Just two days after the UK joined the US and France in recognising the unelected Transitional National Council as the government of Libya, the TNC has murdered its top military commander and two of his aides. To put it mildly, this makes Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron look rather foolish.
General Abdel Fatah Younis was placed under arrest by the TNC on allegations of double dealing, and was being brought back to Benghazi under escort, when he and his senior officers were killed – by Gadaffi loyalists, claimed the TNC, without any explanation as to how they managed to kill the prisoners without any conflict with their escort.
I have been telling everybody for months that the unelected TNC contains some very unsavoury characters. General Younis was Gadaffi’s former Minister of the Interior and he was by no means the only member of the TNC to be steeped in Gadaffi’s crimes. He is not going to be much loss as a military commander. He had plenty of experience of killing people with Gadaffi, but they tended to be tied to chairs at the time. This experience proved not readily transferrable to the battlefield. But his brigade was the most organised and equipped force the rebels had, and they are now joining in the general internal rebel shoot-up in and around Benghazi.
This has actually been caused by the release of billions in Libyan government assets to the rebels by the west. This was Clinton’s master stroke, designed to benefit western arms companies with huge orders and enable them to sweep aside Gadaffi with all this firepower. Unfortunately, the rebel leaders are much more interested in stealing the money and have immediately started to fight over it. Gadaffi has been saved by his enemies being asked to advance through a field the Americans have strewn with gold. Rather predictably, they have stopped to fill their pockets. It is already being noted that key TNC members are spending a great deal more time in Doha, Dubai, Paris, Zurich and Geneva than they are in Benghazi and Misrata.
Meanwhile, the Hague/Cameron solution to all problems – presumably endorsed by Clegg – is to intensify the bombing. It is beyond despair.
“Gadaffi has been saved by his enemies being asked to advance through a field the Americans have strewn with gold. Rather predictably, they have stopped to fill their pockets.”
.
Reminds me of the scene in the film Lawrence of Arabia, after they raided the train.
Beyond despair indeed – with evidence Tripoli and towns to the East are under siege. The plying of gold is a ‘sprat to catch a mackerel’ – we have already coveted the oil port.
.
Security work/close protection in Libya – join the renegades – £500/day plus expenses – contact me!
Wonderful old Bill Blum still going strong at 78.
.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html
Short essays on Libya, the Berlin Wall, post-WW2 interventions by the US, and ‘the occult world of economics’.
Libya is yet another clear evidence of western hypocrisy when it comes to the foreign policy. But to be fair neither US, UK or France have any choice as to support rebels in Libya. Who else are they going to support, Gadaffi? It is obvious that Gadaffi in 30+ years have managed to eradicate any kind of sensible people who might have been decent opposition. The same vacuum (if not much worse) I am afraid is currently in Uzbekistan.
Bill Blum and the OGV – Yes wonderful man Mary with inside knowledge – His Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower is a must read.
UzbekITUK: they do have other choices; implement the letter and spirit of SCR 1973 or stay out of it completely spring to mind.
UzbekITUK: they do have other choices; implement the letter and spirit of SCR 1973 or stay out of it completely spring to mind.
.
______________________________________
Theoretically yes, but in reality for the last 20 years it is hardly possible to imagine that US/EU was not involved in these types of enterprises like in Libya. Also considering that Gadaffi has been playing ‘Mad dog of the Middle East’ role quite well I cannot see any alternatives for the west other than topple him from the power. And missing such an excellent opportunity?
“He is not going to be much loss as a military commander. He had plenty of experience of killing people with Gadaffi, but they tended to be tied to chairs at the time. This experience proved not readily transferrable to the battlefield.”
.
ha ha ha … Correct, but Younis was a military officer since his young days, not a military newbie. Those killed when tied – not a single story has been produced about them in the media after a five-month campaign to demonise the Libyan regime. Strange. Is it incompetence, or is it because the killed were unsavoury characters too… or is it to protect the rebel leaders? Maybe a combination of all three.
As far as I can see the killing of General Younis is bad news for the TNC any way you look at it. If the TNC themselves killed him, they are obviously riven with faction and strife: not a competent or safe government. If, on the other hand, criminals or pro-Qadafi people killed him, what kind of army was he running that allowed that? Did Patton, or Montgomery, or Rommel get killed by bandits – or, for that matter, enemy undercover agents? They did not.
Uzbek in the UK,
I hope you are not suggesting that NATO would be justified in bombing Uzbekistan, too. You say you can’t blame them for action against Gaddafi, and that the situation in Libya is, if anything, better than in Uzbekistan..
It would be nice, just once, to support a humanitarian regime somewhere, someone untainted by torture or drug trafficking or whatever else.
Craig,
I find your analysis very engaging, and it is quite probably correct. What sources do you use for this however. I’d be keen to follow the situation a bit more closely.
