elected parliament in the East, in Tobruk, selected a Government and appointed a commander of the Libyan Army, General Khalifa Hafter.

In the last 14 days that Army has secured almost if not all oil ports in the East. Hariga; Zeutina, Brega, Ras Lanuf etc and its soldiers are fortifying and holding these positions.

So whatever the puppet GNA say to its oil company based in Tripoli to sign international contracts and sell oil from the east, its not physically possible without the cooperation of the actual Libyan Army who report to their masters in the East. Oh and I forgot to mention the Russians, Egyptians and Emiratis do not recognize the GNA but do recognize the powers that be in the East of Libya. A very revealing detail is that Russia is printing 4B Dinars for the Eastern government, giving Tobruk the option to finance a breakaway state if it chooses.

Yet America and their other puppets, the UN and EU, chose the Tripoli 'Dawn' mishmash leadership of extremists over the Army. Why?

Well one consequence is, for some yet unknown strategic reason, to provoke East Libya to secede and create their own country by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).

Another possibility is the newly armed extremist militias of the GNA will by pass fighting IS, who if they have any sense will lie low in Sirte city, and attack their enemy, the Libyan National Army (LNA).

The latter possibility is the most likely.

For this reason alone, it is right to describe the pre-agreed decision to 'arm' on Monday the GNA, literally insane.

The PC/GNA bring absolutely no unity whatsoever to Libya.

Now consider a further problem. There is an enclave, a small city set in a high impenetrable mountain to the West of Tripoli called Zintan. They are well known as fierce highland fighters; they hold Saif Gaddafi; they also control the gas and oil pipelines that flow through valves in their territory which is to the west of Tripoli that pipe to Zawia where the Italians, Norwegians and Spanish have huge oil and gas assets and a port.

The UN, in their wisdom, last week sent their military advisor, a serving Italian general, by plane to Zintan to supposedly negotiate. Barely had the plane touched down when he was almost chased back on to his aircraft to make a hasty retreat. Zintan are loyal to the Libyan National Army.

The final consideration and maybe the most important one is a pragmatic one; that loyalty has a price and eventually if the West conjures sufficient money - Libyan money frozen by the EU and UN - to be received by the PC/GNA and with that they may be able to 'buy', there is no other way to say it, the loyalty of any Libyans in the West or East but that would only be a temporary 'fix'; it wouldn't buy them indefinitely.

So in closing WHY is the International Community persisting with this charade of a GNA?

If as a reader you are expecting an answer, I must regretfully say I have none. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The West's strategy, if one can call it that, reminds me of an old Orwellian type adage that seems the only appropriate explanation:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

But to what end is beyond my comprehension.

The Libyan quagmire will inevitably continue.

(Copied with the author's permission from Times of Oman)


(b. adds)

Confirming the lunacy describe above, today's Washington Post reports that the U.S. military also has no idea who it is supposed to arm in the name of that (non-existing) UN assigned government:

Army Gen. David M. Rodriguez, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, told a handful of reporters here that Libya’s internal politics still make it difficult to determine which armed groups are aligning themselves with the Government of National Accord, an interim group that has backing from the United Nations.
Rodriguez, who was in Brussels to meet with senior European military officials and Marine Gen. Joseph F. DunfordJr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “everybody” is waiting to see how the United Nations examines the Libyan request, which must include details about who will receive the weapons.

“The support for the GNA and how they need it and how they want it, we’ll just have to see how that develops over time,” Rodriguez said, speaking of the Libyan government.

I am marveling at who is in charge of such crazy policy.

Posted by b on May 18, 2016 at 11:12 UTC | Permalink


So much better than Gaddhafi, right friends and neighbors? Western democracy fetishists always think they know better...they deserve a rocket up their asses to compliment their insufferable arrogance and hubris.

Posted by: farflungstar | May 18 2016 13:04 utc | 1

Western imperialism in the 21st century? Who would have thought! It's the old playbook.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | May 18 2016 13:59 utc | 2

Such optimism!

Arm someone ... and hope for chaos! That is what we will do ... the more chaos, the better. That will result, if not immediately then eventually, in the US (AmeriKKKan) being able to do what it always does --- rape what is left. IF enough people die, once the infrastructure collapses, move in and rule via one method or another. In the 19th century, we moved AmeriKKKans in to literally take over. In the 20th century we identified local surrogates. It looks like in the 21st century, in order to prevent some indigenous rebellion (Iran, Venezuela, etc) in which the local surrogates may not be able to keep control, then military bases will be built. (After all, we need to have someplace to put all those young people who are excluded from jobs at home!)

Am I a cynic? Yes.

Do I have hope? So little, it doesn't matter.

