The Libya Hoax

Posted on Sunday, 11th September 2011 @ 10:42 AM by Text Size A | A | A

Spread the love

Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim

30 September 2012



A French secret serviceman acting on the express orders of Nicolas Sarkozy is suspected of murdering Colonel Gaddafi, it was sensationally claimed today.

He is said to have infiltrated a violent mob mutilating the captured Libyan dictator last year and shot him in the head.

The motive, according to well-placed sources in the North African country, was to stop Gaddafi being interrogated about his highly suspicious links with Sarkozy, who was President of France at the time.

There are still pockets of support for former leader Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya, despite his death
Nicolas Sarkozy, France's former president

Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s former president, allegedly ordered the murder of former Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi

Other former western leaders, including ex British Prime Minister Tony Blair, were also extremely close to Gaddafi, visiting him regularly and helping to facilitate multi-million pounds business deals.

Sarkozy, who once welcomed Gaddafi as a ‘brother leader’ during a state visit to Paris, was said to have received millions from the Libyan despot to fund his election campaign in 2007.

The conspiracy theory will be of huge concern to Britain which sent RAF jet to bomb Libya last year with the sole intention of ‘saving civilian lives’.


A United Nations mandate which sanctioned the attack expressly stated that the western allies could not interfere in the internal politics of the country.

Instead the almost daily bombing runs ended with Gaddafi’s overthrow, while both French and British military ‘advisors’ were said to have assisted on the ground.

Now Mahmoud Jibril, who served as interim Prime Minister following Gaddafi’s overthrow, told Egyptian TV: ‘It was a foreign agent who mixed with the revolutionary brigades to kill Gaddafi.’

Gaddafi was killed on October 20 in a final assault on his hometown Sirte by fighters of the new regime, who said they had cornered the ousted despot in a sewage pipe waving a golden gun. The moment was captured on videoGaddafi was killed on October 20 in a final assault on his hometown Sirte by fighters of the new regime, who said they had cornered the ousted despot in a sewage pipe waving a golden gun. The moment was captured on video


Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, covered in blood, is pulled from a truck by NTC fighters in Sirte before he was killedFormer Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, covered in blood, is pulled from a truck by NTC fighters in Sirte before he was killed

Revolutionary Libyan fighters inspect a storm drain where Muammar Gaddafi was found wounded in Sirte, Libya, last yearRevolutionary Libyan fighters inspect a storm drain where Muammar Gaddafi was found wounded in Sirte, Libya, last year


Diplomatic sources in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile suggested to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra that a foreign assassin was likely to have been French.

The paper writes: ‘Since the beginning of NATO support for the revolution, strongly backed by the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi openly threatened to reveal details of his relationship with the former president of France, including the millions of dollars paid to finance his candidacy at the 2007 elections.’

One Tripoli source said: ‘Sarkozy had every reason to try to silence the Colonel and as quickly as possible.’

The view is supported by information gathered by investigaters in Benghazi, Libya’s second city and the place where the ‘Arab Spring’ revolution against Gaddafi started in early 2011.

Rami El Obeidi, the former head of foreign relations for the Libyan transitional council, said he knew that Gaddafi had been tracked through his satellite telecommunications system as he talked to Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian dictator.

Nato experts were able to trace the communicatiosn traffic between the two Arab leaders, and so pinpoint Gaddafi to the city of Sirte, where he was murdered on October 20 2011.

Nato jets shot up Gaddafi’s convoy, before rebels on the ground dragged Gaddafi from a drain where he was hiding and then subjected him to a violent attack which was videod.

In another sinister twist to the story, a 22-year-old who was among the group which attacked Gaddafi and who frequently brandished the gun said to have killed him, died in Paris last Monday.

Ben Omran Shaaban was said to have been beaten up himself by Gaddafi loyalists in July, before being shot twice.He was flown to France for treatment, but died of his injuries in hospital.

Sarkozy, who lost the presidential election in May, has continually denied receiving money from Gaddafi.

Today he was unavailable for comment, but is facing a number of enquiries into alleged financial irregularities.




Photo: Qaddafi’s daughter Aisha, in better times.

photo: Rebel holds gold pistol seized from Qaddafi property.

The Untold Story in Libya: How the West Cooked

Up the “People’s Uprising”

            Wait!  Did the West just engineer the overthrow of another
unpopular regime to get at an easy supply of oil?



