Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘libya’

Thabo Mbeki Urges Africans to Protect their Right of Self-determination from Neo-imperialism


Thabo Mbeki

Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki delivered the following great speech on November 5, 2011. The address “International Law and the Future of Africa” is posted on the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website.

[….(Africa have) “urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm the inviolability of an important principle of international law”.

Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

Among other things, the Declaration says:  “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.

This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.

In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:

“They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and, “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…

“(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”

To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.

To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”

It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.

As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.

I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.

In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.

In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”

He went on to say: “Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…

“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism has dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth – all of this seems eminently desirable.

“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”

This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote: “Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and – ultimately – some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding.”

On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris titled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said: “Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonized. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren’t interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”

Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said: “What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world’s coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.

“With the reporting and analysis of today’s Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”

I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”

In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world – a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’

In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.

I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.

It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.

It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.

On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said: “Recognizing the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”

What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.

As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.

Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”

For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that: “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”

The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.

Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.

It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.

Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.

For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.

The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.

Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.

The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.

In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”

And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”

And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.

A week before Resolution 1973 was approved; the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.

This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.

The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.

Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.

Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.

And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.

Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.

The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.

In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said: “Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…

“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”

It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.

These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.

Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.

It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next?

As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.

In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.

I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.  Thank you.]

For all the programmes and speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki please go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation

Was Gaddafi With or Against Africa?


The normal reactions of most people to Obama’s NATO war against Libya and the subsequent savage and humiliating assassination of Colonel Gaddafi ranged from support to indignation. But let us look at the whole globalist episode from purely African objective perspective. The common mistake made is to be emotional or biased right from the outset which definitely will result in subjective conclusion.

Ancient Africans of North Africa and Nubians

The purpose here is to make Africans answer essential questions. Was the war in Libya between the good against the evil? Or was it between bigger and lesser villains? What are the consequences of regime change in Libya to Africa and Africans? Is it better for Africa and Africans to reverse the course of events in Libya, as Obama’s NATO and the Arabs did?

Africans must seek and defend their interests first and not to react to such war as if they were spectators in a boxing arena. This is practical politics not a TV show.

Who was Gaddafi? And What were his Opinions About Africa?

The biggest problem and contradiction with Gaddafi and his Green Book, and also equally with all states of the so-called New World, like the USA and all similar states, is the atrocities committed against the indigenous people and their issues. The imbalances and injustices created in recent modern history of Libya should have been corrected by Gaddafi 42 years rule.

These serious issues are concerning the non-integration of invaders, colonizers, and immigrants into the fabric of the old states. Gaddafi knew history and calling Libya an Arab state and giving Arab identity state official bias was totally unfair and discriminatory. Why the Tamazight (Berber); the Tubu (Teda); and all other African tribes must accept that their ancient land is called Arab while they are definitely not Arabs. No people can talk about human rights, justice, and other values if they are enjoying bloody loots.

Libyans

I strongly believe that all North Africa belongs to Africa and not to the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the so-called Arab World. North Africa must be returned back to Africa. Libya’s oil wealth is African oil, but oil revenues are spent mainly on the coastal parts of Libya. The so-called black Libyans are simply the true Libyans. The atrocities committed by the militias of the NTC in Libya against black Libyans; African workers, and the African Union brought into the surface the deeply seated and imbedded wrong orientation of the inhabitants of coastal Libya, and also Jamahiriya regime.

After a long time of being Nasserist Pan-Arabist, Colonel Gaddafi started the beginning of course correction. That was only after the Arabs regimes targeted him openly and covertly supported his isolation and embargo. He apologized to Africans for Arab involvement in slavery and he supported African development and institutions.

Greater actions were and are still needed in this direction from any government in Libya. These include among many policies the following in particular: recognition of native languages; purging the educational system and the media from racist and anti-African sentiments and inclinations; political and economic empowerment of indigenous Libyans especially in the vast inland; affirmative actions to level the socio-economic and political fields; and the gradual assimilation of Arab tribes’ members into original Libyan identity.

Was Gaddafi Genuine Africanist or was He Tactical Player?

Libyan Tuareg Girl

For many political analysts and nationalists the ideology of Pan-Africanism might not offer enough sovereignty to states and it is too ahead of time. They argue that Africans cannot just leap from the current deformed colonial inheritance to a United State of Africa which must be far advanced and healthier than the infamous US model.

The Vision of Muammar Gaddafi is not sacred or ideal to most Africans. You may look at it this way, each state must first establish a stable system and national solidarity then moves to African economic cooperation, integration, or union. Only after these prerequisites are met they can move forward and work on African federation, confederation, or total unity; otherwise it is unrealistic. Imagine that after establishing US of Africa something like what is happening in Bahrain occurred; shall we act like the Arab GSC and suppress our fellow Africans by sending troops, or topple a regime.

Genuine Africanism is a bottom-up approach not the other way around. Gaddafi tested and discovered the dangers of Islamism and Arabism to his system; but sadly he stopped short from Africanism, and instead he tried to make a domination at regional level and on the African Union.

The history of Federalism, as well as Democracy, is dirty but this is not the system itself. Correct Federalism is the unity of the welling. The amount of delegation of sovereignty is based on a negotiable constitution. The USA, Russia, India, Nigeria, and Sudan are very bad examples of totalitarianism disguised in Federalism. Very loose federation might be considered as a confederation, also a valid option. All depends on the negotiated constitution. The point is to reach a good balanced contractual relationship between strength in unity and freedom in sovereignty.

Colonial Arab and Western Abuses of Nationality and Nationalism:

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Africanist identification of “nation” is based on the mind; the heart and the interests of individuals but not on ethnic, racial, or tribal basis. Nationality and nationalism are acquired and not inherited; they are dynamic and not static; they are individual choices and not a group right; this means you have to prove you allegiance every day whatever your origin is. Once you keep sharing your heart; mind; and interests with any indigenous group then you are entitled to nationality and you may politically be a nationalist. You cannot be an Africanist just because you are from African origin or with African genes.

To emancipate from Arab and European colonial eras free African governments are supposed to be considered as public servants only and with very specific delegation of authorities from the people. Governments and peoples too own nothing in this God created universe; but only the indigenous people are the custodians of their territories. Based on this definition, free African governments must not give nationality to anybody by birth, residence, marriage, or anyway else. It is only the indigenous institutions who have the right to instruct the public servants to issue documents upon current and accepted allegiances.

End note:

Gaddafi must have known very well that the inhabitants of the coastal parts of North Africa must realize that they are also Africans and their brethren in the inland are not getting their fair share in power and wealth.

Neither the Jamahiriya of Gaddafi nor the Obama’s NATO and AFRICOM and his masters the corporate globalists can bring peace and development to Africa. It is up to Africans, Libyans, and North Africans to make their future in Africa. The Arab League and the UN must not be allowed to act in any part of Africa without the leadership of the African Union.

Why I’m suing Obama administration over Libya; Says: Ron Paul


TheDailyCaller.com published on 16 June 2011 this article written by Dr. Ron Paul, the American physician, author and US Congressman, who is running for Republican Party candidacy for 2012 US presidential elections:

Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya

US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul to Sue Obama over Libya

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya


The American Dream website posted the following article:

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

[The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don’t seem to mind at all.  The flag, which contains the phrase “there is no God but Allah” with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi.  The courthouse in Benghazi is where the “rebels” established their provisional government, and it is where the “media center” for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi.  So it isn’t as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building.  But this should be no surprise.  It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of “the rebels” and among the leadership of “the rebels”.  Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population.