Until we stop believing the myth of who and what we really are, only collapse of the planet will stop us ... or the next capitalist empire.

And, on that optimistic note, I leave you to have a 'nice' day!

Posted by: rg the lg | May 18 2016 14:17 utc | 3

Russia keeps pointing out that there is a UNSC arms embargo against Libya which must be modified before any arms delivery can legally be made. If course, the law never stopped the Western Mafia from doing what they want. Russia will be able to say "I told you so", but that won't help the poor Libyans. More European refugees.

Posted by: NEV | May 18 2016 14:26 utc | 4

"Gotta love the media. They make is sound as if Libya just stumbled into its current situation via some freak historical accident. In reality, we know the whole thing is essentially the handiwork of Presidential candidate, and neocon warmonger extraordinaire, Hillary Clinton."

I'm so tired of the media's bullshit.

Posted by: Anna | May 18 2016 15:21 utc | 5

"In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state."

BTW guys, this website, Russia Insider, is a volunteer news site which started a little over 1 year ago as a small blog about Russia. Now it's becoming one of the world’s largest news sources about Russia, and it announces Spring crowdfunding campaign:

Help get the Truth out!

Posted by: Anna | May 18 2016 15:31 utc | 6

It's nuts and its crazy but not surprising .South Fronts latest might play into this with what is happening in Egypt . They have to have a gun running program to supply the proxies so why not use Libya .Weapons headed in two directions one from Turkey and one from Libya . Thanks for the post b ..

Posted by: Terry | May 18 2016 16:24 utc | 7

Amazing work by our state and defense department and Nobel prize winner. Gee... people of Libya hate our freedoms! We give them freedom and they are against us. We should bill them for the fine work we did to liberate them. Arms are always a good idea since it goes to "moderate" ones and we know how they work. 911 and other craftsmanship was just by moderate peace loving one who should be armed when needed to topple anyone.

Lets us guess next few countries for liberation - Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and of course China. We should sanction China and get the sweet independence that we have to Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this decade, we will run out of countries but we can revisit the one we just freed.

Posted by: DeesNuts | May 18 2016 17:37 utc | 8

...and 'the hildabeast' riding high in the polls. WTF

Posted by: wiggins | May 18 2016 17:40 utc | 9

@8 As Tyson famously said, everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face. I believe the whole point of arming the disfunctional tribal militias in W. Libya is precisely that - ovverrunning E. Libyan military forces loyal to Tobruk and thus securing Libya's oil.

However, if you read mr. Galustian's article you'll notice Russia is (as usual) already a few steps ahead of the curve, so if the Empire's arms really reach Tripoli be prepared for another long-lasting civil war. This time Russia might not deploy troops, but gen. Hafter will surely receive a lot of new toys to play with.

The ultimate losers? As always, the civilian population of Libya in the short run and eventually Europe because of the new migrant wave that we can expect. (On a second thought, the migrants are gonna be headed for Italy and that's exactly what Italy deserves for these latest attempts to "solve" the Libyan crisis.)

Posted by: LXV | May 18 2016 17:50 utc | 10

Before we settle down to huffing and puffing about who's who in Libya, it mightn't be a bad idea to address the rather obvious fact that the Judeo-Christians appear to be on the threshold of completing their project of hijacking the imprimatur of the United Nations. The UN is well on the way to becoming an instrument of a 21st Century Resurrection of FRUKUS' i9th Century policies of insular, violent racism and Colonial greed and exploitation.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 18 2016 17:55 utc | 11

The LA Times does not sound hopeful

New U.S. plan aims to give Libya - and U.S. policy - another chance

A new Obama administration plan to funnel international support to an untested government in Tripoli is intended to give Libya -- and U.S. policy -- another chance.

The effort, which would require the United Nations to ease a weapons embargo, aims to train and arm local partners to fight Islamic State -- a strategy that has yet to succeed in Syria or Iraq.

It also involves a major dose of nation building, an open-ended policy that President Obama long has sought to avoid.

The challenge is immense. The United States and its allies will have to vet the Libyan militias and security forces amid the ongoing conflict, while shoring up a fragile government that barely exists on the ground.

That Haftar clown, formerly with the CIA and currently sponsored by the UAE and Egypt, is making noise against the U.S. plan
Haftar: “Decisions of the Unity Government are Just Ink on Paper”

Posted by: b | May 18 2016 18:26 utc | 12

funny that right on cue HRW (heard on the local NPR/PBS classical station, in the 5 mins of BS they do hourly) posts a story of the "crucifixions" ISIS is doing in Libya. hopefully our impending bombs will kill fewer than the crucifiers do.

and why is it, like mary's little lamb, wherever uncle sam goes, isis/aq is sure to follow? trying to undo all the good we are doing?