September 2, 2011

As I write this, a new day is dawning in Libya. The
“people’s revolt” against yet another tyrant is unquestionably exciting,
and the demise (political and/or otherwise) of Muammar Qaddafi will, of
course, be widely hailed. But barely below the surface something else
is going on, and it concerns not the Libyan “people”, but an elite. In
reality, a narrowly-based Libyan elite is being supplanted by a much
older, more enduring one of an international variety.

The media, as is so often the case, has botched its job. Thus virtually
all of its resources over the past six months have gone into providing
us with an entertainment, a horse race, a battle, with almost no insight
into the deeper situation..


It’s true that Qaddafi, like many—perhaps a majority of—rulers in his
region, was a thug and a brute, if at times a comical figure.  But one
doesn’t need to be an apologist for him—nor deny the satisfaction of
seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ouster—to demand some
honesty about the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes
to our own government’s role in funding it, and thus every American’s
unwitting participation in that action.

Let’s start with the official justification for NATO’s launch of its
bombing campaign—for without that campaign, it’s highly improbable the
rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told from the beginning
that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombing—indeed,
its sole purpose—was to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against
an oppressive regime from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps
because of NATO’s initial intervention, the feared Qaddafi-sponsored,
genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the
military actions one would expect a government to take when facing a
civil war:  after all, remember General Sherman’s “scorched earth”
policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians apparently
didn’t generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we
started to hear about other purported reasons for it.  Qaddafi was
encouraging his soldiers to…commit mass rape! And giving them Viagra!
And condoms!

You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO
crew did—made it up. The media, always glad to have a “sexy” story,
especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no evidence to
back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if
it was true.

We’ve been expressing doubts about these claims, for a number of
reasons—including logic—for some time now. (For more on that, see this
[3] and this [4] and this [5].)  But it’s tough to counterpoise
hot-button issues with rationality. If you questioned the mass rape
story, you were a “rape-enabler.” If you pointed out that Qaddafi was
being bombed for anything other than humanitarian reasons, you were a

The media was so gullible that the professional disinformation guys went
onto auto-pilot, recycling tired old tropes that nobody ought to be
buying anymore. For example, most news outlets reported recently that
Libya had fired a SCUD missile at the rebels.

“That it didn’t hit anything or kill anyone is not the point. It’s a
weapon of mass destruction that Col. Qaddafi is willing to train on his
own people,” said one Western official.

If the effort to rally public opinion against Qaddafi centered on any
one factor, it was fury over Libya’s purported role in the 1988 bombing
of  Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As we noted in a
previous article [6], in the years since the conviction of a Libyan
intelligence officer in the tragedy, a chorus of doubts has grown
steadily. The doubt is based on new forensic evidence and research, plus
subsequent claims by prosecution witnesses that their testimony was the
result of threats, bribes, or other forms of coercion. It is an ugly
and disturbing story, not well known to the larger news audience.

Yet Lockerbie has continued to touch nerves. In February, when Qaddafi’s
Justice Minister turned against him and became a rebel leader, he
brought with him dynamite. Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil made the
dramatic claim [8] that his ex-boss was the culprit behind the bombing
of Pan Am 103. He asserted that he had proof of Qaddafi giving the
direct order for the crime. This got considerable media attention,
though almost no news organizations followed up or reported that  Jeleil
never did supply that proof. The Libyan convicted of the crime has
consistently denied any involvement. Nonetheless, his conviction in the
case has had Qaddafi on the defensive for years—and working hard to
prove to the West that he can be a “good citizen.” Part of this has
entailed his paying out huge sums in reparations.


From the beginning of the Libya saga in February until now, the NATO
coalition has never wavered from its initial declaration of humanitarian
motives. And, to be sure, we may still learn of horrible,
previously-unknown atrocities by Qaddafi. Still,  the United States and
its allies have little history of using their might strictly to protect
civilians. If so, millions of South Sudanese, Rwandans and others might
not be in their graves.