You can see more pictures of the al-Qaeda flag flying over Libya on the website of the Telegraph and on the website of the Daily Mail.

The following is video of the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi….

So where is the uproar about this in the U.S. media?

The silence has been deafening.

I guess it would be hard to explain to the American people why they should be sacrificing their sons and daughters to fight al-Qaeda when we just spent billions of dollars helping them take over Libya.

Sadly, the flag of al-Qaeda is not just being flown at the Benghazi courthouse.  According to eyewitnesses, it is now being displayed all over Benghazi.  The following is an account from an eyewitness that has seen the flag flying over the Benghazi courthouse for himself….

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media center from which to tell foreign journalists about their “fight for freedom.”

But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.

According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, “Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,” a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

So what in the world are we supposed to think about all this?

We were told that we had to invade Afghanistan because they were harboring “al-Qaeda” leaders.

We were told that it was necessary for us to stay in Iraq for so long so that “al-Qaeda” would not take over.

But now we have helped al-Qaeda take over Libya.

It isn’t as if the governments of the western world did not know what was going on in Libya.

According to the Telegraph, the leader of the Libyan rebels was very open about the fact that his “troops” included significant numbers of al-Qaeda fighters that were firing bullets at U.S. soldiers in Iraq….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

According to a recent article by Kurt Nimmo for Infowars.com, al-Qaeda rebels had established an “Islamic emirate” in eastern Libya as early as February….

In February, it was reported that al-Qaeda had set-up an Islamic emirate in Derna, in eastern Libya, headed by a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi.

Now that they have won the war, the “rebels” have announced that they will be imposing strict Sharia law all over Libya.

The head of the National Transitional Council in Libya, Moustafa Abdeljalil, has already made this very clear.  Just consider the following statements….

-“Sharia law is the source of all our laws.

-“We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government

-“The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion

Shouldn’t the people of Libya have a say in all of this?

Sadly, one kind of tyranny has just been replaced with another.

In fact, some elements of Sharia law have already been implemented.

According to a recent article posted on the Telegraph, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has already announced that the law banning polygamy has been repealed because it is not compliant with Sharia law….

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

The American people were told that the system of government established by the Taliban in Afghanistan was so repressive that it needed to be overthrown, but now we are helping essentially the exact same system of government be set up in Libya.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only that, we have greatly destabilized the region and there will almost certainly be very bloody internal conflicts within Libya for many years to come.

The following comes from a recent report posted by The New American….

Gadhafi and the remnants of his regime are thought to have distributed vast stockpiles of weapons and wealth so anti-revolutionary forces could wage what the despot promised would be a long-lasting insurgency. Many of those fighters fled to the desert and are staging surprise attacks on roaming bands of militiamen.

The ongoing battles have sparked widespread speculation that the bloody conflicts will continue to rage far into the future.

In addition, as The New American notes, as a result of this conflict huge amounts of very dangerous weapons have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists….

Advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft missiles has also fallen into the hands of known terrorist organizations. The deadly stockpiles are turning up all over the region, but it remains unclear how much firepower has been smuggled out of the country so far.

But does the Obama administration seem alarmed by any of this?

No, they just want us all to praise them for a “job well done” in Libya.

Hopefully the American people will see right through this nonsense.

The flag of al-Qaeda has been flying over the headquarters of the provisional government in Libya, and yet the American people are the ones that are being treated as potential terrorists.

Our borders are wide open and anyone that wants to can sneak into this country, and yet we are told that we must have our private parts examined before we are allowed to get on to an airplane.

Something is very, very wrong.  Somehow the focus of national security has gone from protecting the American people to spying on the American people.

As I wrote about yesterday, the government has become absolutely obsessed with watching us, listening to us, tracking us, recording us, compiling information on all of us and getting us all to spy on one another.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been spending billions of dollars to help al-Qaeda take power in Libya and is helping them enslave the entire Libyan population to a brutal form of Sharia law.

Can anyone explain how this makes any sense at all?]

Comment from Tarig Anter:

Corporations rule the USA and Europe and they want businesses with Islamists. War is business; and business is good. For them Gaddafi was too stingy and too nationalist to let them get a share; so, regime change; kill him; and bring his enemies the Islamists after striking a deal with them.
US and EU People must wait until corporations make profits and they must know that their security and that of the USA and Europe are subject and require future contracts. That is how capitalism and liberal democracy work. If you don’t like it then you must be insane anarchist or communist, and they have to deal with you too.

Please read the following:
1- The Globalists and the Islamists

2- Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State

3- Obama – Product of Illuminati Breeding Program?

4- Muslim Brotherhood- Illuminati Tools

5- Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism

6- Secret Societies & the New World Order

7- Exposing Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies

8- Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder

Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder


Corporate Globalists Are Looking for Green Pastures in Africa to Plunder

African leaders from multiple regions stand opposed to AFRICOM

A simple Google search with “Obama war crimes”; “Sarkozy war crimes”; or “NATO war crimes” will show how widespread the charges against Obama; Sarkozy; and NATO.

Horrific atrocities were executed in Libya with direct military and political support and directions from Obama and his NATO mercenaries which included: Sarkozy; Cameron; and Al-Thani (of Qatar). These persons and states must be brought to national and international justice and pay for their horrendous crimes.

Crimes are crimes no matter who committed them. The World did not see evidences in photos or videos of the alleged crimes of Gaddafi despite all the propaganda of the ICC; but the media is full of very horrible evidences of the crimes of Obama and his NATO, Sarkozy, Cameron, and the Libyan Islamist rebels for those who care to see.

Gaddafi tried for a very long time to establish direct democracy in Libya and he campaigned for it worldwide. He fearlessly exposed the crimes of Western liberal democracy and the international mafia of globalists and their secret societies. These were the crimes of Gaddafi and that is why they decided to remove his regime and kill him to stop him from making any further damages and any further progresses.

The thieves and criminals who are bankrupting the West and its people are looking for green pastures in Africa; and to stop Asians from taking over the economic lead in the World.

African Leaders Must Protect Africa

Human Rights Investigations HRI on Crimes of Obama & His NATO in Libya


Human rights investigations (HRI)

Execution of 53 Gaddafi Supporters.© 2011 Peter Bouckaert Human Rights Watch

The above photo is from Human Rights Watch website. Unfortunately, the HRW post does not show the victims before being arranged and covered. Photos of mass graves and corpse of Gaddafi supporters are difficult if not impossible to get from areas controlled by rebels.

HRI is an evidence-based, independent and rigorous investigator of human rights abuses. HRI is totally different from HRW. HRI investigated and published on its website a number objective and thorough human rights reports on the crimes committed in Libya by the Islamists rebels against prisoners of war, African workers, and Libyan civilians. These horrific atrocities were executed with direct military and political support and directions from Obama and his NATO mercenaries which included: Sarkozy; Cameron; and Al-Thani (of Qatar). These persons and states must be brought to national and international justice and pay for their horrendous crimes.