Posted by: jason | May 18 2016 18:44 utc | 13

Check out this Saudi officials logic absolutely melt when asked why he doesn't want the democracy in Saudi Arabia that he advocates for in syria.

Hopefully this will link up

Posted by: Au | May 18 2016 18:59 utc | 14

About Haftar [also Heftir], torture, CIA and Chad military campaign ...

[Warning: a WINEP article]
General Khalifa Haftar: Rebuilding Libya from the Top Down

My earlier comment ...
US Marines On the Shore of 'Montezuma and Tripoli'

I wrote an earlier article titled: "Reagan's CIA Man In Libya Now Employed by Obama"

    So a former Qaddafi general who switches sides is admitted to the United States, puts down roots in Virginia outside Washington, D.C. and then somehow supports his family in a manner that mystifies a fellow who has known Hifter his whole life. Hmm.

    The likelihood that Hifter was brought in to be some kind of asset is pretty high. Just as figures like Ahmed Chalabi were cultivated for a post-Saddam Iraq, Hifter may have played a similar role as American intelligence prepared for a chance in Libya.

    President Obama's motives in ordering the bombing of Gaddafi's forces may well have been driven by humanitarian concerns but the appointment of Khalifa Heftir to lead the armed uprising in the oil-rich North African republic, is a reminder that there is a long and tangled history of secret American efforts to oust the Libyan ruler.

    Heftir's elevation also signals that Obama's intervention in Libya is now not just about saving civilian lives but is aimed at removing Gaddafi from power, a mission begun a quarter of a century before by a President regarded as an American Conservative icon and supposedly the polar opposite, politically, of the White House's current resident.

    The story of Khalifa Heftir's entanglement with the CIA begins with the election to the White House of Ronald Reagan in 1980 amid gradually worsening relations with Gaddafi's Libya and a growing obsession on the part of Reagan and his allies with removing the Libyan leader.

Posted by: Oui | May 18 2016 19:18 utc | 15

Chad's Habré dragged into court as war crimes trial resumes | France24 |

Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.

    Hissène Habré: Support of the U.S. and France

    The United States and France supported Habré, seeing him as a bulwark against the Gaddafi government in neighboring Libya. Under President Ronald Reagan, the United States gave covert CIA paramilitary support to help Habré take power and remained one of Habré's strongest allies throughout his rule, providing his regime with massive amounts of military aid. The United States also used a clandestine base in Chad to train captured Libyan soldiers whom it was organizing into an anti-Qaddafi force.

    "The CIA was so deeply involved in bringing Habré to power I can't conceive they didn't know what was going on," said Donald Norland, U.S. ambassador to Chad from 1979 to 1981. "But there was no debate on the policy and virtually no discussion of the wisdom of doing what we did."

Posted by: Oui | May 18 2016 19:19 utc | 16

and why is it, like mary's little lamb, wherever uncle sam goes, isis/aq is sure to follow? trying to undo all the good we are doing?
Posted by: jason | May 18, 2016 2:44:42 PM | 13

It's called the Flypaper Theory - turn someone else's country into a Ter'rist hell hole.
Or as one creative journalist put it (after the start of the Iraq Fake War)...

"Dubya promised that he would turn Iraq into flypaper for terrorists, but the only bug that's got stuck to it so far is AmeriKKKa."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 18 2016 19:19 utc | 17

In military strategy, the flypaper theory is the idea that it is desirable to draw enemies to a single area, where it is easier to kill them and they are far from one's own vulnerabilities. Perhaps the best description of the benefits of the strategy was given by U.S. Army General Ricardo Sanchez, who was commander of US ground forces in Iraq:

This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity.... But this is exactly where we want to fight them.... This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States.[1]

The desirability of the strategy depends upon how many new enemies are created by using it, how many of them are drawn to the "flytrap," and how easily they are dispatched.

Application to the Iraq War

According to a report[2] from the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), foreign fighters comprise about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents in Iraq. Other studies dispute that figure

Posted by: okie farmer | May 18 2016 19:28 utc | 18

@okie farmer / hoarse - Interesting. I don't doubt that strategy is still being enacted currently but I bet they get there caliphate and eventually the containment will fail.

Posted by: Au | May 18 2016 19:35 utc | 19


Phew! It's just me. Reality sure can play tricks on one's sense of Reality. Thanks for the head's up DUDE.

Posted by: ALberto | May 18 2016 20:30 utc | 20

@13 jason quote "and why is it, like mary's little lamb, wherever uncle sam goes, isis/aq is sure to follow? trying to undo all the good we are doing?" ---> tag team, lol..

too busy to comment or read much today!