Besides, with all the talk about Qaddafi harming his citizens, what
about the effect of more than 7000—yes, seven thousand—NATO bombing
runs? We heard constant reports about how Qaddafi was facing charges of
“war crimes,” with never a word about NATO. To learn the impact of this
massive unleashing, you had to be relying on Tweets from Libyans
witnessing it, or visiting obscure websites that shared eyewitness

Some Western military officials couldn’t even be bothered to participate
in the “humanitarianism” charade. For example, the top British general
explicitly stated [10] that the objective was really to remove Qaddafi.
Nobody—including the media—paid much attention to this admission,
perhaps because it was already assumed to be the case.

Qaddafi should never be seen as a victim—indeed, he has always been
sleazy and monstrous in various ways. But the US and its allies appear
to have cared little about this, while being deeply  troubled by his
role as a fly in the geopolitical ointment. A look at the long and
complex historical relationship between Qaddafi and the West begins to
explain the true reason he had to go. It also dovetails perfectly with a
growing body of indications that Western elites encouraged and even
provoked the uprising—while tapping into deep discontent with the


Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the West’s oil industry and
their national security apparatus. In the early 1970s he worked closely
with Occidental Petroleum chairman Armand Hammer in thwarting the
ambitions of the oil majors. He was a leader in the boycott of Israel
and often cozied up to the Soviet Union.

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration plotted for five years to
get rid of Qaddafi and sent 18 U.S. warplanes in April 1986 to eliminate
the “Mad Dog of the Middle East.” Reporter Seymour Hersh actually did
investigate the whys and wherefores of the ensuing bombings over
Tripoli. (The bombings killed the Libyan dictator’s daughter but
obviously failed to achieve their primary objective). Hersh’s piece in
the February 22nd, 1987  New York Times Magazine, “Target Qaddafi,” has
striking echoes in the NATO attacks of 2011. It revealed:

–  “internal manipulation and deceit” on the part of the White House to
disguise its real intentions, namely, to assassinate Qaddafi;

–  Denials after the raid on Qaddafi’s compound that he had been a
target, insisting that the compound hit was “a command-and-control”

–  The training of Libyan exiles, armed by Israel, to infiltrate Libya
through Tunisia.

–  The creation of a pretext for the attacks. In this case, it was the
April 5, 1986 bombing of the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin,a
hangout of American servicemen. This bombing was blamed on Libya “based
on intercepted communications,” despite the explicit rejection of this
claim by Berlin’s then-chief of anti-terrorist police.

–  The revelation, according to one intelligence official, that “We came
out with this big terrorist threat to the U.S. government. The whole
thing was a complete fabrication.”

–  As for real motives, Hersh discerned from a three-month investigation
that the Reagan Administration saw Qaddafi as being pro-Soviet,
“relentlessly anti-Israel,” and a supporter of extreme elements in Syria
as opposed to “the more moderate regimes in Jordan and Egypt.”

–  Qaddafi’s “often-stated ambition to set up a new federation of Arab
and Moslem states in North Africa” frightened policy makers about their
access to minerals.

It’s this that has to be considered as background for the true story of
Libya—the one the Western media cannot, or will not now, report.

Behind Libya’s ‘Spontaneous Revolution’

What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the “spontaneous
uprising” of February 2011 was hardly spontaneous. It began even before
the Arab Spring itself commenced in Tunisia during December of last
year—and it was orchestrated by the West.

In October 2010, Qaddafi’s protocol chief, Nouri Al-Mesmari, arrived in
France, purportedly for medical treatment. But he had his family with
him, and the declared reason for his trip was a cover story. He almost
immediately plunged into talks with the French and their intelligence
service. He argued that Qaddafi was weak. He pointed out breaches in
Qaddafi’s national security shield that made it possible to take him
down. (More on this can be found on the subscription-newsletter site
[13] “Africa Intelligence.”)

In December, Mesmari was joined by three Western-educated Libyan
businessmen who had years earlier staged an unsuccessful revolt against
Qaddafi. It didn’t take long for the French government of Nicolas
Sarkozy to sign on to a covert effort to topple Qaddafi. There are
multiple possible reasons for this, including intra-European
competition, notably with the Italians, who enjoyed a particularly close
relationship with Qaddafi and an inside track on Libya’s oil. In
addition, the French were deeply concerned about illegal immigration
from Arab and African countries,via Libya, that they felt was tolerated
or even encouraged by Qaddafi. The French began talking with the
British, who shared many of their concerns and a history of cooperation
on covert projects.