Stephen Morgan
.
”It would be nice, just once, to support a humanitarian regime somewhere, someone untainted by torture or drug trafficking or whatever else.”
.
Do you support anywhere and everywhere human rights..
Well, personally I’m quite fond of human rights, yes. In my capacity as a subject of Her Majesty, on the other hand, I’m really more inclined toward brutal despots, child eating monsters, drug pushing war lords, and other assorted pillars of the international community.
This is not a good sign. The possibilities that spring to mind are that this general was about to defect back to Gaddafi, or that one faction in the rebel leadership decided to kill off another (i’ve read in the Guardian before of rebel commanders mounting separate offensives and refusing to talk to each other, which suggests rivalries and divisions among the rebels).
If summary execution on suspicion of disloyalty is the way the rebel leadership operate would they be any better than Gaddafi?
‘But his brigade was the most organised and equipped force the rebels had, and they are now joining in the general internal rebel shoot-up in and around Benghazi.’
At this moment 9.29 Benghazi is calm.
‘Unfortunately, the rebel leaders are much more interested in stealing the money and have immediately started to fight over it.’
They haven’t got the money.
Peter Dale Scott
http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3578
Iran
http://www.thefinancialmarketnews.com/don%E2%80%99t-get-it-twisted-we-are-already-at-war-with-iran
Bandits fall out.
The Western alliance on the one hand, with the theft of the several millions of Libyan money; wanting to use it as a tool for manipulation and control as it is disbursed.
The Libyan bandits wanting to get hold of as much of the loot as quickly as possible.
Given those two choices – where, relative to an option to replace Gadaffi is the viable governmental alternative? Add to this question – another:-
By reference to the mass pro-Gadaffi demonstrations – if a Western style election was held tomorrow – who do you honestly think would be back in power?
But – how does the US/NATO rule out the main candidate standing for election – then declare that they have now developed a democratic and freely elected government? In effect the US/NATO is saying – we will have “democratic elections” and bring you good government – but don’t think that you will have an option of choosing Gadaffi who obviously has much popular support. What democracy? Hypocrits and thieves!
The dishonesty, opportunism, contradictions are all so glaring that if the bombs dropping on Libya were not taking human life and setting out to destroy a country’s future – it would be laughable if it were not all so tragically sad.
Stephen Morgan
.
Apologies. Of course it would be nice, just once ….
.
”Libya conflict: Nato targets TV satellite dishes
.
”Nato says it has disabled three Libyan state TV satellite transmission dishes in the capital, Tripoli, through a “precision air strike”.
.
”It said the operation was intended to stop “inflammatory broadcasts” by Col Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.”
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14351951
.
Only NATO’s propaganda is permitted. Warning!
This story was almost funny. Not quite so funny for the people who were murdered, of course, but certainly it contains an element of black farce. General dies on way to interrogation, it’s a plot! Gaddafi-ites are, absurdly, running amok in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, we are told, then minutes after the press conference ends, the place gets shot up by aggrieved tribesmen who, curiously enough, seem a little sceptical. And this ridiculous little war gets even more ridiculous. Starring Peter Sellers in a comedy turban.
Nobody will resign, and nobody will lose face. Because Gaddafi is bad. And the rebels – well they are good, did you never watch Star Wars? Rebels are good, and we must help them, even if they are murderers, and traffickers, and fully trained (’tis alleged) CIA operatives. And anyone who thinks this is about oil, pipelines, and old oil execs flexing their considerable muscle, well they are paranoid, and we can’t take them seriously, and we certainly can’t let them on the mainstream media.
Repeat as above for the next stupid little war we get involved in. Iran, doubtless, and that will end horribly for everyone involved, and nobody will resign and nobody will lose face.
On a more positive note, Mr Murray has unwittingly persuaded me to write a blog, which is a much more serious charge than mere war-crimes. One day I hope to something interesting and clever.
Associated Press had this excellent article on the murder of Younis:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/nato-bombs-libyan-tv-1056856.html
It states Yonis´s son burst into tears during the funeral of his father and argued in favor of the return of Muammar Gaddafi and getting the green flag back.
Looking att the TNC one has to look at 1) The councils reasons for arresting Younis and
2) The motives of the Salafist group associated with LIFG who carried out the murder.
I´d say; 1) Younis had recently said he wanted Al Brega but that Gaddafi could keep the rest of western Libya whereas Jalil had asked NATO to increase bombings so as to help the rebels march toward Tripoli. According to Jalil Younis was questioning the wisdom of his strategy and showing weakness hence the decision to arrest him. Khalifa Hifter who was Younis worst rival and enemy within the TNC surely agreed.