Posted by: james | May 18 2016 20:51 utc | 21

Entropy, in the undoing of human civilzation takes the form of death, the dissolution of family. Of chaos, the erasure of the normality of work and school, of cooking and eating, of shelter and privacy, of cleanliness and safety. Of the ability to think and to plan.

TPTB say that only they are fit to rule because only they can think. They mean that rationality, their name for selfishness, is unlimited in themselves-- unclouded by empathy, compassion, conscience, remorse, or pity. Sometimes the butterfly of fear in my throat tells me I am afraid they may be right, that we cannot think-- or that we choose not to. For we say that we are baffled, that the mind's eye cannot impose order upon such randomness as they visit upon us. Surely it is but incompetence that we are witnessing. Such a comforting illusion. They are so laughably incompetent and so near collapse. We know because their media tells us so.

The gazelle who sees the onrushing tiger through a haze of unreality doesn't pass on the gene of hesitancy. My hen is preternaturally alert to that shadow in the sky, and so saves herself again and again from the hawk that stoops to strike. Among we higher life forms cooperation has replaced vigilance as our means of survival. But it seems we now direct it towards the hawk.

Thought has become corrupted by an unreasoning cooperation-- a pathological willingness to believe most of Authority's propaganda: That these wars have a purpose. That humanity is a cancer. That even though all of us could fit in 17 square miles, and a decent standard of living always causes population decline, we comprise over-population. That we cannot grow enough food, although we burn many hectares of corn as ethanol, and dump 1000s of tons of food at sea annually, to support the price. That our very breath, although exhaling what is necessary to plant life, endangers the climate.

Have you forgotten who Authority is-- forgotten the 4 million dead of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will you still project upon them in the present instance just a poor, helplessly ineffective action arming "someone". As long as we kill each other it's of no importance to whom the arms are given. As to the propaganda that explains the choice -- or the partial withdrawal from Afghanistan -- the particular lies matter not at all since they control the media's projection of Authority, and humanity chooses still to cooperate with them.

The tiger and the hawk live the life appropriate to them, but this murderous Authority that daily extends its destruction; that implants more lies in the minds of youth; that constructs legalities to end rights and international agreements that make trade also an engine of destruction; and now destroys the most essential industry supporting civilization-- energy; will you not withhold your cooperation? Reject the moral plum they offer you: It is an illusion. You do not rescue nature or the planet by helping to destroy civilization.

While we look for the meaning of their arming one group rather than another, the target is clear. It is us.

Posted by: Penelope | May 18 2016 20:52 utc | 22

Israel, Washington (NATO) Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have a vested interest in keeping Libya unstable. It's part of their design to destabilize the region. An unstable Libya means problems for Algeria and Egypt, to name a few countries. Also, as Libya remains unstable, it will pose no competition for Qatar, Saudi Arabia in Oil and Gas sales to Europe now and in the future; given the plans of Qatar and Saudi Arabia running Oil and Gas pipelines through Iraq, Syria and Turkey to the E.U. ; with a diversionary pipelines planned for both Israel and Jordan. All this will also bypass Russia and Iran to the vast E.U. market. For Turkey, it's 'Do or Die' , as their manufacturing base and industries are outperformed by China; leaving the Turkey to become desperate, hence Erdogan's rash, destructive behavior. Same goes for the nefarious Arab Gulf states. With Russia ready to supply China will all it's oil and gas and Russia and Iran the same thing for the E.U. ; one can see how the pieces of the puzzle fit . We live in increasingly interesting times indeed. Long live the Russian-Iranian-China and allies alliance.

oh, btw, my parents are Libyan...thanks Nato (U.S.)for the deceptive distaster inflicted on Libya. Gaddafi was about to step down and let his son Saif take power. Saif was progressive leaning. The Zionist - Fascist's couldn't have that.

Posted by: bored muslim | May 18 2016 21:18 utc | 23

Just some news on why the hired thugs will be getting IOU instead of cash;)

Posted by: jo6pac | May 18 2016 21:18 utc | 24

My $0.02 worth:

Obama deserves another Nobel.

I always follow the money.
So sad so many died, written off as collateral damage during the op. R2P. And, then there was the gold (see Hillary’s emails) and the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) invested with Goldman Sachs.

If Libyans expect to get their hands on any of the funds in deep freeze (frozen by the EU and UN) and recovery of funds from Goldman Sachs (tied up in court) they should stop dreaming.