The main reports are:

1- Responsibility to protect: the liberation of Sirte;

[The rebels, described in NATO circles as a ‘proxy army” were allowed by NATO to indiscriminately shell the town with tank fire, heavy mortar fire and artillery. Here is some footage from the ‘Information Office of the Misrata Mujahid Battalion’ to illustrate the point]

[In what should be the final death-blow to the notion that NATO air power combined with undisciplined and in some cases genocidal mobs supplied with NATO weaponry on the ground can effectively ‘protect’ a civilian population it has become clear that fifty-three people were summarily executed by the rebels in the garden of the Mahari hotel in Sirte. ]

2- Colonel Gaddafi captured and killed;

[Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi was reportedly captured and shot dead 20 October. As the evidence below shows the Libyan leader and his son Mutassim were summarily executed by the rebels, sharing the fate of so many Libyans in this conflict.]

[Muammar’s son, Mutassim Gaddafi was captured at the same time as his father and video shows him still alive after capture, drinking water and smoking a cigarette]

[On the death of Mutassim the Mahmoud Jibril said: “As for Mutassim there is a wound in the head and a break in the skull and five bullets in the back and one in the neck.”]

3- Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama, Al-Thani and the suffering of the children of Sirte;

[The horrific video below shows a 1 minute slice of the horror visited upon Sirte, where little children are being mutilated, killed and Libya’s future destroyed in the interests of the war-mongers, the egos of NATO leaders, the profits of arms companies and improved access to Libyan resources.

The footage from Ibn Sina hospital in Sirte is an indictment of the western political class, wedded to militarism and war, funded by arms companies, protected by a war-mongering media and oblivious to the consequences of their policies. Indeed, this video was filmed hot on the heels of Sarkozy and Cameron celebrating the rebel ‘victory’ in Benghazi at the site of the lynchings of black men in that city.]

4- NATO ‘protection of civilians’ – propaganda and pretense to escape war crimes trials;

[As is now well documented, the rebellion in Libya began with violent attacks on police stations, such as this one in Al-Bayda where people locked inside were reportedly burnt to death. An intensive propaganda campaign systematically distorted the facts on the ground, including in particular allegations that the Libyan air force was bombing peaceful protestors and that Libyan soldiers were being massacred for not shooting on unarmed protestors (since proven to have been a false flag operation). This propaganda allowed a mobilization of the international community and the passing of UN Resolution 1973 which imposed the No-Fly Zone.]

5- Ethnic cleansing, genocide and the Tawergha;

[In a June 21 article in the Wall Street Journal, Sam Dagher described Tawergha as a town inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade. He quoted one of the rebel commanders from the rebel Misrata brigade: Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town.  “They should pack up,” Mr. Halbous said. “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”]

[An important part of any genocide is the demonisation and dehumanisation of the victims and this continues to be the case for the Tawergha. As part of the information war NATO and the rebels have described all loyalist black fighters, guest workers from sub-Saharan Africa and even black skinned inhabitants of Libya as ‘mercenaries’]

[Some of the hatred of Tawergha has racist overtones that were mostly latent before the current conflict. On the road between Misrata and Tawergha, rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin” have supplanted pro-Gadhafi scrawl.] [“The Misrata people are still looking for black people,” said Hassan, a Tawergha resident who’s now sheltering in a third camp in Janzour, six miles east of Tripoli. “One of the men who came to this camp told me my brother was killed yesterday by the revolutionaries.”]

[Most homes and buildings in the area appeared to have been damaged in the fighting, and a half-dozen appeared to have been ransacked. The main road into the village was blocked with earthen berms. Signs marking the way to the village appeared to have been destroyed. On the only sign remaining “Tawergha” had been painted over with the words “New Misrata.” On one wall in Tawergha, graffiti referred to the town’s residents as “abeed,” a slur for blacks (slaves).]

6- High treason, barbarity and the importance of the Geneva Conventions in Libya;

[On Saturday 17th September, as reported by Al Jazeera, Ahmed Bani, the interim government’s military spokesman, said gave army personnel still loyal to Gaddafi a last chance to join the ranks of former rebel fighters: “The soldiers and officers who will not heed this last call will be accused of high treason.”

The invocation of high treason in civil war (“non-international armed conflict”) situations is a highly disreputable maneuver designed to deny any legal obligations to adversaries due under international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977.]

7- NATO bombing of Sirte: the new Guernica;

[According to NATO’s own figures, Sirte has been bombed with 340 “key hits” from 25th August to 16th September.] [Moussa Ibrahim, in a call from a satellite phone to Reuter’s office in Tunis on Saturday 17th September, said: “NATO attacked the city of Sirte last night with more than 30 rockets directed at the city’s main hotel and the Tamin building, which consists of more than 90 residential flats. “The result is more than 354 dead and 89 still missing and almost 700 injured in one night.” “In the last 17 days more than 2,000 residents of the city of Sirte were killed in NATO air strikes.”]

8- Ethnic cleansing in Libya: Jesse Jackson Jr slams Mahmoud Jibril;

[Some important reactions to the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha – The San Francisco BayView has followed up on the reporting of the Wall Street Journal, the Black Star News and Human Rights Investigations on the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha with an article entitled: Libya: Tawergha, city of Blacks, depopulated – Rep. Jesse Jackson calls for investigation of ‘crimes against humanity’.

A Black Star News report follows the remarks made by NTC Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, giving the seal of approval to the ethnic cleansing. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr, who served as a national co-chairman of the 2008 Obama election campaign and who is a civil rights activist and stated on Wednesday: “Racism in the form of ethnic cleansing, killing and genocide is wrong anytime, anyplace and against anybody in the world. And it appears as though the rebel leader, Mahmoud Jibril, is using the American idea that the South used to protect the institution of slavery – the 10th Amendment in our Constitution – to say, in essence, ‘it’s a states’ right and local control issue.’” “Well, it’s not a local issue and it’s a moral outrage,” he added.]

9- Tawargha – the final solution;

[The final chapter is now being written for Tawargha, as reported by Sam Dagher of the Wall Street Journal. Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC prime minister, rubber-stamped the wiping of the town off the map at the Misrata town hall: “Regarding Tawergha, my own viewpoint is that nobody has the right to interfere in this matter except the people of Misrata.” “This matter can’t be tackled through theories and textbook examples of national reconciliation like those in South Africa, Ireland and Eastern Europe,” he added as the crowd cheered with chants of “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is greatest.”

The WSJ goes on to report: Now, rebels have been torching homes in the abandoned city 25 miles to the south. Since Thursday, The Wall Street Journal has witnessed the burning of more than a dozen homes in the city Col. Gadhafi once lavished with money and investment. On the gates of many vandalized homes in the country’s only coastal city dominated by dark-skinned people, light-skinned rebels scrawled the words “slaves” and “negroes.” “We are setting it on fire to prevent anyone from living here again,” said one rebel fighter as flames engulfed several loyalist homes. For the former residents this is still not the end of the story, as reported recently by human rights workers in Tripoli, male inhabitants of the town who fled are being tracked down and rounded up in Tripoli and sent to Misrata to face the tender mercies of the mob there.]