In November, a French trade delegation, including representatives of
multinational corporations, traveled to Benghazi in Eastern Libya. That
delegation has been characterized by Africa Intelligence’s Maghreb
Confidential as having included French military officials under
commercial cover, assessing the possibilities on the ground.

The New Year’s uprising in Tunisia, followed in rapid succession by
those in other Arab states, created a kind of perfect storm, arguably
even a smoke screen for the “popular revolt.” (It is interesting to note
the above newsletter’s assertion that Mesmari paid a brief visit to
Tunisia in October on his way to France.)

“Muammer Kadhafi’s [i.e., Muammar Qaddafi’s] chief of protocol, Nouri
Mesmari, is currently in Paris after stopping off in Tunisia. Normally,
Mesmari sticks closely to his boss’s side, so there’s some talk that he
may have broken his long-standing tie with the Libyan leader.”

Egypt followed quickly on Tunisia’s heels, and on February 16, just days
after the dictator Hosni Mubarak was toppled in neighboring Egypt,
peaceful demonstrations began in Benghazi—after calls went out on
Facebook for people to take to the streets in protest over the arrest of
a human rights lawyer. (The lawyer, Fethi Tarbel, was quickly
released—news organizations do not appear to have scrutinized who
ordered Tarbel arrested, or exactly why—though this was the seminal
event that would ultimately lead to the end of Qaddafi’s regime.)

On February 27, a National Transitional Council, made up of politicians,
ex-military officers, tribal leaders, businessmen and academics,
announced its launching in Benghazi as the rebel leadership. Not
surprisingly, no mention was made of the French back story.

The Italian intelligence services, intent on preserving that country’s
advantageously close relationship with Qaddafi, began trying to leak
what was going on. (More on the extent of the coziness between Libya and
Italian oil companies, and between Qaddafi and Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi here [16].) When it proved unable to stop the
operation, the Italian government seemingly decided to switch and try to
head this particular parade, lest the spoils go to the others.

The United States was late to this affair, but determined to get its
share of the picnic. The US has been as nervous about Qaddafi’s
relationship with Russia’s Putin as France was about his ties to Italy.

CIA was ready with its own man and plan. As we previously noted [18],
Khalifa Hifter, a former Libyan army officer, had spent the past two
decades living just down the road from CIA headquarters, with no
apparent source of income.  In 1996, while a resident of Vienna,
Virginia, he organized a Benghazi-based revolt that failed. When the
current uprising was sputtering in March, CIA sent Hifter in to take

When the rebels were being routed, the United Nations Security Council
approved a no-fly order for Qaddafi. The NATO bombing began almost
immediately, under the “humanitarian” label.

Before long, other European countries had covert elements in Libya. The
British paper, The Guardian, has just reported [20] the role of British
special forces in coordinating the rebels on the ground. This was denied
by the UK government . But then another British paper, The Telegraph,
cited [21] UK defense sources saying special forces had been in Libya
already for weeks, i.e., since early August.)

For the first time, defence sources have confirmed that the SAS has been
in Libya [22] for several weeks, and played a key role in co-ordinating
the fall of Tripoli.

Now that it is all over, expect details to emerge daily. For example,
see this [23] from the Daily Beast on the extent of US involvement
behind the scenes, including:

[A]t NATO headquarters outside Brussels, the U.S.was intimately involved
in all decisions about how the Libyan rebels should be supported as
they rolled up control of cities and oil refineries and marched toward
the capital, Tripoli.

NATO’S Mare Nostrum

Ok, so certain Western powers wanted, really, really badly, to oust
Qaddafi. But why exactly? France’s intra-European competitive motive was
certainly one factor. But there was more.

Back in 2007, European Union leaders were seriously toying with the idea
of NATO-izing the entire Mediterranean, turning it into the new
mare-nostrum originally contemplated in Roman days. In 2007, France’s
President Nicholas Sarkozy invited 27 European Union heads of state to
launch a “Mediterranean union.” He also invited 17 non-EU Mediterranean
countries to use, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph [24] put it, “imperial
Rome’s centre of the world as a unifying factor linking 44 countries
that are home to 800 million people.”