Cynicism aside. Funny thing no, I need a reminder of the dates of the invasion – was it before or after this event? Tuesday 31 May 2011 17.31 BST

Goldman Sachs lost 98% of Gaddafi's $1.3bn investment

”As compensation Goldman Sachs offered to turn Gaddafi into one of its top investors, the Wall Street Journal reports”

”A bitter rift has opened up between the world's most powerful bank and one of its most fearsome dictators after Goldman Sachs invested $1.3bn (£790m) of Colonel Gaddafi's money – and lost virtually all of it.”

Follow up 2014 Thursday 30 January 2014 19.50 GMT

Goldman Sachs sued for $1bn by Libyan fund

[.] The case promises to provide an intriguing insight into how major banks scrambled to get their hands on Libya's wealth after the United Nations voted to lift sanctions on the country in 2003, a battle that continued until the reintroduction of the trading ban in 2011.

= = = = =
I guess Gaddafi said, No Thanks. Give me my money back - all of it.
In a 1,000 years of Sundays, you can’t make any of this stuff up.

Posted by: likklemore | May 18 2016 22:17 utc | 25

Anna @ 6, "In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state."
You urge us to support RussiaInsider, based on their above statement as "truth"?!

Sorry, but that sounds exactly like the MSM. Do you really think they were trying to bomb Libya into Democracy?

At the link RussiaInsider also says "The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war."

US interests are AGAINST Syria's civil war? It is only through US's protection of Saudi Arabia that the international jihadis can be recruited and paid by the Saudis. And the US supports the jihadis directly in other ways. Most of the fighters are from abroad, so referring to it as "Syria's civil war" is another lie.

RussiaInsider also says "As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him."

Libya had direct democracy and was attacked by a US-controlled forces. Qaddafi's title was "Leader". He no longer had any constitutional authority. He gave his opinion and the constitutional, elected govt followed it or not, as they liked.

"When Gaddafi took over, Libyans had an average annual income of about $60. His government brought Libya from poverty and debt to prosperity and debt-free status Education from the kindergarten stage through college was free. Health care was free as well. Under Gaddafi’s oil-revenue-sharing program, each Libyan had $500 (five hundred US dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month. After marriage, each couple was given as much as $60,000 (sixty thousand US dollars) to spend. Libya gave free land and seeds to anyone who wanted to take up farming as an occupation.

"Water and electricity were free in Libya. Petrol/fuel was sold at 75 cents a gallon under Gaddafi. There was virtually no homelessness as everyone was given a home. Undernourishment in Libya under Gaddafi was as low as 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the USA. For any medical care or health treatments that were unavailable in Libya, the Libyan citizen’s full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation to wherever was required for treatment were borne by the Libyan government. Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Under Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to over 80%. Unlike some Arab states, women in Libya under Gaddafi had equal rights; not only as a philosophy, but in practice.

"Libyans had a direct participatory democracy based on people’s conferences. The Gaddafi regime invested billions to bring freshwater from southern Libya’s desert to coastal areas like Tripoli and Benghazi. This man-made river is a worldwide acclaimed achievement that stands as a testimony to Gaddafi’s huge contribution to the economic development of Libya. Folks, note that this project which cost Libya about $35 billion (US dollars) was exclusively financed by Libya’s Central Bank without borrowing a cent from abroad. " --

Anna, RussiaInsider is not a good source. Try instead. Their archieves are phenomenal; there are easily 100 archived articles on every aspect of Libya. Even the truth about who killed the US ambassador in Benghazi. Following the death of Gaddafi, the Green Risistance called the "tahloob", which means "Gaddafi loyalists" took up the fight against NATO. They burned the US embassy, which is why Ambassador Stevens was in a makeshift building. There is little doubt that the tahloob attacked the makeshift embassy. The following morning NATO's puppet Libyan govt admitted it, but NATO media soon got the story under control.

Posted by: Penelope | May 18 2016 22:30 utc | 26

Penelope | May 18, 2016 6:30:47 PM | 26
""Anna, RussiaInsider is not a good source. Try instead. Their archieves are phenomenal; there are easily 100 archived articles on every aspect of Libya""

I have to agree about RI being a mixed bag in a lot of ways . I followed them for a short while when the Ukraine thing was hot a heavy with propaganda flying south in the western MSM but RI was conceding to the smaller points of the propaganda ...A much better choice would be

Posted by: Terry | May 18 2016 22:41 utc | 27


"too busy to comment or read much much today!"

Missed your staccato listing of "thanks" and "agrees".