10- Libya – The Racist Revolution – Tawargha;

[As our regular readers will be aware, we have been reporting on the fate of the people of Tawergha since the local rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous, said he was going to wipe the town off the map. We reported the storming of the town, with NATO support, and the extremely worrying reports of prisoners in shipping crates and the people of the town being “handed over to the red cross,”  which they weren’t (see ‘Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata’).

We relayed the reports from Diana Eltahawy of Amnesty International about the inhabitants who managed to flee being persecuted in Tripoli. Andrew Gilligan, a reporter from The Sunday Telegraph, now reports from Tawergha: This pro-Gaddafi settlement has been emptied of its people, vandalised and partly burned by rebel forces. The Sunday Telegraph was the first to visit the scene of what appears to be the first major reprisal against supporters of the former regime.

“We gave them thirty days to leave,” said Abdul el-Mutalib Fatateth, the officer in charge of the rebel garrison in Tawarga, as his soldiers played table-football outside one of the empty apartment blocks. “We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.”

Andrew Gillighan is a serious reporter and he even mentions the racial context: And as so often in Libya, there is also a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither immigrants nor Gaddafi’s much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans. Along the road that leads into Tawargha, the Misurata Brigade has painted a slogan. It says, “the brigade for purging slaves [and] black skin.”.

We have to say, the racist element is more than an undercurrent, but if more journalists had reported the truth rather than turning a blind eye, refusing to report or to investigate then perhaps lives could still be saved.

In this context we should just mention the ”reporting” of so-called journalists such as Chris Stephen who has been in Misrata for weeks writing pro-war, pro-NATO propaganda for the benefit of the Guardian’s readership and failing miserably to report on the racist atrocities and ethnic cleansing.]

NATO Libyan Islamist Rebels Killed Prisoners of War and Injured Suspects

11- NATO’s ‘responsibility to protect’ doesn’t extend to black migrants;

[Hundreds of African workers are stuck in various locations including about 1,000 at the military port of Sidi Bilal six miles west of Tripoli, fearing for their lives, with little water and limited provisions. This situation has been going on for weeks, with the ICRC finally delivering some water on 5 September.

Macclatchy’ David Enders reports: The rebels who ring the camp suddenly open fire. Then they race into the  camp, shouting “gabbour, gabbour” — Arabic for whore — and haul away young  women, residents say. “You should be here in the evening, when they come in firing their guns and  taking people,” one woman from Nigeria said Wednesday as she recounted the  nightly raids on the camp. “They don’t use condoms, they use whatever they can find,” she said, pointing to a discarded plastic bag in a pile of trash. As she spoke, other women standing nearby nodded in agreement.

One of the women describes the feelings of the inhabitants of the camp: Stacey Alexandra, 26, who said she had spent the last three years in Libya cleaning private homes and hotels and sending money back to family in Cameroon.  “Now everyone here wants to leave. This country is too racist.”

David Enders reports further: There is no way to know how many women have been raped here, where hundreds of Africans have settled in and around the boats of a marina. No one keeps statistics in the camp, and foreign aid workers say they are prohibited from discussing the allegations on the record. [Our emphasis] International Red Cross representatives say only that they have spoken to rebel leaders about “security concerns.”]

12- The fate of the Tawarghans – soon to be shared by Sabha;

[Now Amnesty International’s Diana Elthaway reports that the 10,000s of Tawarghans who have fled to Tripoli (and other dark-skinned-Libyans) are facing continuing persecution from the Misratan rebels who have now caught up with them in the capital. One lady from Tawargha describes how the townsfolk fled:  “When the thuwwar (revolutionists) entered our town in mid-Ramadan [mid-August] and shelled it, we fled just carrying the clothes on our backs. I don’t know what happened to our homes and belongings. Now I am here in this camp, my son is ill and I am too afraid to go to the hospital in town. I don’t know what will happen to us now.”]

[The evidence suggests that Tawarghas are fearful of going outside, cannot return home and have been abused, detained (even whilst in hospital) and gone missing] [Even in the refugee camps, the Tawarghas are not safe. Towards the end of last month, a group of armed men drove into the camp and arrested about 14 men – and their relatives do not know of their fate. Amnesty also report that “in addition to Tawarghas, other black Libyans including from the central Sabha district as well as sub-Saharan Africans continue to be at particular risk of reprisals and arbitrary arrests, on account of their skin colour and widespread reports that al-Gaddafi forces used “African mercenaries” to repress supporters of the NTC.”]

[Even in the refugee camps, the Tawarghas are not safe. Towards the end of last month, a group of armed men drove into the camp and arrested about 14 men – and their relatives do not know of their fate. Amnesty also report that “in addition to Tawarghas, other black Libyans including from the central Sabha district as well as sub-Saharan Africans continue to be at particular risk of reprisals and arbitrary arrests, on account of their skin colour and widespread reports that al-Gaddafi forces used “African mercenaries” to repress supporters of the NTC.”]

[Sabha is mainly inhabited by Libyans of mixed and black African descent and the population is temporarily safe from being massacred by the hostile rebels from Misrata or from the Western Mountains due to its geographical remoteness as the routes to Sabha traverse large expanses of barren and desert landscape, although there is a medalled road which the rebels will no doubt be travelling down once they have dealt with the conundrum of Bani Walid. As well as the native inhabitants, more than 1,200 African migrants are stranded in the town according to the International Organization for Migration.]

13- Senator John McCain quick to support the racist lynch mobs;

[Senator McCain R-Arizona the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was quickly off the mark to Benghazi in April to give political support to the rebels. And here is footage of the rebel lynching which took place before Senator McCain’s visit, at the same location. WARNING VERY GRAPHIC VIDEO. The video shows a man being strung up and beheaded. In Benghazi, McCain attracted a crowd so enthusiastic that at one point he joked, “I’ve got to bring you to Arizona.” He called on President Obama to recognize the rebel government, provide more air support like AC130 anti-tank and A10 ground support aircraft, get anti-tank weapons into rebel hands, train rebels on target marking technology and give the them satellite phones to aid communication.]

14- Human Rights Watch and persecution of black people in Tripoli;

[HRW is one of the members of the “Responsibility to Protect coalition” and has been slow to condemn the racist atrocities of the Libyan rebellion and has little to say about the bombing of civilians by NATO in places like Zlitan. HRW is not to be confused with Human Rights Investigations (HRI) which opposes the NATO bombing, supporting the African Union position on Libya and has worked to expose the racial element to the conflict. The HRW article contains evidence of black Libyans and sub-Saharan guest workers being abused in Tripoli, which have already been widely reported, as well as hopes for an “embryonic legal system” in Tripoli.]

[HRW witnessed black men being taken into the Bab al-Bahr football club – but weren’t allowed by the commander to see what was happening inside. The commander claimed the detainees were all “foreign fighters” but their families were outside complaining and the four they were allowed to interview who were apparently being released were elderly Libyans.

HRW also found black people – a mixture of black Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans – detained in other places around Tripoli including the Maftuah prison in the Fernaj neighborhood, (300 detainees on September 1 including wounded). In this prison HRW described the conditions for Libyan detainees as acceptable, but “the sub-Saharan Africans were in overcrowded cells with a putrid stench; one cell had 26 people and six mattresses and the African men complained of inadequate water, poor sanitation and not being allowed to make phone calls to ask family members to bring their documents.” At a school in the Intisar neighborhood, 76 detainees including 3 women were found on September 1. About half of the detainees appeared to be sub-Saharan Africans, the remainder being Libyans accused of having fought for Gaddafi.  HRW saw the prisoners being prepared for transfer to the Mitiga air base.]