One leader did not buy in, however: Muammar Qaddafi. He claimed the
scheme would divide Africa and the Arab World. “We shall have another
Roman empire and imperialist design,” he was quoted as saying in July,
2008. “There are Imperialist maps and designs that we have already
rolled up. We should not have them again.”

Qaddafi was particularly angered [24] that an earlier plan, which
contemplated building closer co-operation among a few southern European
and North African states bordering the Mediterranean, had been replaced
with one which included the whole EU, the Middle East—and Israel—in the
new “Union.”

“It is unbelievable that I would come to my own country and people and
say that I have a union with Israel. It is very dangerous,” he said,
referring to the possibility of the plan fomenting jihadism throughout
Europe, not just the Middle East.

Despite this “insult,” however, Qaddafi had been attempting for some
time to get his country out of the near-global embargo imposed after
blame for the Lockerbie bombing was laid at Libya’s feet. And the West,
for its part, had been largely in a great hurry to “forgive”—and to get
access to Libya’s riches.

While Qaddafi was discussing with the Russians in 2007, for instance,
the prospect of building a Russian military base in Libya, he’d also
been busy rapidly repairing relations with other potential allies.
French President Sarkozy visited that year, and signed a number of
agreements, including a deal for France to build a nuclear-powered
facility to desalinate ocean water for drinking. The next year, Qaddafi
signed a cooperation treaty with Italy’s Berlusconi. And American
secretary of state Condi Rice came calling in 2008, accelerating the
thaw George W. Bush had avidly begun early in his administration.

In recent years, Qaddafi was on such good behavior that U.S. officials
showered him with the sort of praise usually reserved for those
officially deemed to be close allies. If that sounds unlikely, all you
need to do is watch this video [27] of Republican Sen. John McCain on an
August 2009 visit to Tripoli—with his buddy Joe Lieberman, known to
most as a pro-Israel, pro-Iraq-war hawk—gushing about Qaddafi and his
regime. Emerging from meetings, they evoked a spirit of friendship and
mutual respect, and endorsed the US providing defense equipment to that
regime. (Ever the political animal, in recent weeks, the very same
McCain who led that delegation has turned to criticizing Obama for not
being willing to bomb Libya heavily enough.)

A cable [28] from the US embassy in Tripoli, released by WikiLeaks,
confirms that on the 2009 visit,

“Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism,
noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends,” the cable
continues. “The Senators recognized Libya’s cooperation on
counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both
countries to make the relationship stronger.”

This rapprochement was characterized by a land rush of Western
corporations that had long coveted their share of Libya’s oil revenues.
Leading the way was the investment bank Goldman Sachs. Qaddafi and his
advisers trusted Goldman’s claims that it would turn handsome profits
with any funds entrusted to it. Yet Goldman managed to lose an
astonishing 98 percent [6] of the funds, which were the Libyan people’s
sovereign wealth. No matter. Goldman was soon back with more brilliant
ideas—including suggesting, at the height of the Wall Street crisis,
that Qaddafi buy a substantial stake in the Goldman firm itself.

Qaddafi was faced with these huge losses at the very time Libya was
carrying a crushing obligation of reparations for the Lockerbie bombing
that had been pressed on Libya as a condition of its re-emergence from
years of isolation, and he began to worry about how he would pay for it
all. Keeping the Libyan population at a relatively high standard of
living (compared certainly to neighboring Egypt) was essential to his
maintaining power. It was at this point that  Qaddafi began pressing
[30] foreign oil companies to increase the royalties they pay, and the
companies began grousing about it.

Could this hardening of postures have contributed to the sudden decision
to oust a man who had worked hard to ingratiate himself with the West?


At least two factors appear to have come together to create an
impossible situation for Qaddafi:  (1) The French, perhaps impatient
with Qaddafi’s independence, and frustrated with his Italian alliance,
began considering whether they might effect a change of government in
Libya. And (2) the Arab Spring. Suddenly, a startling number of the
thuggish Middle Eastern allies of the NATO countries began to come under
threat. For a number of U.S. Eastern Establishment types, at least,
these regional spasms of disaffection and bravery seemed to come as a
genuine surprise. The Council on Foreign Affairs produced articles
titled  “What Just Happened?” and “Why No One Saw it Coming,” in the
May/June issue of its Foreign Affairs magazine, dedicated to “the New
Arab Revolt.”

No one seemed to know for certain what was going to happen, although
there was plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking about how the Arab
Spring was entirely predictable in light of the world-wide financial
meltdown in 2008-09 and a growing restiveness in the Arab world. (See
also our recent article [32] about a correlation between skyrocketing
food prices and the revolts.)

But while it may take years to put the Arab Spring in its proper
perspective, it surely had  begun to occur to foreign policy elites that
NATO’s plans for a militarized Mediterranean would be susceptible to
unraveling if Libya’s unpredictable Qaddafi remained…unpredictable.
Especially with the NATO-allied dictator Mubarak on his way out and
Egypt destabilized.

A mere glance at the map reveals the strategic location of Libya. Right
next to Egypt. Large. Unlike Egypt, full of oil. And of a particularly
sought-after grade of sweet crude oil. (If you had momentarily forgotten
how incredibly important oil is to Western government and corporations,
consider this news item: Exxon Mobil reported second quarter profits of
$10.7 billion, up 41 percent from the previous year.)

In other words, Libya is both sitting on gobs of oil and perfectly,
strategically located for military bases to protect that oil and the oil
of nearby countries, including Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have
expressed hostility to the siting of American troops there. Almost
nobody could stand  Qaddafi. So if he were pushed out, who would
complain?, By getting behind the rebels (or, even better, helping to
create and fortify the rebels) the forces of the West might be able to
have their own Arab Spring.

What? It’s All About Oil?

In an inexcusable affront to the public, the media (with notable
exceptions such as The Guardian) has largely waited until Qaddafi was
destroyed to begin focusing on this incredibly obvious oil factor. One
example is a piece just published [35] by the New York Times. How useful
is it to allow the one-sided demonization of this man, and then, when
he is on his way out, to begin saying, Oh, by the way, it was always
about oil?

The piece focuses on the rebels’ plans to favor the countries who backed
them over those who preferred a negotiated settlement with Qaddafi:

“We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French
and U.K. companies,” Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel
oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. “But we may have
some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”

Russia, China and Brazil did not back strong sanctions on the Qaddafi
regime, and they generally supported a negotiated end to the uprising.
All three countries have large oil companies that are seeking deals in

This feels like Iraq Redux, only with different players and, so far, a
different outcome. In 2003, Germany and “Freedom-fries” France refused
to join the “Coalition of the Willing” in George W. Bush’s invasion of
Iraq. Why? Because they had pending oil deals with Saddam Hussein.

There are other possible factors, including Qaddafi’s unique influence
as an uncontrollable, Castro/Chavez-style independent nationalist with
influence throughout the region. Qaddafi was an avid promoter of African
unity, of governments that would remain free from the influence of the
major powers. He poured a lot of money into South Africa, for instance,
when it was struggling to free itself from Western influence after the
fall of the apartheid regime there. As Qaddafi was going down to defeat,
the West began pressuring South Africa to turn over frozen Libyan
funds.  (Not incidentally, there’s more than $35 billion of frozen
Libyan assets in the U.S., and a comparable sum in Europe.)

African nationalism remains a big concern for Western mining, banking
and industrial interests. Though the people of Africa remain desperately
poor, the continent is the earth’s richest potential source of precious
and strategic metals, minerals and resources of every stripe.

In hindsight, the Libyan “revolution” may be viewed as a clever effort
to harness genuine domestic discontent to a global competition for the
resources necessary to sustain the industrial West as well as newly
emerging industrial countries like China, India and Brazil. Refracted
this way, the whole NATO involvement in Libya appears to be, at root,
business as usual. As they say in law enforcement, follow the money. In
the midst of a severe fiscal crisis, Pentagon spending [37] alone on
Libya through the end of July was $896 million. Will everyone who
believes that the Western military establishment is spending such vast
sums to further the “aspirations of the Libyan people,” please raise
their hands?