Posted by: Captain Cook | May 18 2016 23:08 utc | 28

The decision on Monday in Vienna to provide 'arms' to a Libyan Government that exists in name only, the GNA, has taken the international communities stance from the sublime to the completely ridiculous.
But the GNA was brought into existence for exactly this purpose, to provide a Libyan front for UN, EU, US, UK, FR, DE, and IT colonial aggression. There is money and oil to be stolen in Libya, and North Africa, and these are the guys who've always done it ... well Germany's a new face in Northern Africa, not counting the Thousand-year Reich ... doing it again. William R Polk directed my attention to The Lion of the Desert (1981), a film made of the Italian genocide in Libya under Benito Mussolini and the Libyan resistance led by Omar Mukhtar. It's colonialism, all over again.
When considering the above also consider this; a democratically elected parliament in the East, in Tobruk, selected a Government and appointed a commander of the Libyan Army, General Khalifa Hafter.

In the last 14 days that Army has secured almost if not all oil ports in the East. Hariga; Zeutina, Brega, Ras Lanuf etc and its soldiers are fortifying and holding these positions.

I grant the government in Tobruk more legitimacy than the GNA, certainly, but Khalifa Hafter is the CIA's man, and has been for decades.

How will they - the Americans - determine where these weapons will end up. IS have friends amongst the GNA's militias. Can America guarantee such weapons will not end up on IS hands?

Another possibility is the newly armed extremist militias of the GNA will by pass fighting IS, who if they have any sense will lie low in Sirte city, and attack their enemy, the Libyan National Army (LNA).

'IS have friends amongst the GNA's militias.' ... the GNA's militias. That seems a bit rich, doesn't it? How about the militias the GNA is paying not to kill them?

'Another possibility is ... the GNA will by pass fighting IS, who if they have any sense will lie low in Sirte city' ... but isn't IS coming to get them? Isn't IS just to the east of Misrata now? Isn't it as likely that "the GNA's militias" will join IS when push comes to shove? Or will IS join "the GNA's militias"? And how would you tell the difference?

So in closing WHY is the International Community persisting with this charade of a GNA?

Greed? What's the downside for UN, EU, US, UK, FR, DE, and IT? None. They use the Libyans' own money to fight a colonial war in Libya, if it doesn't work out - nothing has changed from their perspective. More death, devastation, destruction, and deceit.

The only thing that might stop them might be the 'Russians, Egyptians and Emiratis' (Emiratis vs Saudis?) and the forces in eastern Libya.

Posted by: jfl | May 18 2016 23:08 utc | 29

If I remember right the Libyan revolt, if that's the right word, involved a lot of driving up and down the coast road firing off a few RPGs and nothing much happened until the NATO airforce showed up.

So I guess we have to wait and see who gets the NATO air support this time around.

Posted by: dh | May 18 2016 23:32 utc | 30


What you have written above is SO COMPLETELY TRUE, that I cannot add anything, but to say:

1) thank you for your contribution to the unveiling of the final goal --- humanity's destruction.

2) to encourage that we all ask the next appropriate question:

If the goal is humanity's destruction, through a myriad of means, GMOs, the poisoning of the water-supply, Vaccinations, man-made virus and the like, carbon-release control for a bogus human-caused climate change (has anybody else considered that what they are doing to the ionosphere, through chem-trails, may actually be the temporary culprit of this climate change effect?), then why are these "humans" not concerned about themselves and their progeny, as if none of this will actually come to affect them, either because they are unlike us (?, what are they?), or they are as human as we are, but have actually decided that what they must do is to aggregate as much wealth as possible (through the rapacious financial system and the like) in order to support the scientific undertaking of relocating themselves outside of our earth planet, while leaving most of us, here behind, to struggle, mired in the crap, they have left behind?

Posted by: susette | May 19 2016 1:49 utc | 31

@28 captain cook - are you being caustic or genuine? it is hard to tell, but i suspect the former..

Richard J. C. Galustian, thanks for the informative article..

Posted by: james | May 19 2016 2:41 utc | 32

That even though all of us could fit in 17 square miles..
Posted by: Penelope | May 18, 2016 4:52:34 PM | 22

..or (tightly packed) a cube 800 x 800 x 800 metres.
(7,000,000,000 ppl x 70kg average weight, same volume/kg as water)

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 19 2016 2:57 utc | 33

I have no problem with the main argument here. But why does an otherwise anti-imperialist website side with British imperialists in describing the IRA as terrorists? They had mass political support from the nationalist/catholic population of Northern Ireland in the 1970's. Their tactics can legitimately be questioned but it reminds me of a song-chorus - "You dare to call me a terrorist while you look down your gun". Don't perpetuate British myths.

Posted by: Stephen Darley | May 19 2016 4:01 utc | 34

libya 'revolutionaries'
+we dont need no stinking weapons, we want a central bank+ !