15- NATO’s secret weapon – racism;

[Human Rights Investigations has been repeatedly warning about the Libyan rebels and it has become increasingly clear that racism lies at the very heart of the conflict in Libya. It now clear that the rebel forces are NATO (and Qatar and UAE)’s proxy fighters on the ground. Many of these fighters have been recruited and motivated on the basis of psy-ops about African mercenaries, fired up by viagra, mass-raping women and pillaging their cities – discredited stories which have been spread and amplified by rebel commanders, NATO ministers, the media and ICC prosecutor Moreno Ocampo.

The effects of this pernicious propaganda campaign have been seen in Benghazi, Misrata and Tawergha and across the nation and are now being seen on the streets of Tripoli as rebels round up black-skinned Libyans and African guest workers, putting them into football stadiums.]

[Racism lies at the heart of many of the NATO campaigns, including in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq where innocents are slaughtered in a way that simply would not be accepted if the victims were white.] [To appreciate the importance of racism in motivating soldiers please listen to Mike Prysner’s speech made at the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings: video]

16- Amnesty and racist rebel atrocities in Libya;

[Amnesty today report on the killing of black and dark-skinned people in Libya after Amnesty workers personally see them targetted in Tripoli. The article clearly recognises this is part of a bigger pattern: An Amnesty delegation visiting the Central Tripoli Hospital on Monday witnessed three thuwwar revolutionaries (as the opposition fighters are commonly known) dragging a black patient from the western town of Tawargha from his bed and detaining him. The men were in civilian clothing.]

[From the start of the Libyan rebellion black people in Libya have been attacked and lynched by rebel mobs. This has been known by human rights groups and the United Nations as well as by the intelligence agencies, military forces, media and political leaders in the NATO countries – but they have generally kept a lid on it because it does not suit the narrative.]

17- More Tripoli Atrocities – Alex Thomson saves Nigerians;

[NATO backed rebels storm the district of Abu Salim. Black men are rounded up and forced to chant rebel slogans.] [AL Jazeera reports from the Abu Salim hospital where according to Kim Sengupta of The Independent rebels executed patients.] [“Come and see. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries,” shouted Ahmed Bin Sabri, lifting the tent flap to show the body of one dead patient, his grey T-shirt stained dark red with blood, the saline pipe running into his arm black with flies. Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed? Mr Sabri, more a camp follower than a fighter, shrugged. It was seemingly incomprehensible to him that anything wrong had been done.]

[Unfortunately, most of the media, with a few honorable exceptions, has chosen to downplay or totally ignore the attacks on black people in the city, derided any possibility of a peaceful solution and focused entirely on massacres allegedly committed by the western-trained (link to new wikileaks cable) Libyan army.

30 August: More honest reporting from Patrick Coburn in The Independent: But the Libyan rebels are hostile to black Africans in general. One of the militiamen, who have been in control of the police station since the police fled, said simply: “Libyan people don’t like people with dark skins, though some of them may be innocent.”]

18- Finally… The UNHCR breaks the silence on murders of blacks in Tripoli;

[UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has issued a strong call for sub-Saharan Africans to be protected in Libya as reports emerge from Tripoli of people being targeted because of their colour as the city fell to rebel forces.] [The High Commissioner has urged restraint from rebel forces and Libyan civilians. “We have seen at earlier stages in this crisis that such people, Africans especially, can be particularly vulnerable to hostility or acts of vengeance,” he said. “It is crucial that humanitarian law prevails through these climactic moments and those foreigners – including refugees and migrant workers – are being fully and properly protected from harm,” he stressed.]

19- NATO’s peaceful and sustainable political solution: turn Tripoli into a slaughterhouse;

[NATO has been described as the rebel air force, but it is more accurate to describe the rebels as NATO’s ground forces. The National Transitional Council has little independence and NATO controls the rebel ground forces, arms them, trains them, provides advisers, provides massive fire support and decides on strategy. NATO controls the air and sea and little moves on the ground without NATO’s permission.]

[Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama and the NATO high command share the belief in the efficacy of violence combined with vigorous prosecution of the information war is the best way forward. NATO, of course, has no interest in fulfilling UN Security Council Resolution 1973 which established the no fly zone and mandate to protect civilians with “the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution”]

[In making their decision the western leaders would have been encouraged by the enthusiastic participation of the western media in producing pro-war propaganda, who faithfully and uncritically report information provided by NATO, government spokespeople and intelligence sources. Anything which may seriously threaten the pro-war narrative is either not reported or downplayed (e.g. rebel atrocities, ethnic cleansing of Misrata and Tawergha, RAF massacre in Zlitan, peace initiatives, support for Gadhafi regime from Libyan people).

Support for Admiral Stavridis’ information war was also provided by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo who has been a very enthusiastic participant in NATO psy-ops.

In any case, in an attack coordinated by NATO, rebels from the Western Mountains entered Tripoli from the west and ships delivered fighters from Misrata, fresh from ethnically cleansing Tawergha, into the city. NATO airstrikes were launched against the residential area of Abu Salim.]

20- The BBC coverage of Libya;

[One of the main problems for mainstream journalists is that they see what they want to see and ignore what doesn’t fit into the narrative provided to them by their most trusted sources – the government officials and intelligence agencies of the western powers. Stories which don’t fit the narrative are ignored or downplayed – for instance the RAF bombing of Zlitan, the lynching of black people including at rebel HQ in Benghazi, the ethnic cleansing in Misrata and Tawergha.

The cumulative effect of looking the wrong way, pursuing a narrative at odds with reality, lazily repeating government spin (propaganda) is a profound ignorance of actual reality and this clip of BBC news anchors illustrates the point.

Bill Turnbull says: “Let’s take you live to Tripoli. We want to show you some pictures there. This is people in Tripoli, in the center. I think its Green Square, renamed Martyr’s Square…”  Kate Silverton says: “Officially I suppose still Green Square, but renamed by those, but as you can see a mass, a huge throng of people now turning out.” The magnificent duo fails to explain why the people of Tripoli are waving Indian flags. Of course other channels have made similar mistakes – e.g. Fox and Sky showing people celebrating in Benghazi whilst claiming they are in Tripoli.

BBC and Al Jazeera have been showing terrified black men being rounded up on their news. As they have consistently avoided reporting on racist atrocities in Libya they cannot provide any context to this and repeat rebel claims they are “mercenaries.” In other words the BBC is uncritically justifying a racist pogrom.]

21- Bombing of Zlitan by the RAF;

[Video evidence has emerged. This is highly disturbing footage and shows body parts and dead children as well as the grief and anger of the survivors and relatives of the dead in the immediate aftermath and at the hospital. It is clear that those helping survivors of the first strike were hit by the second and third strikes.] [Responsibility for the bombing of a civilian area at night and the inevitable civilian causalities lies with the military leadership of NATO including Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard and Admiral Stavridis and on the political leadership including William Hague and David Cameron who must have given the go-ahead to attacks of this nature.]

22- Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata;

[Unfortunately, the mainstream media has not been giving any context to the battle for Tawergha, so most viewers will be entirely ignorant of the significance of this event. Rebel forces from Misrata, including one of their commanders, have long threatened to wipe Tawergha off the map, ethnically cleansing its inhabitants. The report from AL Jazeera shows at least one of the large residential blocks in Tawergha alight, prisoners packed inside a freight container (who the rebels didn’t want filmed), an injured man in civilian clothes and the rebel fighters evicting one of the last civilian left in the town (an Egyptian woman who has lost her 9 children under 12 who ran away during the attack.]

[The apparent fall of Tawergha was also reported by Orla Guerin of the BBC who also, disgracefully, failed to give the ethnic cleansing context despite actually interviewing Ibrahim al-Halbous, the very commander of whom the Wall Street Journal reported: Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town.  “They should pack up,” Mr. Halbous said. “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”]

For full original articles with tens of very graphic videos go to Human rights investigations (HRI) http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/

About Human Rights Investigations (HRI)

HRI was set up to answer the need for objective and thorough human rights investigations.

1- Internationalist and anti-racist

2- Empowering the poor and oppressed

3- Working for non-violent solutions to conflicts, social and political problems

4- Investigating human rights abuses which have not been brought to the public’s attention

5- Working collaboratively with like-minded organisations and individuals

6- Specializing in painstaking discovery procedures and dispassionate evaluation of information against a framework of international law

HRI aims to:

1- Identify perpetrators and protect victims

2- Establish the chain of accountability

3- Identify the vehicles to deliver justice and redress to the victims

4- Influence positive change in laws and practice

5- Draw attention to serious violations and accountability gaps

6- Mobilize action nationally and internationally to grant justice to victims

The ultimate goal of our work is preventing abuses or, at a minimum, mitigating and stopping violations when they do occur.

To contact HRI please use the contact form on: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/about/

Obama Should Be Impeached For Committing ‘War Crimes’, Said Ralph Nader


Jordan Fabian reported on March 2011 at TheHill.com

Ralph Nader

“Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says that President Obama should be impeached for committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed “war crimes” on the same level as President Bush.

“Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! Organization.

Nader’s comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.

The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.

Impeach Obama For Committing 'War Crimes'

The U.S. sought the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution and commitments from European and Arab nations before taking action in Libya to thwart the country’s leader, Col. Gaddafi, from killing civilians amidst a rebellion against his regime.

Nader’s comments, however, were mainly directed at Obama’s prosecution of the Afghanistan war. Some liberal activists have objected to Obama’s decision to escalate the war and are unhappy with government’s treatment of Bradley Manning, the Army private accused of leaking classified documents to the organization WikiLeaks.

“[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now Barack Obama is committing the same crimes,” Nader said. “In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, and he is violating international law.”

Obama appears to be facing growing resistance from the left over his administration’s foreign policy.

Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore sharply criticized the president’s authorization of military strikes in Libya and cadres of liberal House Democrats are questioning the constitutionality of the Libya operation.”

Source: TheHill.com

Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for War Crimes Committed in a Number of Countries.

Ralph Nader: “The End of America?”

Ralph Nader – An “Unreasonable” Man

A Man of Principles – Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader asks if Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom

About: Ralph Nader:

Ralph Nader Presidential 2008 Campaign

Born on February 27, 1934, he is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government.

Nader came to prominence in 1965 with the publication of his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a critique of the safety record of American automobile manufacturers in general. In 1999, an NYU panel of journalists ranked Unsafe at Any Speed 38th among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century.

Nader is a five-time candidate for President of the United States, having run as a write-in candidate in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, as the Green Party nominee in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008.

Background and early career:

Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut. His parents, Nathra and Rose Nader, were immigrants from Lebanon. His sister, Laura Nader, is an anthropologist. His father worked in a textile mill and later owned a bakery and restaurant.

Nader graduated from The Gilbert School in 1951, followed by Princeton University four years later and then Harvard Law School. He served six months on active duty in the United States Army in 1959, then became a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut. He was a professor of history and government at the University of Hartford from 1961 to 1963. In 1964, Nader moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked for Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan and also advised a United States Senate subcommittee on car safety. Nader has served on the faculty at the American University Washington College of Law.

Activism & Non-profit organizations:

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader’s work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as “Nader’s Raiders” and, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results.

Throughout his career, Nader has started or inspired a variety of nonprofit organizations, with most of which he has maintained close associations.

Personal life & Personal finances:

Nader is a Christian. He has never married. Karen Croft, a writer who worked for Nader in the late 1970s at the Center for Study of Responsive Law, once asked him if he had ever considered getting married. She reports: “He said that at a certain point he had to decide whether to have a family or to have a career, that he couldn’t have both. That’s the kind of person he is. He couldn’t have a wife — he’s up all night reading the Congressional Record.”

According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, Nader owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Magellan Fund. Nader said he owned no car and owned no real estate directly in 2000, and said that he lived on US $25,000 a year, giving most of his stock earnings to many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he had founded.

Personal details:

Born: February 27, 1934 (age 77), Winsted, Connecticut, U.S.; Political party: Independent; Other political affiliations: Green (affiliated non-member), Reform (affiliated non-member), Peace & Freedom (affiliated non-member), Natural Law (affiliated non-member), Populist Party of Maryland (created to support him in 2004), Vermont Progressive Party (affiliated non-member); Alma mater: Princeton University, Harvard University; Occupation: Attorney, consumer advocate, and political activist; Religion: Christian; Service/branch: United States Army; Years of service: 1959. Website: nader.org http://www.nader.org/

What Are Qatar Regional Political Roles & Ambitions?


Emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani

Out of the total population of approximately 1.7 million (2011 est.), the make-up of ethnic groups is as follows: Qatari (Arab) 20%; other Arab 20%; Indian 20%; Filipino 10%; Nepali 13%; Pakistani 7%; Sri Lankan 5%; other 5%.

During the 19th century, the time of Britain’s formative ventures into the region, the Al Khalifa clan reigned over the northern Qatari peninsula from the nearby island of Bahrain to the west.

Although Qatar had the legal status of a dependency, resentment festered against the Bahraini Al Khalifas along the eastern seaboard of the Qatari peninsula. In 1867, the Al Khalifas launched a successful effort to crush the Qatari rebels, sending a massive naval force to Al Wakrah. However, the Bahraini aggression was in violation of the 1820 Anglo-Bahraini Treaty. The diplomatic response of the British to this violation set into motion the political forces that would eventuate in the founding of the state of Qatar on December 18, 1878.

Qatar has been ruled as an absolute monarchy by the Al Thani family since it was established in December 1878. Qatar has an unelected, monarchic, emirate-type government. There are no democratic institutions or elections, and power is assumed on a hereditary basis. Its legal system combines limited aspects of Islamic (or Sharia) and civil law codes in a discretionary system of law totally controlled by the Emir. Although civil codes are being implemented, Islamic law is used in family and personal matters. The country has a parliament called Municipalities court that composes of ordinary citizens representing every populated area in Qatar. The country has not accepted compulsory International Court of Justice jurisdiction.