2) The salafists had several times tried to topple Gaddafi and always been defeated. Of course they distrusted someone who had been part of the government and also they hated him for being some kind of “secular” personality. The version of Islam introduced to Libya by Gaddafi has, according to the salafists, destroyed the country by letting women choose whom to marry, when to have children so that they can have a career, creating a state that tolerates a mixture of cultures etcetera. Salafism sees these ideas as coming from the west and they hate all that and believe everything can be saved by returning to what they state is an older and more correct reading of the Koran. They too were totally against any kind of compromise with the government.
Looking at the salafists behaviour in other parts of Libya where they have burnt peoples homes, beheaded their enemies in public, raped women and cut of their breasts, robbed banks etcetera, it is no wonder that they would sooner or later start to use similar methods against people they do not like on their own side in the conflict.
As for the whole conflict i vote on the AU peace plan: A ceasefire and a national dialogue and a new more tolerant constitution as has been suggested by tribal leaders who support the government.
Human rights? Have any of the royalist gulf state dictatorships who work with NATO against Libya been any better during the last 40 years? Are women being treated better in Saudi Arabia where they must have a male companion when travelling and are not allowed to drive cars? Saif al Islam freed most salafist prisoners in Libya before the uprising began, new ideas were coming to Libya in this field too.
Libyans can sort out their own problems without foreign meddling into their affairs.
Pingback: Ένα σύντομο update | overdisinformation
Never have I read such rubbish by such ill-informed people. The movement towards social democracy has been generated by the people of Libya – as in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen , Bahrain and indeed across the world. They do not need your permission and have not asked for it. Nobody with any credibility ever said or thought it would be easy – a straight line from Benghazi to Tripoli. But this is a world movement, of epic proportions. History is changed for ever. Ordinary people have decided for themselves that some things are worth dying for. Mock them and you mock your own grandparents, who made a stand against the Nazi.s. Most of you yaw-yawing meaningless aphorisms should be ashamed.
Rabble rebels turn on each other.
.
Rival rebel factions clash in Libya, 4 dead
.
Clashes between rival factions of the Libyan rebels killed four people Sunday in the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, deepening the worst crisis so far for the movement after its chief military commander was killed, possibly by fighters from his own side.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9773531
.
“Sources in the country say 1,100 civilians have already lost their lives”
.
From The chance of Ramadan
by Abdel Bari Atwan
.
(…) Abdel Fatah Younis was a member of the powerful Obeida tribe and his assassination could well ignite tribal divisions within the opposition, weakening it further. Even more ominously, during Younis’s funeral one of his sons shouted, ‘We want Ghadaffi back. We want the Green flag’.Much of the Libyan population is already weary of the conflict and fearful for the future. Sources in the country say 1,100 civilians have already lost their lives as a result of Nato bombing, and with few military targets left, the month of Ramadan may prove even bloodier if the campaign continues. (…)
{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/31/chance-ramadan-islam-conquests-libya}
Her Majesty’s Government has recognised the TNC, because officially it says that the TNC has proved its democratic credenitials.
What democratic credentials:-
1. An election?/and/or
2. Mass demonstrations of people coming out in the streets, as they have done in Egypt or Tunisia in support of change?
Having due regard for the fact that the mass demonstrations have been pro and not anti Gadaffi; and, having further regard for the fact of mass popular demonstrations is a form of democratic expression – I ask:-
Where pray tell is the source from whence the TNC’s democratic credentials cometh?
Can we please have regime change in the UK?
.
We have lots of WMD – right here, on the River Clyde – we have a govt and ruling class enmeshed to the detriment of the nation in bankism and corporatism, we are engaged in at least three current offensive wars across ‘The Greater Middle East’, we have a history of duplicitous foreign policy and complcity with torture on a systemic basis, we have initiated coups and the overthrow/suppression of democracy in foreign lands, we once imposed our rule forcibly on one quarter of the earth’s surface, we deliberately contributed towards at least two arguably genocidal (this is an appropriate use of the word) famines, when seminal, progressive revolutions occured in Europe, we invaded the countries involved in order to crush those revolutions or to force them into becoming oppressive dictatorships… and still we think that we are really, really good for the people of the world. Well, in some ways, we probably are. But perhaps the world has had enough of the imperial-corporatist entity (now subset of the larger offshoot, the USA) that is the United Kingdom, with its good, its bad and its ugly. It’s time to sow systemic peace. Perhaps, then, the UK ought to consider dissolving itself and starting anew as something rather different. A confederation of independent nations, perhaps, with no monarchy, or else with a highly symbolic monarchy (the Kings of Cards!) and no aristocracy. But one suspects that first, we would have to “take Manhattan” (to quote Leonard Cohen), as well as Old Father Thames.
.
A prayer, admittedly, rather than a realistic contemporary appraisal.
Suhayl – could not help thinking about Empire and the glorious past when reading your post. Maybe the “Red Queen” or the “White Queen” (depending on what type of government you want) will be one of two choices.
You forgot to mention the Atlantic African Slave Trade, if you want to top up Empire evils (this one is for Alfred):-
1. Britain oragnised the trade.
2. Funded the trade with Royal patronage – – John Hawkins being the first recorded English man to have taken slaves from Africa.
3. Provided captains and crews for the trade.
4. Distorted the reality of the trade by using the “moral argument” that it was a “civilising Christian mission” – and then trying to plea a case on the basis of “but …they sold their own” ( i.e. when comparing the “tribes of Europe” vis-a-vis the ones of Africa – so many wars had been waged between the “tribes” – why does one assume that there had to be racial solidarity on the continent of Africa when same was not the modus on the continent of Europe?) – but it serves a useful “slip-slide” to excuse, stigmatise for seeking an out from paying reparations.
5. Owned the plantations.
6. Destroyed cultures, family life, languages, identity, brutalised, enslaved for generations.
7. Delayed the emancipation by several years when Wilberforce ( a man who infamously denounced HMG for prohibiting whipping of slave women, and then he first introduced the idea that if slavery was abolished, the white slave owners would be compensated for loss of their “property”) and Pitt as politicians deflected and avoided true European abolitionists, inclusive of women groups and Quakers in Britain calling for immediate abolition – they wanted gradualism to get the money to the owners. And then paid reparations of 20 million pounds to the slave owners for loss of their property ( i.e. “property = the people” – cum abolition) – but disguises it with a 5 year hiatus from the 1883 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act – for professed training of the slaves for empowerment for their freedom. No wonder the African guy cursed out Liz and Phillip at the hypocritical 200th abolition sermon at Westminster Abbey.
8. Shipped all the profits back to Britain – and left nothing in the coffers for the Caribbean.
9. Built a University in the Caribbean only after over 300 years of colonialism – when the University of Havana is over 400 years old. This “British contribution” comes about because it was accepted in the immediate post World War 11 period that with an Empire that was no longer profitable, the only way out was to shove the natives off and a University was necessary if an administrative cadre was to be built. The alternative, of course, would be to have the “nig-nogs” in London or elsewhere in very large numbers advancing their studies in these very large numbers – being, therefore, a much cheaper option to keep ’em back home for their education.
10. Tony Blair lying that it was Britain that first abolished the African Atlantic Slave Trade – when in point of fact it was Denmark – 1st January 1803.
11. Continuation with a “global disorder” that imposes unjust terms of trade and lends back to the former colonies on monetary terms that shall never see the upliftment of the majority for reasons not least of all of the inbuilt structural injustices. ( Question: if a village needs a school –what does Britain do –build it – or fund it?) The aid structure is to have a grand political announcement about financially contributing aid in quite significant figures. The money is then tied to consultants and is further tied to purchasing British products to build the school. British consultants then consult consultants consulting more consultants who are all paid from the pool of allocated “aid money”. By the time the school is finally built – with the historically derived “slave money” there is but a small fraction that actually impacts the Asian, African, Caribbean or any other former colonial country’s community.
12. Continued down the ages with colonialism – wars – imperialism – and perfidious foreign policy actions of the highest order.
A dozen reasons to declare that a bunch of hypocrites and parasites exist to the present day – if one ever needed reasons to declare same.
NOW – WHERE IS ALFRED WHEN THE EMPIRE NEEDS HIM MOST – TO RESTORE EMPIRE’S GOOD NAME?
No doubt he will be piping in with preservation of the noble “race” arguments – come on Alfred – where are you when needed most – defend the British Empire and the “race” !
Quite seriously Alfred – if you looked at, and honestly understood the history about where what you think is some exalted “racial” hierarchically superior bunch in need of protection from the immigrant hordes ( however you may try to disguise what is at core your own distortion of history to advance your own ideas about “race” for purity’s sake ) – you may, just might, step back for a few moments and weigh that at the end of it ( when all is set in true and accurate perspective) – we still have to get along as one human family occupying one planet with finite resources.
Peace – and hopefully – some global prosperity.
For those who are unhappy with my post – Alfred – tell me why.
For those who are happy with my post – I will share why you should not be upset but simply understand the reasons related to the facts cited.
Millions of persons’ lives and futures had been shaped in the Caribbean by the events that I just referenced. To this day, the consequences of those historical experiences impact, shape and affect the collective psychological, social, economic and political order that exists in the former British West Indies and remaining British colonies.
Without further explanation – I merely observe that it is in fact the 1st August, and a day of some historical and contemporary importance in the Caribbean – why so?:-
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 ended slavery in the British Empire on August 1, 1834.