* In Libya we destroyed their infrastructure so that they will have to go to the IMF and the World Bank to get loans they can't repay so the Rothschild's can foreclose on their country. The first thing that the provisional government in Libya wanted was a central bank. Who gave them that idea? When do revolutionaries ask for a central bank as one of their first demands? Libya was one of a handful of nations that didn't have a Rothschild central bank. Syria is another, so is Cuba. We'll make sure the evil bastards get in there too. *

Posted by: denk | May 19 2016 4:34 utc | 35

I wonder how many who are spoken of as "terrorists" or "al Qaeda" or "ISIS" are really the Resistance, tahloob (Gaddafi loyalists). Perhaps their gaining power and putting Libya together again is the catastrophe that the West wishes to avoid. In February of this year his daughter Aisha declared herself head of the resistance & returned to Libya.

April 2011 she was forced to flee Libya. She arrived, heavily pregnant, in Algeria with other family members after her husband, a Libyan army general, was killed along with two of their three children in a bombing raid. She immediately gave birth to a baby girl. From October 2012 she stayed in Oman.

The part of the Libya story that is difficult to tell is the part subsequent to 2003. Gaddafi blinked. We don't know under what coercion or threats he acted, but he gave up much of the Libyan revolution-- perhaps trying to placate the West, lest worse should befall Libya. The story is here; it's only a few paragraphs.

Posted by: Penelope | May 19 2016 5:16 utc | 36

Susette @ 31,
"Humanity's destruction" is a little strong. The oligarchs have repeatedly expressed the desire to greatly reduce the human population, and several have been caught taking actions to sterilize segments of the population.

Your comment is so thoroughly off-topic for this thread that I have answered it at the last open thread, at number 60.

Posted by: Penelope | May 19 2016 6:36 utc | 37

Kuwait is planning to send a few hundred thousands of its own citizens of Beduin ascent (the Bidun-s) to the Comores islands from a few million dollars (and the special MB package probably). It has been done before by the UAE.

How nice. The UN has nothing against deportation when it is for money?

Posted by: Mina | May 19 2016 10:49 utc | 38

Hi Penelope. You obviously think for yourself, which is a big No-No.

However. There is a sort of "Agenda 21" flavor to your analyses, and now at last I begin to wonder? The Entrenched Power Grasping Oligarchs (EPGOs) ("elites") are at least "disparity conditional sociopaths" -- They can butcher the great herds of the unwashed "human" sheep with no remorse whatsoever. So then we are becoming more and more aware of the Sociopathic Menace.

But maybe not sociopaths? Maybe something much worse? Maybe simply sadists who do not merely dismiss, but actively enjoy their torture of the sheep? Now consider.

Every successful social group has a perpetuation strategy. The largest religions, tribes, and militant factions use fecundity as a perpetuation strategy. More offspring means more believers, members, warriors. Of course. Another perpetuation strategy is the EPGO strategy. Take over the educational, communications, financial nerve centers, and survive by simply controlling the power centers, the gates through which the great herds of the unwashed "human" sheep must pass.

Anyhow, the world now has a fairly high number of unwashed human sheep. What are they good for? Well if you happen to be an EPGO, that apparently triggers the psychological effect we may call sadism. Thus, they don't simply slaughter all the sheep. Rather they use them for entertainment value. Their "New World Order" is the transformation of the Earth into one vast bloody coliseum. It's their own private little mental disorder.

Posted by: blues | May 19 2016 13:24 utc | 39

Anna @ 6: Thanks for the new site link. I'll peruse it daily. Looks and sounds interesting.

Posted by: ben | May 19 2016 14:40 utc | 40

More on Russia Insider

Charles Bausman

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 19 2016 15:00 utc | 41

JS @ 41: Thanks for the link, seems the information war is on between the "pro-russian" sites. Very interesting.

Posted by: ben | May 19 2016 15:06 utc | 42

@35 denk - good old blog post and personal analysis on your part.

Posted by: Au | May 19 2016 15:44 utc | 43

Russia Insider?

I always had my doubts about it. Something felt rather odd.

How about I start American Insider?

Posted by: blues | May 19 2016 15:48 utc | 44

Should tahloob even bother? Russia probably won't back them because neoliberal Putin will drop anybody for Western concessions and

Posted by: aaaa | May 19 2016 16:13 utc | 45

We agree in many sociopolitical issues and we disagree - Bernie Sanders will turn out to be Obama2 or Dubya3. He’s more dangerous than Trump or anyone - a Trojan horse. Bernie’s slogan "A Future to Believe In.” Almost identical to "Change. Change you can believe in." Right?