Qatar has bilateral relationships with a variety of foreign powers. It has allowed American forces to use an air base to send supplies to Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also signed a defense cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, with whom it shares the largest single non-associated gas field in the world. It was the second nation, the first being France, to have publicly announced its recognition of the Libyan opposition’s National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya.

Qatar sought to secure growing threats of geographically being in a volatile region with nuclear threats within close proximity and mistrust by inviting the US to create a full-functioning military base. Sheikh Hamad’s coup in 1995, to topple his father, reinvigorated its foreign policy, allowing it to step out of Saudi Arabia’s shadow and unaligned its policies from them and surprised the region. Speculation of a Saudi Arabian sponsored coup attempt in the late 1990s to reinstate the ousted Emir’s father and border disputes led to obstreperous relations resulting in Riyadh withdrawing diplomatic representation in 2002 to 2007. Launch of Al-Jazeera certainly did not help; it bred mistrust within the region and questioned the motives behind it and Qatar’s road to modernity in relation to the various countries it affected.

Qatar is a destination for men and women from South Asia and Southeast Asia who migrate willingly, but are subsequently trafficked into involuntary servitude as domestic workers and laborers, and, to a lesser extent, commercial sexual exploitation. The most common offence was forcing workers to accept worse contract terms than those under which they were recruited. Other offences include bonded labor, withholding of pay, restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention, and physical, mental, and sexual abuse.

According to the Trafficking in Persons Report by the US State Department, men and women who are lured into Qatar by promises of high wages are often forced into underpaid labor. The report states that Qatari laws against forced labor are rarely enforced and that labor laws often result in the detention of victims in deportation centers, pending the completion of legal proceedings. The report places Qatar at tier 3, as one of the countries that neither satisfies the minimum standards nor demonstrates significant efforts to come into compliance.

Barwa, a Qatari contracting agency, is constructing a residential area especially for laborers known as Barwa Al Baraha (also called “Worker’s City”). The project was launched after a recent scandal in Dubai’s labor camps. The project aims to provide a reasonable standard of living as defined by the new Human Rights Legislation. The Barwa Al Baraha will cost around $1.1 billion and will be a completely integrated city in the industrial area in Doha. Along with 4.25 square meters of living space per person, the residential project will provide parks, recreational areas, malls, and shops for laborers. Phase one of the project was set to be completed by the end of 2008 and the project itself is set to be completed by the middle of 2010.

 Qatar: a tiny state with global ambitions

The Sheikh of the most financially powerful Arab Gulf state

The Emir of Qatar, who was on a three-day state visit, owns large slices of London and has £50 billion in the bank – but there are clouds on the horizon. Richard Spencer reported on 28 Oct 2010 at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/8092153/Qatar-a-tiny-state-with-global-ambitions.html

“The emirate’s history started with Britain: it is how it came into being. While many of the Gulf emirates, from Dubai to Kuwait, were once protectorates, the al-Thani family has particular reason to be grateful. The British, always with an eye to making new friends for sound strategic reasons, intervened in the middle of the 19th century in a regional feud involving the ruling family of neighboring Bahrain. We employed a local merchant to negotiate a settlement. Out of the settlement, somewhat mysteriously, was formed a new statelet; its name was Qatar. The negotiator, one Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, became its ruler. His descendants have run the place ever since.

Hardly surprisingly, the ties with Britain remained strong, even after independence in 1971. Good relations were maintained when, like many Gulf princes, the Emir trained at Sandhurst – always a good place to learn the art of international contact-building, as well as international warfare. He cemented the family’s place in the British establishment by giving his son a traditional public-school education. Because of its record in taking well-connected foreign pupils for whom English was a second language, he chose the West Country school Sherborne for the boy who is now the Crown Prince. The family grew to love the place, nestling amid the hills and honey-colored hamstone cottages of Dorset. So the Emir did what any self-respecting monarch would do: he paid it to set up a branch back home, and Sherborne School Qatar opened last year.

Money wasn’t a problem, of course. Qatar has been pretty comfortable for some time, ever since oil was discovered in the 1940s. But the thing that made all the difference to its cash pile – now estimated at well over £50 billion, including the Emir’s personal wealth and the Qatari sovereign wealth fund – was something called the Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (MCHE).

Over the past four decades, the ever-improving technology of the MCHE has revolutionized life in Qatar and made Sheikh Hamad a force to be reckoned with. At the start of the 1970s, power, both industrial and political, meant oil. Everyone knew that when you drilled into oilfields, vast amounts of gas were released, but no one really knew what to do with it. It had some local use, pipelined to cookers, but you could hardly send it round the world in tankers, like petrol.

Until the MCHE, that is. The exchangers can cool natural gas to –160C, shrink it, and turn it into liquid. As they became increasingly efficient when they were used on a mass scale, the balance of power suddenly swung in favor of places, such as Qatar, which produced lots of the gas. Huge vats round the world, including two new ones in Milford Haven, now store liquefied Qatari gas.

So while Saudi Arabia may be rich, Qatar is richer, at least per head of population. In fact, Qatar now vies with Luxembourg for the title of richest country per person in the world. And while the Saudi royal family has only recently started to modernize the way it runs its feudal kingdom, Sheikh Hamad – as can perhaps most easily be seen in the person of his ever-present second wife, Sheikha Mozah – has a considerable head-start.

No one is claiming that Qatar is a democracy. The Emir came to power in a rather less than modern way – deposing his father in a coup, while he was away in Switzerland. He still holds the reins of power, but he has followed the lead of the United Arab Emirates in allowing alcohol – within the precincts of posh hotels and the privacy of expats’ homes – and welcoming foreign investment. He set up Al Jazeera, the cable news television channel that has revolutionized the media in the otherwise heavily censored Arab world. On the international stage, too, he has carved out a very unusual position for himself, since his startling accession in 1995.”

Mideast turmoil highlights big ambitions of tiny Qatar

By: Brian Murphy of The Associated Press wrote on Feb 04, 2011, at: http://www.680news.com/news/world/article/178927–mideast-turmoil-highlights-big-ambitions-of-tiny-qatar

Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani leaves the Elysee Palace in Paris after a meeting with French president Nicolas Sarkozy

“Qatar is seen by some as leaning toward the protest movements in the region, but it’s among the most autocratic Gulf States, with virtually all power in the hands of the ruling clan.

It also plays wide political margins. It maintains close relations with Iran and militant groups such as Hamas while hosting the U.S. base and branches of institutions such as Northwestern University and the Brookings think-tank.

It defied Arab hard-liners and allowed Israel to open a trade office in 1996, only to order it closed in January 2009 after Israel invaded the Gaza Strip.”

Qatar Admits It Fought Alongside Libyan Rebels against Gaddafi


Qatar fielded hundreds of soldiers in Libya

The Qatari emir gazes down at an anti-Qaddafi protester in Libya

For the first time, Qatar reveals that it had soldiers on the ground across Libya assisting in the fight against Gaddafi’s regime, with the country to play a major role in integrating the rebels into the Libyan military

Qatar revealed for the first time on Wednesday that hundreds of its soldiers had joined Libyan rebel forces on the ground as they battled troops of veteran leader Muammar Gaddafi.

“We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were hundreds in every region,” said Qatari chief of staff Major General Hamad bin Ali Al-Atiya.