At this juncture, it seems realistic to expect the US and its allies to
settle in, nice and comfortable, on Libyan “assets” for a very long
time. Anyone who doubts that might want to check out US statements [38],
not widely discussed, of intent for US troops to remain in Iraq well
past the original troop departure date. Or a proposal for the same thing
in Afghanistan—see this report [39] about a desire to keep substantial
military personnel there through 2024. Then do a little reading on the
potentially $1 trillion worth of minerals in Afghanistan which the US
says it only recently learned about. (Wink, wink.) As The New York Times
reported [40] in June, 2010 (the story generated little public

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper,
cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big
and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that
Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most
important mining centers in the world, the United States officials

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could
become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the
manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

Some will say that ascribing solely selfish motives to Western
“liberators” is too cynical. For one thing, aren’t the rebels at least
an improvement on Qaddafi in terms of human rights, liberties, and so

For a possible answer, it’s worth reading [42] the British journalist
Patrick Cockburn. He nicely sums up the craziness, brutality and
internecine murder taking place in the rebels’ ranks without proper
Western media attention. They appear to have killed one or possibly two
of their own commanding generals on suspicion of treachery—or at least
being partial to the wrong faction. For example, we’ve been hearing—in
part via a seemingly well-informed individual inside Libya—that the
reason the rebels killed their own commander-in-chief General Abdul
Fatah Younis was his advocacy of negotiations with Qaddafi. If that’s
correct—and these subjects need more reporting by the news organizations
there on the ground—then we’d like to know what position all those
Western spooks took on the ouster and killing of this man.

Continuing on this score, we have the plight of black Libyans, generally
among the poorest in the country. We’ve seen a steady stream of
indications [44] that, almost by definition, anyone black in Libya (many
African migrant workers but also some Libyan citizens) has been lumped
in with Qaddafi’s non-Libyan African mercenaries, considered a suspected
Qaddafi loyalist and therefore targeted for harassment, physical
violence and death.

Meanwhile, the rebels have released, en masse, prisoners linked to
extremist Islamic movements. And one analyst is currently asserting [45]
that an Al Qaeda-linked figure is the new military commander of
post-Qaddafi Tripoli.

Here’s another twist: The Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing,
released in 2009 from jail in Scotland and allowed to return home for
health reasons, is now, according to CNN, on his death bed, said to be
deprived of medicines due to the recent looting of Libyan pharmacies.
Once the rebels had consolidated their hold over Tripoli, CNN found
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi [46] comatose, and while he has consistently
maintained his innocence, it is unlikely the world will ever learn what
he knows. With him and Qaddafi disappearing from the scene, any demand
for a deeper inquiry into the bombing will likely evaporate.

But where is the West in all of this? A leaked plan [47] for
post-Qaddafi Libya shows how elaborately involved NATO has been in the
entire operation. It includes a carefully thought-out proposal for
avoiding the mistakes made in the Iraq occupation—including embracing
most of Qaddafi’s security forces, and an initial occupying force
“resourced and supported” by the United Arab Emirates, with essentially
no (visible) Western “boots on the ground.”

Doesn’t this sound more and more like an invasion, for spoils? And one
that could—notwithstanding lessons supposedly learned—quickly get very


[1] Image:

[2] Image:

[3] this:

[4] this:

[5] this:

[6] previous article:

[7] Image:

[8] claim:

[9] Image:

[10] explicitly stated:

[11] View Page 2 of 3:

[12] Image:

[13] site:

[14] Image:

[15] Image:

[16] here:

[17] Image:×0.jpg

[18] previously noted:

[19] Image:

[20] just reported:

[21] cited:

[22] Libya:

[23] this:

[24] Daily Telegraph:

[25] Image:

[26] Image:

[27] this video:

[28] cable:

[29] Image:

[30] began pressing:

[31] View Page 3 of 3:

[32] recent article:

[33] Image:

[34] Image:

[35] just published:

[36] Image:

[37] Pentagon spending:

[38] US statements:

[39] this report:

[40] reported:

[41] Image:

[42] worth reading:

[43] Image:

[44] indications:

[45] asserting:

[46] found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi:

[47] leaked plan:

[48] click here to donate:

[49] 1:

[50] 2:

[51] 3:

[52] 4:

[53] 5:

[54] 6:

[55] 7:

[56] 8:×0.jpg

[57] 9:

[58] 10:

[59] 11:

[60] 12:

[61] 13:

[62] 14:

[63] 16:

[64] 17:

[65] 18:

[66] 19:


Related News On HuffPo Club

Disqus Comments

Specify a Disqus shortname at Social Comments options page in admin panel

Facebook Comments

G+ Comments

Default Comments

  • Hpub asks

    • Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.