Bernie Sanders

After 2008 debacles, I (we) suffered and still suffer today, must never trust the Duopoly especially the Democratic Party again. I have changed my voting preference and prepare to vote for Killary in June 7 California's Democratic primary. California must never go to Bernie's camp! Let Trump destroy Killary in November. Let the Duopoly destroy themselves, hopefully a 3rd party emerges from the ashes. If it doesn't happen, so be it.

I don’t articulate myself fully, hopefully you and blues understand. Thanks. :-)

BTW the Black and Latino will continue to believes in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 19 2016 16:19 utc | 46

Posted by: blues | May 19, 2016 11:48:27 AM | 44

Russia Insider?

Fort Russ

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 19 2016 16:24 utc | 47

Posted by: blues | May 19, 2016 11:48:27 AM | 44
Posted by: ben | May 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM | 42


Russia Insider?

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 19 2016 16:33 utc | 48

Wouldnt it be crazy if they somehow pin the Egypt Air plane crash on some sort of Libyan based Isis/whoever terrorist group and Egypt goes to war with Libya with some sort of international backing

Or maybe im just really tired because it's 3am here and i have no idea what im raving on about lol

Posted by: Deebo | May 19 2016 16:57 utc | 49

au 43

gatto is a passionate anti imperialist, a good yank.
he advocates revolution in murkka cuz thats the only way to change .
unfortunately this isnt gonna happen cuz
there is no murkkan embassy in washington dc !!

Posted by: denk | May 20 2016 1:09 utc | 50

US prepares troop deployment to Libya amid fight for oil fields

Five years after a US-NATO war shattered Libya, Washington is preparing to send troops into the oil-rich North African nation for a “long-term mission,” the Pentagon’s top uniformed commander said Thursday.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters returning aboard his plane from a meeting of NATO commanders in Brussels that the new military deployment, which could involve thousands of US troops, could happen “any day.” It awaited only a formal agreement with the new government that the Western powers and the UN are attempting to set up in Tripoli, he indicated.

General Dunford told reporters that there had been “intense dialogue” and “activities under the surface” aimed at bringing about the Libya intervention. This apparently referred to efforts by the US ambassador to Libya, Peter Bodde, and the State Department’s special envoy for Libya, Jonathan Winer, to wrest a formal request for military intervention from Fayez al-Sarraj, the unelected head of the Western-backed Libyan Presidential Council.

As in Iraq and Syria, Washington is justifying this new intervention in the name of combating a force that it itself spawned. Libya’s ISIS fighters came from the Islamist militias that the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies supported and armed in the bid to oust Gaddafi in 2011. Many of them were then sent into Syria, along with large stockpiles of Libyan weapons that were shipped to that country as part of an operation run out of the secret CIA station in Benghazi. That station and a separate US consulate were overrun by Libyan Islamist militiamen in September 2011, leading to the deaths of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The real objective in Libya today, as in 2011, is the assertion of undisputed US-NATO hegemony over the country and its massive oil reserves, the largest on the African continent. Having turned Libya into the model of a so-called “failed state” with its first intervention, Washington appears to want to impose some kind of neocolonial regime with its pending second incursion.

... Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said that Italy would not send troops into Libya. ... Germany has reportedly rejected placing any of its troops in Libya, saying that it would only train Libyan forces in neighboring Tunisia.

The apparent disarray within NATO’s ranks reflects the competing interests of the US and the various European powers as the Libyan intervention escalates what is emerging as a new imperialist scramble for Africa.

As Washington prepares to launch another military intervention into a nation that it previously decimated through a war of aggression, its ongoing campaign in Iraq appears in growing danger. Baghdad was placed under military curfew Friday night after Iraqi security forces used tear gas and live fire to drive back thousands of antigovernment demonstrators who stormed the heavily fortified Green Zone, reaching the office of Iraq’s US-backed prime minister, Haider al-Abadi.

In the wake of the bloodshed in the Green Zone, there is a growing threat that an armed confrontation between government forces and armed Shia militias in the Iraqi capital could eclipse the so-called war against ISIS.

Looks like the USA wants Libya itself. It got nearly zero oil out of Iraq, and in fact seems likely to be history there soon, and so is kicking its European dwarves out of its way in Libya?

The USA is making a LOT of enemies on its way down. Won't it be nice to wake up in the gutter surrounded by our victims, armed to the teeth with 'our' weapons and looking for blood vengeance? Say, thank you, to the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Posted by: jfl | May 21 2016 10:54 utc | 51

very interesting comments from usa state dept regarding libya - 5 minute video...

essentially the usa is backing this horse - GNA - and wants all libyans to get behind it too!

Posted by: james | May 24 2016 20:45 utc | 52

The comments to this entry are closed.