The announcement marks the first time that Qatar has acknowledged it had military boots on the ground in Libya.

Previously the gas-rich country said it had only lent the support of its air force to NATO-led operations to protect civilians during the eight-month uprising, which ended when Gaddafi was captured and killed last week.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting in Doha of military allies of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC), Atiya said the Qataris had been “running the training and communication operations.”

“Qatar had supervised the rebels’ plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted as the link between the rebels and NATO forces,” he said.

Libya’s interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil told the meeting that Qatar had been “a major partner in all the battles we fought.”

He added that the Qataris had “planned” the battles which paved the way for NTC fighters to gradually take over Gaddafi-held towns and cities.

Atiya also said that after the departure of NATO troops, a new international coalition led by Qatar would oversee “military training, collecting weapons, and integrating the rebels in newly established military institutions.”

The coalition, named as the “Friends Committee in Support if Libya” and which held its first meeting in Doha on Wednesday, is made up of 13 countries including the United States, Britain and France, said Atiya.

Abdel Jalil, meanwhile, urged NATO to continue its Libya campaign until year’s end, saying Gaddafi loyalists still posed a threat to the country.

Diplomats in Brussels said NATO had decided to delay a formal decision to end Libya air operations until Friday after the NTC’s request for an extension and a Russian demand for UN consultations.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/25193/World/Region/Qatar-fielded-hundreds-of-soldiers-in-Libya.aspx

 

Qatar admits sending hundreds of troops to support Libya rebels

Qatar reveals it had special forces in Libya fighting against Gaddafi

By: Ian Black in Tripoli; guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 26 October 2011 18.33 BST

Qatari chief-of-staff reveals extent of involvement, saying troops were responsible for training, communications and strategy

Qatar has admitted for the first time that it sent hundreds of troops to support the Libyan rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

The Gulf state had previously acknowledged only that its air force took part in NATO-led attacks.

The revelation came as Qatar hosted a conference on the post-Gaddafi era that was attended by the leader of Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who described the Qataris as having planned the battles that paved the way for victory.

Abdel-Jalil also said he was asking NATO to extend its mission beyond the end of the month, when it had been due to end, until the end of the year. Help was needed because regime loyalists posed a threat from neighboring countries, he said.

Gaddafi relatives and other key figures have fled to Algeria and Niger, amid speculation about the whereabouts of the deposed leader’s son Saif al-Islam.

A Libyan military official with the NTC told Reuters that Saif and the former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi are proposing to hand themselves in to the international criminal court. A spokesman for the ICC, however, said it had received no confirmation of the claim.

The Associated Press meanwhile reported an adviser to Niger’s president, Mahamadou Issoufou, as saying Senussi was in their country.

It also has emerged that now the fighting is over, Qatar is to lead international efforts to train the Libyan military, collect weapons and integrate often autonomous rebel units into newly established military and security institutions – seen by the UN and western governments as the key challenge facing the NTC.

Qatar played a key role in galvanizing Arab support for the UN Security Council resolution that mandated NATO to defend Libyan civilians in March. It also delivered weapons and ammunition on a large scale – without any clear legal basis.

There were repeated rumours about and occasional sightings of Qatari Special Forces in Libya during the war. Until now, however, there had been no official confirmation of actions that were not explicitly authorized by the UN.

The Qatari chief-of-staff, Major-General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya, said: “We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were hundreds in every region. Training and communications had been in Qatari hands. Qatar … supervised the rebels’ plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience,” AFP quoted him as saying. “We acted as the link between the rebels and NATO forces.”

Qatar, whose gas reserves and tiny population make it one of the richest countries in the world, has long pursued an activist foreign policy, promoted by Al-Jazeera, the Doha-based satellite TV channel.

But there was still surprise when it sent most of its air force to join NATO’s operation and delivered large quantities of what were described as defensive weapons but which included Milan anti-tank missiles to the rebels.

Qatari Special Forces are reported to have provided infantry training to Libyan fighters in the western Nafusa Mountains and in eastern Libya. Qatar’s military even brought Libyan rebels back to Doha for exercises. And in the final assault on Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli in late August, Qatari Special Forces were seen on the frontline. Qatar also gave $400m to the rebels, helped them export oil from Benghazi and set up a TV station in Doha.

Libyan gratitude is clear. The maroon and white flag of Qatar is often flown at celebrations and Algeria Square in central Tripoli has been renamed Qatar Square in honor of the country’s support in toppling Gaddafi. Some, however, express concern at the emirate’s support for Islamist elements such as the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, one of the most influential rebel formations, led by Abdel-Hakim Belhaj.

Ali Salabi, an influential Libyan Islamist cleric, lived in exile in Qatar for years before this year’s revolution. For some analysts the emir’s strategy is to support democratic forces selectively in the Arab world, partly to improve the country’s international standing while diverting attention from the Gulf, where anti-regime protests have been crushed in Bahrain and bought off in Saudi Arabia.

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2F2011%2Foct%2F26%2Fqatar-troops-libya-rebels-support

Qatar admits it had boots on the ground in Libya

Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani

By Al Arabiya with Agencies

Qatar revealed for the first time on Wednesday that hundreds of its soldiers had joined Libyan rebel forces on the ground as they battled troops of veteran leader Muammar Qaddafi.

“We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on ground were hundreds in every region,” said Qatari chief of staff Major General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya.

The announcement marks the first time that Qatar has acknowledged it had military boots on the ground in Libya.

Previously the gas-rich country said it had only lent the support of its air force to NATO-led operations to protect civilians during the eight-month uprising, which ended when Qaddafi was felled with a bullet to the head after being captured last week.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting in Doha of military allies of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC), Atiya said the Qataris had been “running the training and communication operations.”

“Qatar had supervised the rebels’ plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted as the link between the rebels and NATO forces,” he said.

Libya’s interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil told the meeting that Qatar had been “a major partner in all the battles we fought.”

He added that the Qataris had “planned” the battles which paved the way for NTC fighters to gradually take over Qaddafi-held towns and cities.

Source: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/26/173833.html

Islamist Libyan Rebel Sodomized Gaddafi with a Knife


These photos obtained by GlobalPost from a rebel fighter who recorded the moment when Col. Muammar Gaddafi was first captured confirm that another rebel fighter, whose identity is unknown, sodomized the former leader. Others brutalized and shot Gaddafi.

These Islamist NTC rebels are the ones protected by Obama and his UN Security Council resolution 1973, and the US-led NATO. These photos and videos shows who are the members of this dirty alliance who are claiming “protection of civilians”,  “justice”, and “democracy”

Now, all sorts of heavy and light arms spreader in the region. Anyone can get all sorts of  folded automatic rifles in neighboring countries for $ 70.00.

Islamist rebel sodomized Gaddafi with a knife 1

 

Islamist rebel sodomized Gaddafi with a knife 2

 

Islamist rebel sodomized Gaddafi with a knife 3

 

Islamist rebel sodomized Gaddafi with a knife 4

 

More very graphic and disgusting photos and videos showing more savage atrocities.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/111021/gaddafi-news-globalpost-videos-photos-dispatches

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-casbah/gaddafi-dead-video-initial-capture-exclusive

%d bloggers like this: