Monday, 22 August 2011

Libyans: Over four long decades of despair

Libya’s rag-tag rebels, the staunch of an otherwise affluent Arab Spring? It is the 22nd of August 2011. Tripoli’s liberation is unravelling to the world. The BBC, among other British media, are hosting analysts and critics still only too keen to speak of the lost potential of Saif Gaddafi’s fictitious democratic aspirations, and to accuse the dreaded rebels of being as equally guilty of war crimes as Gaddafi’s forces, and to allege that rebel factions are now the subject of competing levels of savagery?

Since Libya’s stand to Gaddafi took its inevitable turn to armed struggle some six months ago, the media-labelled "rebels" have been relentlessly smeared by allegedly impartial observers. The rebels are still regarded as being ridden with rivalry and lacking hierarchy, coordination and discipline. People must be at their wits end seeing how they waste ammunition on show for the cameras during trivial celebrations of insignificant gains, or to exaggerate sentiments at funeral processions. Critics abound are unimpressed by Libya’s apparent bravado and its infuriatingly undeserving support from NATO. Conspiracy theorists, prominent voices on Press TV & Co., deem the 5 month international military operation as drawn-out and directly responsible for global financial strains. These critics consider the entire conflict to be a mere front for Western imperialist and capitalist ventures intentionally devised to escalate and extend indefinitely? Yet somehow these critics are suddenly convinced that the ragtag rebels’ advance onto Tripoli and the swift victories it has so far achieved is also a western plot, deliberately timed to gain Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama much needed votes in beckoning elections. Being impartial toward Libyans for six months straight may seem mundane. Blatant bias to Gaddafi is categorically inhumane.

Have Libyans any say in matters at all? Can’t Libyans get it right? Did they take up too much of the world’s precious time? Did they overcome the tyranny they loathed too soon? Should Libyans have failed, so that Gaddafi’s fan club can maintain its source of income? Human rights organisations accused Libyans of unlawful killing, looting and spreading chaos. Perhaps the accused Libyans also found time to liberate cities and towns in between committing alleged crimes against humanity? Surely, the thousands of Libyan expats that volunteered in the front lines along with their countrymen, many of whom fought and died in recent months, all left their convenient lives in the West for a chance to wreak havoc in their obliterated homeland? Apparently, critics can rightly judge Libyans, who did indeed lynch Gaddafi troops and sabotage regime buildings in February, by having no right to do so; especially after coming under indiscriminate attack from Gaddafi’s armies. After all, they had already been battered by the regime for over four decades, why the sudden outburst of rage? Perhaps they should have come to terms with picking up body parts of loved ones from off the streets and not took impulsive actions in the heat of the initial violent crackdown on their peaceful protests? In Libya's case, it appears that the impact of systematic murder carried out by the regime is downscaled to that of isolated and provoked criminal incidents involving civilians.

These lawless and lesser creatures can’t be expected to provide the civilised world, and its meticulous journalists and commentators, with a viable alternative to Gaddafi; the decent devil they all knew too well. After all, his money never left their sight; or reach to that matter. If the rebels where anything as bad as Gaddafi apologists have made them out to be, then rebel strong holds such as Misrata, Nafousa Mountains and the entire east of Libya would be warzones of their own, torn between rivalling factions imported and home-grown. There would be lashings and beheadings, retaliations and destruction. Perhaps the world would get a glimpse if reporters braved to enter rebel held territories. But haven’t they already done so, freely and unreservedly, as opposed to Gaddafi’s journalists in besieged Tripoli who systematically tell the world Gaddafi's version of events under strict scrutiny and supervision? Contrary to most media speculation, the main unrest for people in “rebel-held” Libya is caused by the nervous anticipation of their capital's liberation. Tripoli’s new found freedom should see the Rixos Circus go on the road. Will the world finally see Tripoli for what it is? Scores of inaccurate reports about events in Benghazi emerged in international media despite the apparent free press operation. Is the free press bound to inevitable manipulation of facts and serving of political agendas? Will liberated Libya remain the misrepresented nation that the free press has freely either neglected or exploited at its will?

The dawn of the dreaded political vacuum that was speculated few weeks into Libya’s uprising, prior to either UNSC resolutions, is now upon us. Early speculation made out Gaddafi’s collapse to be an almost imminent event. Libya’s opposition groups (exiled political parties) have long been outgunned by Gaddafi. Their websites frequently blocked and hacked in recent years, though traditionally hunted down, imprisoned and assassinated, by Gaddafi's thugs. Libya's political entities had no multimillion pound contracts with UK and US based PR firms, with the lobbying power these wield, to outwit their rival. The world was told that Gaddafi had no formal opposition because political parties were banned. So said Gaddafi and as so the world gladly presumed. The world seemed oblivious to whom these groups are. Tragic events in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq were drawn as outcomes to NATO's intervention in Libya, and expectations of Gaddafi’s replacement were running as low as expectations can get. Incidentally, just last night, Abdel Bari Atwan was given the opportunity to reassert such views on BBC News just as scenes of Tripoli’s liberation began to emerge.

Terms such as “Radical Islamism”, “Islamist Extremism” and “Jihadist Terrorism” were and still are used by experts and analysts irrationally speculating about Libya's revolution, almost as much as these terms were consumed on the day of Anders Breivik's murderous attacks in Norway. After all, Gaddafi’s warnings of the chaos that would ensue in the aftermath of his collapse were pre-validated by the alleged existence of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – a proscribed group under the Terrorism Act 2000. A group which Parliament formally acknowledged had sought “to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state.” And that “the group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida.” And that “the group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi” - the very assassination attempt that Gaddafi attributed to MI6 and as claimed by his state media ever since. If any intelligence shared between Mousa Kousa and the West resulted in the affirmation of the fictitious global threat of an Islamist terrorist group in Libya, it merely demonstrates Gaddafi’s ability to manipulate any situation in order to safeguard his, now fallen, dynasty. If "Islamist" terrorist groups became the world’s new nemesis then he would have obviously wanted one of those for himself. A common enemy often makes for the most unexpected of alliances. Nonetheless, Mousa Kousa’s alleged sharing of intelligence may have rewarded him with some securities, perhaps best demonstrated by his entering and exiting the UK unscathed despite notoriety for a bloody past. Had the LIFG ever existed then today they would not be alone in being guilty of “mounting several armed operations inside Libya”, or even “attempting to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi”.

Some of Libya’s opposition groups (exiled political parties) have worked tirelessly on humanitarian, political and media fronts to help the National Transitional Council in its efforts. However, any caution on the part of Libya’s opposition groups in appearing at the forefront of any political initiative, in aid of the Libyan people, could backfire with accusations of jumping on the bandwagon of a revolution which, admittedly, Libya’s opposition cannot claim direct responsibility for. Out of sheer respect and honouring of the Libyan civilians that took to the street, many of whom lost their lives in doing so, Libya’s existing opposition consciously allowed for Libya’s up and coming political formations to stand their ground. Nonetheless, the arguably secondary capacity deployed by Libya’s opposition groups could also lead to accusations of simply not doing enough, or allowing opportunists to pounce on any immediate personal gains; political of otherwise. Some opposition groups have called for the UN to play a more active role in helping Libya’s long estranged political entities develop a viable working relationship in aid of developing Libya’s new democratic political structure.

Politics aside, unforgiving criticism of Libya’s revolutionary fighters also seems to have overshadowed the fact that Libya’s national army, founded under allied supervision after WWII, and from which Gaddafi himself eventually emerged, was systematically reorganised by Gaddafi since he came to power in 1969. Its ranks would become segregated tiers under his and his sons’ private authority. The purpose of this restructure was to signoff the role of the military to that of protecting Gaddafi and his family, rather than the Libyan population or the nation’s sovereignty. Gaddafi acquired weapons from almost every single weapons manufacturer in the world. He secured strategic and logistic support from many governments; allegedly acting strictly in advisory capacities, though arguably driven solely by commercial gain. The military determination Libyans have shown in the face of Gaddafi’s armies merely gained them belittlement and incrimination in the eyes of many critics, as though Gaddafi’s militias were the honourable patriotic soldiers fighting for a just cause?! Gaddafi’s systematic resettlement of depraved citizens from neighbouring countries, for the purpose of military recruitment in return for Libyan citizenship, is a scheme that Libyans learnt of decades ago. However, the same generations that cheered and clapped for Gaddafi’s coup were by then too terrified to bat an eye at such goings-on. Earning crumbs and staying away from political confrontation became the pillars of Libyan society. Nonetheless, Gaddafi’s paranoia rightly assessed the scale of resentment toward his festering self-proclaimed deity. Libya’s standard army, after Chad and Uganda, was reduced to scatters of demoralised commanders and troops. It has been overshadowed by Gaddafi’s private forces.

The term mercenary, in the wake of Libya’s current revolution, has therefore been extended to refer to any Libyan or non-Libyan still willing to fight and die for Gaddafi’s cult. Gaddafi is not the Libyan state; some would argue that he never had been, ever since his illegal coup, although the world and its wife all traded Gaddafi more weapons than he’d ever need to destroy his enemy: the Libyan people (the “ragtag rebels”).

Neither Libya’s revolutionary fighters nor political leadership claim to be at the top of their game. They realise the challenges that lie ahead but are nonetheless undeterred by the risks of either taking on Gaddafi or rebuilding their liberated nation in the aftermath of his fall. Libyans need help and they are frank about it. They have demonstrated their willingness to withstand the pain and horror Gaddafi is only too keen to inflict on them. Easy as it may be for spectators to highlight the many inadequacies in professional conduct, presentation and formation, the political and military mission of Libya’s revolutionaries has gained considerable pace and will continue to re-establish Libya’s national institutions; military, political, legal, etc. However, as scenes of Tripoli’s liberation emerge, rusty notions of east versus west, violent reprisals, tribal feud and rivalry between Arabs and Amazigh are quickly sprawling news coverage by the free press. Libya’s newly liberated media, the democratic aspiration it embroils and cultural diversity it projects, have been completely neglected over the past 6 months. For example, not a single reference to any of Libya’s new TV stations or news publications has been made by British media, in complete contrast with Gaddafi State TV which has maintained centre stage throughout the conflict. Surely, nothing can be expected of Libya’s ragtag rebels, right? The world must be spared the horror of portraying a free Libya in a positive light! The media seem adamant to portray Libyans as a backward, and divided, and hateful people. Perhaps Gaddafi’s demise, along with some novel precious time, will prove the contrary.

Branding Libyans opposed to Gaddafi as ragtag NATO dependant rebels, readily at each others’ necks beyond Gaddafi’s rule, is hardly accurate. Libyans rightly benefited from international military support when they bravely fought back at Gaddafi’s tyranny. Tainting the integrity of Libya’s revolution with emotional blackmail is to openly resent Libyans. Continued manipulation of Libya’s news is to contribute to the killing of Libyans, whether gradually or imminently, as precisely to Gaddafi’s disturbed accord. Unlike it being Gaddafi’s method of choice, violence was a final resort for Libyans to preserve their prolonged try for freedom.

In Libya’s vast desert plains, Gaddafi was a dividing line of slithering deceit, drawn out over four long decades of despair. The length and depth of this line are illusory. Libyans, like their vast desert sands, and the winds on which these ride, will together erase this serpent’s trail.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

RE: Patrick Cockburn: Libya's ragtag rebels are dubious allies

Comment on The Independent article, Thursday, 11 August 2011

Enes Senussi: Libya's Gaddafi was a dubious ally

Assuming there is any resemblance between the Wars of the Roses and Libya’s inevitably violent revolution; divisions you suggest are nothing more than speculation derived from Gaddafi’s classification of the Libyan people, which
unanimously oppose his tyranny.

The death of General Younes was a Gaddafi plot announced on Gaddafi TV 48 hours prior to his killing. Allegations of Al-Qaeda being responsible for his murder were reported by foreign journalists in the Rixos Hotel Circus hours before the news of his death was even confirmed. The fact that Gaddafi’s 5th Column succeeded in causing such havoc was a clear call for political reassessment. Administrative or procedural failures often result in political reappointments in democracies the world over.

A ludicrous aspect of the whole thing is that Gaddafi propagandists are still commissioned by the regime. The prediction of the killing of General Younes came on Gaddafi TV the very week both the UK and US further realised the aspirations of the Libyan people and recognised the NTC.

The NTC has members from the farthest western and southern parts of Libya. The notion of Gaddafi’s opponents being confined to the country’s East is void. Tripoli, Misrata, and the Western Nafousa Mountain are all united behind the NTC against Gaddafi. The 5th Column plot that succeeded in killing General Younes equally failed in causing the fallout and disorientation Gaddafi envisaged. The UNSC intends to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi’s onslaught. Libyans would march peacefully in Tripoli. However, Gaddafi continues to wage war against the Libyan people and so the people rightfully fight back; with every bit of help they can get. NATO’s mission is an invaluable opportunity for Libya to stand a chance in ridding itself of Gaddafi’s sadistic tyrannical threat.

The advancements that you deem slow have only extended for a period of 5 months. Do you expect over 4 decades of military entrenchment to be nitpicked within days or weeks? Libya’s revolutionary army has recently become equipped with at least a little bit more than pick-up trucks and machine guns. The advancements from Misrata both west toward Zlitan and east toward Tawargha, as well as advancements in Nafousa Mountains toward Gherian and Zawia, are significant gains. Brega’s surroundings have been riddled with thousands of landmines. Sweeping these took time. Its industrial oil infrastructures make it out of bounds for long range artillery and provide cover for Gaddafi outgoing heavy fire. Furthermore, the Liberation army isn’t fighting the 4,000 civilian inhabitants of the residential part of Brega but the thousands of Gaddafi militants embedded within the area’s industrial zone. Tripoli’s obliterated population, if anything, will make the final showdown with whatever’s left of Gaddafi worshipers more decisive than you’d imagine.

Gaddafi fell in February. The Libyan people were not a collection of “rag-tag” militias when the revolution began and they will not be as such when it ends. You are merely tail chasing Gaddafi’s prediction of Libya being doomed to chaos in the aftermath of his fall. Libyans have undoubtedly benefitted from NATO aircraft but no more than Gaddafi has benefited from the vast weaponry he acquired over the decades from the self-righteous nations of the world, or the strategic support he continues to receive from discreetly allied nations; both neighbouring and farther afield. Libyans have every right in the UN’s support to help rehabilitate it’s institutions after 4 decades of nepotism, corruption, isolation and extortion at the hands of Gaddafi and his murderous cult.

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both home to populations of around 30 million, Libya’s relatively micro population of 6 million does not comprise of the vast rivalling religious and ethnic components. Libyans, Amazigh and Arabs, are much closer than Gaddafi duped the world into perceiving. Libya is also neither occupied by a foreign force nor recovering from a civil war. The Libyan people are plainly united against Gaddafi to regain their national identity, freedom and dignity. The only struggle beyond Gaddafi is that to rebuild what he so bitterly destroyed.

Dull, but cheerfully truthful

Indeed, foreign media has reached an all time low on covering the war in Libya. The Rixos Hotel Circus is a travesty. Gaddafi has acquired a band of his very own free press operatives. Every single PR stunt the regime has pulled off has been systematically beamed through newspapers and down TV screens across the world. The back and fro of the early days of the revolution’s turn to armed resistance has long since gone and with it the questioning of Gaddafi’s impregnated evil. When was it the last time an atrocity committed by Gaddafi’s militias was accurately exposed to the world? The only empathy the world has been induced with is that articulated by Gaddafi’s cousin mouthpiece Mousa Ibrahim Gaddafi as and when each fabricated story of NATO targeting civilians or Gaddafi supporters marching in their millions has been staged. Rixos Circus Clowns as though obliged to reiterate Gaddafi’s black propaganda to the world. Unverifiable tales reeled under regime supervision, as the disclaimer subtly hints.

To the contrary, in regards to the news of General Younes’ death, an endless stream of explanations was concluded, even by your fellow writers in The Independent. Explicit renditions of the General’s funeral procession were even fabricated to further serve Gaddafi’s purpose. All of the coverage swiftly affirmed Gaddafi’s foretold prophecy of “Islamist Groups” roaming around Libya’s “separatists east”; as you put it “murderous rivalries and vendettas”. The scandal arguably exposed the naivety of Libya’s opposition in the face of Gaddafi’s ruthless criminality. The only version of events regurgitated, in both left and rightwing media, was Gaddafi’s premeditated, manipulated and fictitious one; the one where Gaddafi comes out on top, looking good, presumably, in comparison with his pitiful opposition, and the one where Younes’ son brakes down in tears crying for the return of Gaddafi and the green flag during his dad’s funeral?! You couldn’t make this up? Or could you?

Atrocities were carried out and continue to be carried out by Gaddafi’s order. Indiscriminate killing and torture of civilians triggered Libya’s reaction. Libya subsequently called for the international community to intervene. NATO’s intervention was justified by USCR 1973. Mass rape and extensive use of mercenaries have continued to be proven to this day. The limited scope of both the Human Right Watch and Amnesty International reports, you unsurprisingly refer to, neither proved nor disproved any atrocities. They merely served as one of many PR smokescreens for Gaddafi. The reports you reference are perhaps as “well researched” as your articles about Gaddafi’s greatness; perhaps equally credible as well. The abundant graves, scares and broken homes of Libyans bear much more proof of Gaddafi’s atrocities than any subjectively motivated assertions, journalistic, non-governmental or otherwise.

Indeed, reporters couldn’t be more embedded that those imprisoned in the Rixos Hotel Circus; Gaddafi’s military unit’s very own media operation. There is no danger to journalists in liberated parts of Libya. No reporters are embedded in the vast so-called “rebel held” parts of the country. Why isn’t the free press demanding its nonnegotiable freedom in Tripoli? Why is the free press so submissive to Gaddafi’s grip? Why does the free press prod along to every stage managed scene of every alleged aftermath hours after reported incidents occur? God forbid Gaddafi would manipulate any situation during the confinement of journalists in the Rixos Circus; before they are escorted to relay Gaddafi’s baseless grievances to world! Is this the due accuracy and impartiality safeguarded by the free world’s free press? Luckily for today’s world, anyone with the slightest shred of reason is able to see trough any “partial and often misleading account of what is happening in Libya.” Libya is not an imperial skirmish nor do we live in the 19th century. Luckily for Libyans, the misleading of The Independent’s readership does not actually amount to anything in terms of Libya’s determination to topple the perverse tyrant - Gaddafi.

At what will The Independent’s Cockburn and Sengupta stop?

Friday, 12 August 2011

Libyans: A Plagued Purpose (Judged & Begrudged for Scratching the Surface)

It would be massively misinformed of anyone to form an opinion on Libya’s current crisis, based solely on reports that have emerged since mid February 2011. It would also be wrong to assume that all Libyans, whether in Libya or abroad, lived happily during Gaddafi’s four decade rule. An important aspect to bear in mind is that next to nothing of what went on behind Libya’s closed doors was ever reported to the rest of the world; or even to potentially relative nations. Hardly any transparency could be said to have applied to occasional mentions of Libya in international media. Many people unreasonably assume that such features of Gaddafi, his household, and their cringe-worthy, brash and costly antics, count as due representations of the primarily absented Libyan nation and its diverse population. Many people, therefore, cannot be expected to grasp the basis of neither the hatred most Libyans feel towards Gaddafi nor the admiration he declares from others.

The scale of ambiguity corroding Libya’s reality is largely attributed to the media blackout operated by Gaddafi. For instance, inconvenience caused to air passengers, during the fortnight of delays caused by the volcanic ash cloud over Iceland in April 2010, provoked more media debate and public scrutiny than the plight of the Libyan people throughout the entirety of the seven-year air embargo they endured in the 1990s. My memory of sitting across from an ill man during an 18 hour coach ride from Benghazi to Alexandria, checkpoints and stops aplenty, offers a tiny glimpse in to the human condition the oil rich state reduced its citizens to. The middle-aged man appeared to have had unsuccessful surgery on or around his abdomen. He was thoroughly bandaged and had a drip attached to his arm. Throughout the journey, the man’s wife sprayed cheap deodorant around their vicinity. The man held his head down and cringed in agony. It was hard to tell whether his pain was physical or triggered by the humiliation he may have felt in having no control over his bodily functions, whilst being bound to his seat and in the presence of other passengers. Libyans had no fault in the sanctions being imposed. Nevertheless, most of Libya’s hospitals ran out of supplies during that time, as did schools, universities, markets and factories. Gaddafi’s standard of living was not affected and nor was his regime’s, although the punishment had, in theory, targeted both of these criminal entities. Despite the frustration of Libyans during the air embargo, Gaddafi’s publicity stunts took their course, as they continue to do to this day. Nelson Mandela’s so-called defiant flights to Tripoli would be rubbed in the faces of Gaddafi's political opponents for years to follow.
Thousands of Libyans of various ages, some still in their teens, were thrown in to prison without charge or trial throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s. The patient's 18 hour journey to Egypt suddenly seems trivial, considering the many years that families spent travelling back and forth, from all across the country, to visit their detained loved ones in Tripoli's Abu-Sleem prison. Throughout those years, families were denied any access to prisoners. Despite this, personal items, food and clothes would be handed to prison guards by visiting families, in the hope of it reaching their loved ones, only to find out in 2003 that their loved ones had long since been executed en masse in 1996. Somehow, even in light of the current revolution and the atrocities Gaddafi continues to evoke, the untold stories of Libyans seem to be quickly countered by pious distractions; averting concern from Libya’s overtly protracted and unashamedly neglected grievances. Prisoners of thought currently detained in Tripoli are reported to be in excess of 30,000 men and women. These include Libyan journalists and political activists among many other innocent civilians.
Over 40 years, of the lives of over 6 million human beings, suddenly seem beside the point. Commentators and analysts constantly attempt to blackmail Libya’s revolution; because of the means it has responsively deployed to topple Gaddafi. Journalists, academics and so-called activists, comfortable in their fortresses of denial, whether sticking it to the establishment or simply making ends meet, boldly side with Gaddafi to smear Libya’s cause every bit they can. It is tremendous how in almost 6 months (1.4% of Gaddafi's 40+ years in power) some seem adamant to draw an irrevocable verdict on the legitimacy and intent of the Libyan people, as though their loss of life and limb was no longer a winning call. Other oppressed peoples are unquestionably deserving of public sympathy and international support. But what if the international community takes action to help prevent their suffering? Would political agendas inevitably take priority over any triggering humanitarian cause?

Unless people understand the extent of Gaddafi’s former grip over Libya, the scope of what the revolution achieved prior to the implementation of the "No Fly Zone" may not become apparent. The fall of major cities, almost all but the capital, and the wave of high profile political and military defections, were all driven by the sacrifices thousands of innocent civilians made. Despite these defiant leaps, Libya's unprecedented outburst almost died in its wake. UNSCR 1973 was a lease of life to Libya's revolution, though critics insist the UN merely submitted to Western capitalist interests in Libya's oil. If such was the case, should have Libyans been abandoned and left to face Gaddafi's demonic reprisal? Should have Libyans been made to pay with their lives, indefinitely, because of the oil Gaddafi exploited all along?

Before judging Libyans, it could be worth considering how difficult it would be for an aggrieved victim to succeed, if forced to confront her lifelong tormentor. Dishearteningly, spectators oblivious to the depraved nature of her tormentor, and the discreet extrinsic influence he wields, would likely deem the victim's challenge fair; her tormentor's reason just.
Nevertheless, to say the least, needs must for prey to breach its predator's reach.

Above and centre photo credits TBC
Below photo by Rodrigo Abd, Associated Press

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Libyans: Irrelevant People, to Prevalent Rule

Is it mere coincidence that Gaddafi State TV is quoted every time the regime pulls off a PR stunt? If international media, in the name of impartiality, is adamant to justify sharing Gaddafi’s views with their viewers then why shouldn’t this occur on a frequent basis? Gaddafi’s TV has been broadcasting uninterruptedly since the start of unrest in February this year.

The majority of unquestionable fallacies beemed through Gaddafi's channels don’t get shared with the world. Perhaps these would help people establish the logically deplorable standard of credibility Gaddafi’s media maintains. Nonetheless, Gaddafi's carefully manipulated public shows of support and defiance or alleged incidents of NATO targeting civilians all seem to make the news. But will anyone note that when Gaddafi TV announced Hillary Clinton was in a comma, after suffering a blood clot in her brain, no one seemed to quote so-called “Libyan State TV” or switch to its deceptive screens. Nor was Gaddafi TV quoted when it displayed an egg painted green and claimed that a chicken had laid it as a sign of Gaddafi’s victory from God. Nor was Gaddafi’s TV quoted when it claimed a burning flame had turned green in farm owned by Gaddafi supporters. Nor was Gaddafi TV’s screen shown to the word when it read out the word “USE” printed on an ammo container, in the context of instructions (for "use" with), when it claimed these had been smuggled into Libya by the government of the "U.A.E."! Nor was Gaddafi TV referenced when it used footage from Algeria showing an impaled child lying on a hospital bed and claimed that the child was from Zliten and was tortured by "rebels" from Misrata and “all because the boy was wearing green”! So why is it that when the same channel alleges civilian casualties have been caused by NATO, with no independent means of verifying such allegations, does anyone on this planet take Gaddafi's word for it? Does anyone really believe Gaddafi's alleged adopted daughter was killed in the 1986 US air raids or that one of his seven sons and 3 grandsons recently died in a NATO strike? Has Gaddafi TV reported the death of a single Libyan civilian as a result of the regime's constant shelling of Libya's besieged cities and towns since February?

Why is it that when the same channels claimed that Gaddafi supporters had produced the world’s biggest banner in aid of their beloved leader it was relayed to the world in that very manner? The fact that the production of the banner was deliberated by Gaddafi’s regime seems to have been overshadowed, alluding that average Libyan citizens, Tripoli residents, chipped in with their own pennies, time and effort to produce the banner. The very fact that a costly overblown portrait was afforded during such difficult times reflects only the extent of psychiatric attention Gaddafi and his henchmen urgently require.
Would such displays of support happen spontaneously were it not for the full-blown military gridlock imposed on besieged parts of Libya? If NATO was targeting Libyan civilians, would anything be left standing in Tripoli; or other parts of the country where military targets have been struck?

The very manner and the level at which Gaddafi’s State TV ridiculously communicates to its Libyan viewers is offensive in every sense of the word. The incitement of hatred, the threats of violence and the worship of Gaddafi all aside, it also plays host to some of the worst attempts to fabricate stories that, if anything, reflects the low intellectual expectation attributed to Libyans by Gaddafi’s regime. Cynthia McKinney, among few other "high-profile" international political supporters of Gaddafi seemed apathetic about their reputations by appearing on these channels and further taking Gaddafi's version of events back to their unwitting native audiences.
Quite recently on Gaddafi TV, a ration package was shown, by the infamous riffle-wielding presenter, on the basis that “rebel held” (liberated) areas in Libya were living off international food aid. However, the allegation was not merely to indicate any potential food shortages in troubled parts of the country but to accuse the “traitor rebel rats” of forcing people to eat pork. To add insult to injury the actual ration pack had the word “Beef” unmistakably printed on it. Nonetheless, Libyan viewers are assumed stupid enough to take the presenters word for it. The presenter proceeded to open the package and repeatedly claim that Libyans were now "eating pork" because of the treachery and conspiracy of the “crusading NATO rebels”. Of course, eating pork, out of choice, is forbidden in Islam. To such effect Gaddafi has so desperately played on religious sentiments since the No Fly Zone was implemented; widely interpreted though it has been. The "NATO Crusading Rebels" title seamlessly replaced the Al-Qaeda brand initially attributed to Libya’s opposition by Gaddafi. Alleged civilian victims suddenly became “Muslim Imams” targeted by the infidel crusaders.

For several months now, reports have circulated like wildfire over Gaddafi’s TV channels being taken off air by legal as well as military means. Nothing has yet materialised. Lo and behold the channels' reporting of the UK's riots; it has taken their propaganda to new levels of insanity. However, comparing Gaddafi's idyllic jamahiriya with rioting Britain is nothing new to "Libyan State TV". Segments of football hooliganism with the word "their democracy" contrasted with Libyans cheering for Gaddafi under the words "our democracy" have been a regular filler on Gaddafi TV for the past 30 odd years.
Gaddafi’s sons have also ascertained the role of the clergy. Saif and Saadi have both dabbled with Islamic doctrine to try and quash opposition to their apparently holy father, mainly by justifying the killing of those that disobey him. Saadi even appeared showing off his collection of Islamic textbooks. These books were stacked in piles all several feet high on a bar slab in clear view of his collection of beer, wine and spirit glasses. The logical travesty of this scene aside, Gaddafi state TV still presented it as evidence of the bearded son of a dictator’s religious credibility. Libyan viewers, ignorant pathetic crowd fillers that Gaddafi assumes them to be, and having lost their ability to think for themselves, will believe the all-knowing Gaddafi household and praise his son’s inherently undisputable Islamic acumen.

Another second generation Gaddafi that hasn’t hesitated to trample all over Libya’s commonsense is Mousa Ibrahim al-Gaddafi. Use of his father’s name instead of his family name, perhaps, makes his vile decrees that little bit less cringe-worthy, although finding anything more sickening than his slimy guise of pathological lies is likely to be impossible. He openly boasts about his 15 year accolade in the UK. Surely, all Libyans have had the opportunity to enjoy state sponsored overseas studies for such duration; only to return home to a government official post. During his explanation for Mousa Kousa's departure from Libya, he did not hesitate to admit that Libyans often sought medical treatment in Tunisia and that an ill and aging Mousa Kousa travelled there for this purpose. News of the defection aside, Mousa Ibrahim’s hesitation, at Libya’s humiliating dependency on neighbouring nations for essential services the government claims to provide, leaves little for the imagination in terms of the regime’s cover-up culture. Mousa Ibrahim Gaddafi went as far as to denounce God's ability to decide the fate of Libyans, on
live television. Perhaps the fate of Libyans is something Gaddafi alone is worthy of deciding as according to the heretic scriptures of his murderous cult, the green book, which incidentally teaches that “all Libyans are Muammar Gaddafi”.
Cities near Tripoli, crushed by Gaddafi at the start of the uprising, are treated with the regime's according decor.

The world sadly embraced the regime’s second generation, as it indirectly did Gaddafi, and had no issue in grooming them for the roles they prematurely and unlawfully began to inherit. Syria’s current massacre is living proof of despot descendants keeping it in the family. You’d think the sons would lighten up a little but the bastard’s tend to take to their bastard fathers. So was it wrong of the world's conscience to have pandered to Gaddafi over the past decade or so? After all, Gaddafi’s regime splashed so much cash around it made internet porn seem scarce; billions on hedge funds and hundreds of millions on leisure alone. The Gaddafis’ self bestowed right to burn Libyan money was not for anyone to judge, was it? Their father funded terrorism, he let a few thousand heads role here and there, but he got away with it and that’s what counts. He must have been on to something. His sons were buying real-estate, hosting fashion shows, throwing VIP parties, sponsoring art, sport and education institutions. What was not to like? They weren’t just on our side in the War on Terror, filling their jails with bearded men, or just stopping waves of African migrants washing up on Europe’s shores and not enslaving them in any way. They had plans to make Libya the Norway of North Africa. Plus, their slobbering accents conveniently reinstated our intellectual superiority. That was always going to be a bonus. Of course, we let them have their fun, PhDs, prizes, titles... the works! Simply too much was at stake for Western and Eastern corporate interests. Why scratch the surface? Libyans opposed to Gaddafi could count their blessings for being granted refugee status in Europe and America. Minimum wage, baby! Bloody immigrants can count their blessings for making it to the Free World. Libyans in Libya were left to deal with it. Exiled, imprisoned or executed loved ones? Victims of torture or persecution themselves? Time was meant to be the greatest healer! Libyans were not exactly at risk of starvation like other African nations, which we all trusted Gaddafi would do something about; the African visionary that he is (wink, wink...).

All we needed to know about Libya was whatever Gaddafi’s multimillion contract PR agents came up with; even if it meant the terms human rights, reform and democracy in the same sentence as Gaddafi, or with any of the names of his budding spawn! Come on, the image really worked for a while, didn't it? You see, sometimes, when the price is really, really right, we just tend to go with the flow.

Sunday, 7 August 2011

Libyans: Mindset from a Voided Past

What might be worth taking into account is the demoralisation and degradation that Gaddafi afflicted on the mindset of Libyan people. Its mass perhaps rivalled only by the immense supply of arms he acquired over the decades. Even in the wake of the current revolution some Libyans opposed to Gaddafi remain oblivious to the remaining control Gaddafi’s rule still has over their newly liberated outlooks. Gaddafi’s nonsensical ramblings have not strictly been confined to insulting other nations. His outbursts were always laced with idiotic allegations such as Shakespeare being an Arab originally called Sheikh Zubair, or that Americans ate burgers made of nothing but cockroaches collected from off their dirty street floors. Despite the lunacy of Gaddafi's rants and the illogic of his literature, hordes of Libyan men and women smothered their conscience in Gaddafi’s delusional dogma and barked and howled with every other fallacy he uttered. All in order to get their bloody hands on what little scraps Gaddafi dispensed in return for bringing misery and distress to fellow citizens.

In the late 1990s an Arab news channel called ANN hosted Prince Mohammed Al-Hassan Al-Ridha, heir to Libya’s former throne. Despite the power-cuts that coincided with the programme's broadcast, many Libyans still got to watch the live interview using generators or eventually catching repeats and recordings. During the interview calls were taken from several viewers. Interestingly, despite the program’s polite and civil setting for the discussion of Libya’s political future, one of Gaddafi sons, believed to be Saadi using a bogus name, called the program and arrogantly revelled in how Gaddafi came to power on the back of a tank and that anyone that dared rival Gaddafi would have to take on his military might. Saadi, of all Gaddafi’s sons, was sent to Benghazi at the start of the current uprising. Residents actually complained to Saadi about the armed thugs that had attacked them. Despite the initial killings of peaceful protesters people appeared oblivious to Saadi’s ulterior motives during a public meeting that was held. However, as the regime’s violence persisted in the face of the growing protests a pattern emerged and Saadi escaped from Benghazi to Tripoli. Saadi’s first attempt to ease the initial unrest was to make a radio broadcast. This only outraged protestors further as he, in the same condescending and delusional manner of his father, deemed all their demands material issues to which he would look into satisfying at his own accord; having sought permission from his father to attend to Benghazi's grievances in person. Of course, Gaddafi and his sons don’t deny their responsibility to feed and water obedient Libyans. It’s God’s work that they are burdened with. However, finding the time for Libyans is a real drag, considering the international demand for the Gaddafis. Again, something Libyans are assumed unable to comprehend because of their intellectual limitations.

Miraculously, despite eyewitness reports of Saadi’s role in orchestrating the massacre that took place in Benghazi, and other eastern cities, BBC’s Panorama caught up with him within days of his return to Tripoli. One former detainee spoke of how Saadi thrust a shoe down the captive's mouth while he was held in Benghazi's Katiba; days before the city was liberated. The witness spoke of prisoners being taunted for their light skin colour on the premise that their grandmothers were raped by Italians. The witness also spoke of mercenaries being encouraged to sexually violate male detainees; all in Saadi’s presence. The horrors reported are too many to list in this context. However, despite these allegations, the son of a dictator merely used his BBC appearance to comment about his failed effort to talk sense into the armed "fundamentalists" of the allegedly “separatist Libyan east”. In another international interview since then, Saadi expressed his inconvenience at not being able to travel abroad in order to indulge in safari hunting, among various other extravagant hobbies, due to what he regarded as unfair sanctions imposed on his family by the UN.

The audacity of Gaddafi apologists is unforgivable. They are eager to erode the collage of criminal threats his sons have carried out in recent months. Some still write about Saif as the misunderstood reformist who got caught in the middle of all the chaos. As though to say: none of this would be happening if Saif could have ever had things his way. The very fact that he is the only subject of debate in what little of Libyan politics existed during his father’s rule is all the proof Libyans need to expose the nepotism Saif and his siblings resemble. Saif can sweet talk international reporters all he likes. This only helps further demonstrate his hypocrisy and hidden agendas. Libyans got their answer a long time ago when Saif, the so-called artist and academic, was asked what portrait he would paint to embody his father’s status. Saif’s arrogance was summed up in his answer: that he would paint the Libyan coastline and tell all those that opposed his father to "drink from the sea"; or, in other words, go to hell.

Almost a decade later, democracy, reform, dialogue, business, among other terms he throws around during interviews aimed at his English speaking global audience, are naturally replaced with heresy and abuse toward Libyans when speaking to his local audience in Arabic. Reporters can give Saif the most selective questions to help trigger his interview responses in a favourable light. More logic could be expected from a talking pea. Being asked by reporters why the West all of a sudden turned violent against “Libya” after literally being in bed with Gaddafi, and other similarly manipulated questions, only induces Saif to the ego fix his so desperately craves. His responses often boast of how close of a personal friend he was to various world leaders and how the confused West will ultimately come crawling back to him for money; as they always did in the past.
Mere opposition to Gaddafi does not, however, guarantee sensible conduct. Bizarre conclusions are drawn on Libya’s reaction to NATO support by some Gaddafi opponents as well. An 'Imam' that had been in exile in the UK for many years returned to Benghazi in recent months. He was welcomed to lead Friday prayers in freedom square. However, during his speech, he was quick to criticize the people of Benghazi for praying under the many international flags that are flown over the square. He claimed that among these flags were the flags of non-Islamic nations. Some of these displayed the cross others symbolised destruction to Muslim countries in recent years. The Union Jack was among these flags. However, the Imam never objected to himself benefitting from the safe refuge Britain had formerly granted him. Surely the Imam had no objection to praying on British soil under the various flags that are raised throughout the United Kingdom. Quite rightly, the Imam was not invited back to give any further speeches in Benghazi’s freedom square. This could be an indication to that Libyans have tolerated just about enough psychological blackmail and moral guilt-tripping to allow for any bigotry of this sort to ensue.

Belittling the mindset of Libyans is, therefore, not exclusive to Gaddafi. Indeed, some of his opponents have amassed frustrations over the decades and could, therefore, utter stale and subjective views about niggling matters that have been out of their debatable reach for so long. Interestingly, for Libyans, this revolution was neither driven nor sparked by Gaddafi’s obvious opponents. The people that found the courage to speak out when they did, and take to the streets on the scale which they did, have every right to call it theirs. Nevertheless, a unified proposition, to either achieve a free and dignified life or die for its sake, is in itself an emancipation the majority of Libyans have come to acknowledge. Gaddafi’s horrid romp will subside, albeit over our dead bodies.

Mad Dog Gone god of the Fogged Green Bog

Gaddafi pronounced himself a deity in the mid 70s. This occurred during a speech in which he hailed Stalin as a god that was worshiped beyond the grave. Waving a copy of his newly unveiled green book, Gaddafi demanded equal devotion from Libyans as that of Stalin’s alleged worshipers. This was a drastic shift from the Naser-inspired people’s Arab republic and the Egypt-style flag that won Gaddafi Libya’s youthful cheers just a few years earlier; when his bloodless military coup was orchestrated. Gaddafi’s private “jamahiriya”, his bloodthirsty revolutionary committees and his green flag were all Libyans were left with, instead of their naive republican aspirations. Since then, Libyans have been addressed not as a people but as a populous liability. The role of the population was to worship Gaddafi in every manner possible. Endless slogans immersed Libya’s popular culture. These slogans glorified Gaddafi in the distinguished manner he demanded, whilst denouncing all and everything that could have otherwise been attributed to Libya in a positive light.
The problem with Gaddafi worshipers is their perception of government and leadership. The leader rules and always takes priority over the people. The people can starve but the ruler must always enjoy the luxury he rightly deserves. The people have no voice or rights except whatever little gets by those in power. Security and defence revolve around the regime's elite’s wellbeing and not that of the people or wider nation. Even in the wake of the current revolution, and among some of those opposed to Gaddafi, some Libyan citizens can only anticipate a just “ruler” to replace previous unjust “rule”. The view of elected politicians serving the people for a fixed term isn’t clearly grasped. Political pluralism and courteous competition almost certainly raise concerns of favouritism, corruption and conflict. The perception of political leadership is almost stripped of any day-job or human qualities. Holding a state office is second only to God, though Gaddafi presents himself on a par with the Almighty. There is no doubt that democracy will be hard to swallow by many, as people have for so long seen rulers rule with an iron fist and self-righteously cling on to “power” for as long as they’ve lived.

In Libya, unsurprisingly, Gaddafi worshipers have gone as far as mentioning Mustafa Abdul Jalil, head of the National Transitional Council, in some of their hateful chants. However, they have gone further than verbally ridiculing Mr Abdul Jalil and insulting him but vowing that they would never swap or chose him as a ruler over Gaddafi. Sadly, masses of Libyans still just do not get it. Mr Abdul Jalil is not claiming to be a “brother leader” of a popular revolution, as Gaddafi claimed over the dubiouse bloodless military coup. The whole point of toppling Gaddafi is to end his dark age of idolism to allow for Libyan citizens to hold their own heads high rather than lower them to a select few in the name of political rule. Mr Abdul Jalil merely rose to the unenviable challenge of providing the revolution with the political establishment it so desperately needed, as matters took a dramatically violent turn. Neither Mr Abdul Jalil, in his temporary capacity, nor any future elected leader will demand people’s devout admiration in the perverted fashion Gaddafi is obsessed with. Gaddafi’s worshipers simply do not grasp this concept; as though doomed by a curse or spell. They openly express how if it wasn’t for NATO cities in their entirety would be rightfully wiped out. Libya’s opposition, on the other hand, isn’t fighting for a person or against any part of Libya’s civil society. Nevertheless, Gaddafi’s worshipers fail to comprehend their own human potential in a liberated Libya.

Too many Libyans have been profoundly conditioned to idolise Gaddafi, recite his idioms, and not much else. Libyans, old and young, that humiliate themselves by pledging their devotion to Gaddafi are simply exploited by the regime for that very purpose; to make predetermined statements of loyalty and submission to their almighty saviour. These displays are always part of stage-managed regime-coordinated charades. Yet, international media relay these to the world as spontaneous and representative renditions. Apart from viewers not being able to tell whether crowd dwellers are Libyan at all and not military immigrants from Chad, Mali or Niger, one wonders why something as distorting as duress seemingly fails to be equated into coverage assumed by international press. Nonetheless, despite the preconditions of reporting under regime supervision, have any of these Gaddafi chanting green blooded Libyans ever been asked who they are as individuals, what they do for a living, what their level of education is, what their aspirations in life are, what their outlooks on global political affairs are, why it is that they worship Gaddafi, what threat democracy poses to them or even whether they know anything accurate about Libya’s own history pre-1969 or thereafter? These Libyans have been conditioned in order not to count as humans capable of forming individual opinions or realising their identities – they are nothing and Gaddafi is everything, they have nothing and Gaddafi brings everything, they know nothing and Gaddafi tells everything, and they have no inhibition in making such admission to reap the cheap rewards Gaddafi has to offer. These Libyans are at ease with vowing to kill all humanity for the sake of Gaddafi, at least in front of the cameras, arguably oblivious to what such claims reflect on them as individuals. Then again, they have little leeway to envisage a state in which they would think and decide for themselves.
Regime-made banners left behind a staged pro-Gaddafi demonstration.

The manner by which many Libyans still believe Gaddafi’s anecdotes is a cause for concern, even among those that openly oppose Gaddafi whether prior to or following the Feb17 revolution. Gaddafi’s mind control over his minions is of biblical proportion, a false god with absolute intellectual domination over swarms of dependant creatures. Gaddafi alleges that the current military intervention is a colonialist retaliation from Gaddafi, since he singlehandedly defeated Italy, Britain, America and France, and expelled them from Libyan soil. Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher’s 1986 air strikes were a continuation of the same failed colonial mission. Libyans are assumed too stupid to realize that Italian occupation came to an end in Libya not only due to the 40 year armed and political resistance Libyans pursued but also as a result of the fascist defeat by the Allies in WWII. Gaddafi’s infinite manipulative means distort the premise of current international intervention to align himself with Libya’s forefathers that allegedly never formed allegiances with the West. Siding with the Allies in WWII never happened, as far as Gaddafi’s theory goes. The strings of psychological blackmail drawn ever tighter around the deceived Libyan people, as Gaddafi persists to isolate Libyans from accessing foreign support on grounds of cowardice and treachery. Many Libyans have been led to believe that their ancestors achieved the unachievable all by themselves.

Today’s generations are guilt-tripped into feeling uneasy about NATO assistance, or even forming relationships with non-Arab and non-Muslim states, not just because of outcomes in Iraq or Afghanistan but mainly because Gaddafi meddled so cunningly with Libya’s history. Libya’s alliance with the British in WWII is barely known to have ever occurred among generations of Libyans. Such cooperation goes against Libyan principles. Hence, Libyans aspire to the brave legacy of racing to their own death, when taking on better equipped armies that come in greater numbers, as Libyan history allegedly foretells. This effectively cripples the moral stance of Libyans with guilt and confusion – Gaddafi still doing what he has always done so well. All that Libyans have to know is that their ancestors fought and fought with the little that they had and that colonial powers were eventually defeated when Gaddafi came to power. God forbid any patriotic political entities ever existed in Libya before his coup.

Today’s National Transitional Council, and the results it aims to achieve, may help educate generations of Libyans about the significance of political astuteness. Gaddafi would have had them believe that politics is something he alone has managed to grasp. Libyans were only ever the primitive strongmen on horseback that courageously took on the tanks of the foreign invaders. Libyan fighters crushed their enemies, foreigners and Libyan traitors alike. Alleged descendents of the latter have been openly exterminated by Gaddafi throughout his reign, and targeted to this day out of blame for the current revolution. The only honourable Libyans were those that fell in battle against Libya’s many enemies. No politicians, no intellectuals. The only honourable Libyan to have lived ever since, though far more acclaimed, is Gaddafi. His sons unsurprisingly second that. Could Gaddafi's worshipers, haemorrhaged by his excessive propaganda and manipulated since the start of the uprising in February, be expected to denounce their god of over 40 years, without any grasp of reason or self-worth? Could crowds misled since birth be guided out of a bog were scoundrels are revered? The mad dog will not be cheered when the feared green fog is cleared.

The below videos demonstrate the mentality of Gaddafi's worshipers and the extent of mind control he exerts over them to the detriment of their fellow Libyans.

Among hurls of racial slurs and both verbal and physical abuse Gaddafi militia attempt to blackmail their Libyan captives into admitting Gaddafi's favours by manipulatively asking: Who made you men in front of the English the French and the Jews?

Here, among several insults and abuses, Gaddafi's militia's blackmail poses a perverse proposition to the Libyan captives by asking: Do you want Italians and Americans to frolic with our daughters?

“Hands off Libya” Gaddafi isn’t done with her yet!

Machines of influence will always be busy at work. Selective emphasis and pre-emptive accusation are second nature to those supposedly entrusted with accurately informing the masses. However, enough media scandals have emerged in recent times for most people to realise the media’s sinister kinship with politics, and that of politics with the economy. Notwithstanding this, Britain’s leftwing, enraged by the Murdoch saga, simultaneously express admiration and support to Gaddafi. The seemingly unstoppable control of a media mogul pounds on the consciences of activists throughout the UK. The malignant paralysis of a nation in its entirety, inflicted by a psychotic cult, is a matter of indifference. Opposition to NATO’s operation is on grounds of UN hypocrisy - “Libya is all about oil, not saving lives”. If only alleged costs to taxpayers weren’t taken out of context to deter public opinion, and if only lives taken and ruined by Gaddafi were equally detested by those that oppose NATO's operation, perhaps their apologetic stance on Gaddafi wouldn't be so revolting.

Here in the UK, after weeks of protests outside Gaddafi’s embassy in London, Libya’s pro-democracy demonstrators eventually took their protest to 10 Downing Street. To think that the Anti-War Coalition took part in this demonstration now seems unimaginable. Back then the leftwing was supposedly on side with the Libyan people, just as they claim to be on side with the Yemeni, Bahraini and Syrian people. Yet, as soon as Libyans, with invaluable support from around the world, got the international response they so desperately needed, the left imminently switched sides as a matter of principle rejection of any international use of force; albeit tailored to the needs necessitated by Gaddafi’s unprovoked onslaught. Anyone that suggests Gaddafi’s mob comprehends political compromise, tact, dialogue or diplomacy is clearly unaware of what Gaddafi and his worshipers believe, and what they are bent of doing based on their delusion. Perhaps Libya was a valid cause for leftwing activists so long as Gaddafi was massacring defenceless civilians. This was repealed the day some of the world fought back.

Many critics of the UN and NATO presume that Libyans opposed to Gaddafi are at ease with all Western foreign policies and decisions toward the 3rd world; especially those made in the past decade. They presume that the so-called Libyan rebels cherish news coverage provided by rightwing media and that, therefore, fundamental agendas inherent to the rightwing are preserved by Libya’s opposition. The Libyan people have been caught in an information paradox. Rightwing media is naturally critical of Arab regimes, more so a dictatorship with declared resentment of Israel, America and the West. Leftwing media is opposed to political and military shows of strength by the New World Order, and are readily opposed to foreign military intervention on grounds of national sovereignty. The international response to the cry of Libya’s revolution seemed to have opened the many fresh wounds inflicted by previous administrations in both America and Britain. Bush and Blair’s legacies are arguably still oozing with innocent blood and reeking of capitalist extortion.

The international response to Libya’s revolution is also contrasted with the lack of assertive action adopted toward Yemen, Bahrain and Syria; in addition to historic complacency toward Palestine. Propaganda aimed at discrediting Libya’s opposition has dubbed them darlings of the West. Ironically, the previously dominant rightwing media, often accused of prejudice and bias, is now countered by its leftwing abomination, possibly as equally prejudice and bias, albeit to the contrary. The reputation of the Libyan people’s cause has consequently swayed at the merciless whims of bickering contradiction between the likes of Fox News and Russia Today, CNN and Press TV, etc. Meanwhile Gaddafi State TV openly accuses Al-Jazeera of being a Mossad operation aimed at spreading instability and turmoil in otherwise safe, stable and secure Arab nations.

As Gaddafi continues to deny that any Libyans oppose his rule, his description of Libya’s revolutionaries grows confused as ever. Videos of Gaddafi’s sons rallying troops have consistently carried the same message to their brainwashed recruits. Whether eagerly putting their lives to the purpose or forced to battle beyond their will they are all ordered to have no mercy on the drug-taking alcohol-drinking pill-popping al-Qaeda extremist terrorist racist misogynist Israeli-colluding crusading eastern-separatist colonialist imperialist Zionist infidel traitor NATO rebel nit-infested stray dogs and rats! Gaddafi and his sons have even gone as far as to claim that the Star of David is tattooed on the bodies of Libyan rebels and that their weapons bear the Israeli flag and that they fight under the infidel cross, all in order to enrage the desensitised fighters that have been conditioned throughout their isolated military existence to hate Jews and Christians, and to hate Gaddafi’s political opponents that are either Muslim extremists that want to behead their children or faithless liberals that want to molest their wives. Bernard-Henri Lévy’s visits to both Benghazi and Misrata were immediately portrayed as proof of a Zionist plot to invade Libya. A photo of Lévy, addressing a crowd in Israel, was attached to photos of him with members of Libya’s opposition and shown on Gaddafi TV and websites.

It is baffling that, despite such abhorrent manipulation, political activists and media commentators still find it in themselves to blame military intervention in Libya’s revolution for the apparently sudden economic and political frustrations of the world. A former Editor of a News International tabloid shed doubt on whether there was ever any threat at all posed by Gaddafi on Libyan civilians. A former MP associated NATO’s operation in Libya with rising student fees and rising fuel costs for pensioners. The same MP seems adamant that Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine all share a common political grievance.

Here’s a taste of the tone of self-righteous sacrilege spewed by swarms of Gaddafi apologists that have, in recent months, callously scavenged on Libya’s sorrows:

Libyans don’t have it as bad as we are made to think. Cambodia and Congo had it much worse. This world is appeased with Gaddafi, the mad dog of yesteryear, the showman revolutionary tamed in the wake of the ubiquitous War on Terror. Libyan citizens have no adorning qualm. Gaddafi is Libya; and that is all the world needs to know. Gaddafi’s propriety and that of his sons is not open to question. It is their nation to rule, so don’t be fooled by what any Libyan may say otherwise. Libyans accept what Gaddafi imposes. Gaddafi is the all knowing as far as Libyans are concerned. Libyans opposed to Gaddafi are evil villains that should never be trusted and deserve to be tortured, exiled and killed. Libya had no history prior to Gaddafi. Gaddafi liberated Libya from the Western colonial powers. Gaddafi reclaimed the nation’s resources for the common good. Gaddafi wanted a single currency for Africa. Gaddafi empowered Africans and women. Gaddafi gave Libya its deserving identity: the cradle of Arab nationalism, the saviour of African unity... and out pours the vomit in its spiteful verbal form!

As for “Hands Off Libya”, the banner may as well say: Hold Libya’s legs wide open, let Gaddafi have his way.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

RE: Nightly Britain bombs Tripoli. Bar death, what do we achieve? by Simon Jenkins

Comment on Guardian article, Tuesday 2 August 2011 21.00 BST

Compared with articles in recent weeks, this addresses real issues without going on a blatant rampage against either side of the conflict. It also gives potential shortfalls in British politics a fair amount of attention. The fact that its title asks a question, rather than making a conclusion, is arguably the impartial approach Libya's conflict needs; now more than ever before.

However, few points could still be made to help contextualize some of the details touched on in this article:
Since the start of unrest, Gaddafi TV has broadcast nothing but black propaganda; forced confessions among other deceptive displays. The channel has incited tribal feud and retribution and initiated several codes for 5th column agents to carryout terrorist attacks. Of course, that fact that it once broadcasted live executions of university students may be deemed irrelevant in the limited scope of assessing Libya’s case based on events since February this year.

6 month is being considered a prolonged mission. Perhaps it isn’t the week long assault some envisaged it to be but neither is it the 8 year or decade long missions endured in Iraq and Afghanistan. 6 months is a mere 1.4% of Gaddafi’s 492 months (41 years) of brutality.
Civilian casualties caused by NATO are not in excess of a thousand, as the author confesses. The tens of innocent civilians slain by NATO are exaggerated by staged destructions of civilian targets by Gaddafi. Two of my close friends managed to escape to Tunisia this week. They had been stuck in Tripoli since February. They have both worked with international broadcasters in the past including the BBC on the production of Correspondent and Panorama documentaries. Several reporters I managed to establish communications with in the Rixos Hotel attempted to meet these friends on various occasions. After several brief and encrypted phone conversations the risk established was way too high. Their witness accounts and grassroots grievances from Tripoli will surface in the days ahead.

Current UK or US foreign policy is not responsible for Bush and Blair’s Afghan and Iraq ventures.
No occupying ground forces have been deployed.

Libya is not a civil war. Iraq wasn’t a civil war. Afghanistan had recovered from a decade of civil war and was under the arguably questionable rule of the Taliban. Neo-conservatives embarked on both these missions in response to 9/11.

International powers involved in Libya responded to majority demands from within Libya. The Libyan people have no fault in hailing from an oil rich nation which some foreign governments may view as a primary ground for intervention.

Libya has spent 10s of Billions on annual foreign investments, domestic contracts and arms deals. Libyans have not benefited from this national revenue in a rightful manner. Gaddafi has exploited the nation’s revenue for the entertainment of his delusional fantasies and the imposition of his sons as the nation’s future rulers at the expense of violating the basic rights of the Libyan population and demeaning the nation’s reputation.
Britain repaid the US billions in WWII debts over the past 60 years. People that fail to grasp Gaddafi‘s threat perhaps do not have any reservations over the consequences of fascist Nazi domination of Europe.

Gaddafi inflicted and continues to inflict far more death and destruction on Libyans than what Assad has resumed on Syrians in recent months. It is a disgrace that no so-called Arab or Islamic nation is batting an eye to the massacres. It would be interesting if Russia or China (not US, UK or France) perhaps pulled its weight behind the Syrian people or Yemenis of Bahrainis. However, any foreign power that acts under UN provision may still be criticized if it only manages to prevent genocide and grant a popular uprising a new lease of life albeit by means of an armed struggle after 6 whole long impetuous months of limited intervention?

UK politics, and world politics as a whole, with the legal and administrative structures it engulfs, is all too worthy of criticism and scrutiny for failures and shortfalls. The MEDIA is equally at fault.

Libya has been subjected to a fierce wave of misinformation and manipulation especially since coalition strikes began in March. The NATO handover and the opportunity that gave Gaddafi to crush the west of the country in order to demonstrate his alleged east / west divide miraculously failed. Tens of thousands of Libyans are paying the price every day and night. The media, however, is no longer concerned with Libyan lives taken by Gaddafi, as though that was his lawful right. Assad is repeatedly given as an example for how Gaddafi should have been allowed to pursue his onslaught and not the other way around.

The free world’s troubled taxpayers seem to have found an inherently nullified population to scapegoat for all their arguably long standing miseries; Libyans duly becoming the irrelevance Gaddafi formerly reduced us to.

Monday, 1 August 2011

Flaws in the News of General Younes' Death

The death of General Abdul Fattah Younes may rightly raise many questions, and even lead some to shed doubts over the National Transitional Council’s grip on security in the growing parts of Libya it controls. However, amidst the inherent media speculation that would expectedly emerge in the wake of such a suspicious incident, several key events both leading to and following the incident have either been omitted or reported completely and utterly inaccurately. The omission of arguably incriminating leads to the culprits of the killing and the allegation of fictitious occurrences in its aftermath are both damning elements that must be reviewed by the relevant regulatory bodies.

International press ought to refrain from such irresponsible reporting considering the damage and distress it causes to people with enough grief on their hands as it is. Gaddafi’s regime and its communications apparatus have initiated far too many false claims only to prove otherwise in order to discredit their foe. Gaddafi’s arguable deceptive and relentless PR tactics far outwit the basic media acumen of the NTC. The least international media can deploy is the due accuracy and impartiality free press in under an obligation to adhere by. Tripoli has remained out of bounds to reporters and human rights organisations. While Libya’s opposition have been the subject of systematic smearing Gaddafi’s gruesome infestations have either gone unnoticed or morally reconciled due to NATO’s intervention.
Not a single story covering the death of Younes mentioned Gaddafi’s State TV announcement earlier last week that “good news” can be expected to be heard about General Younes within 48 hours. The 5th column acted accordingly, precisely all within days of NTC recognition by the UK.
However, mention of the recent allegation of Younes’ death made by Gaddafi state TV and the dubious hint of his alleged contact with the regime made by Gaddafi’s daughter fall short of revealing the repeated false claims made by Gaddafi TV about Younes siding with Gaddafi. Old footage of Younes present with Gaddafi was shown on more than one occasion to allude to viewers that Younes had gone back to Gaddafi’s side. Vicious rumours were spread by Gaddafi’s 5th column and regime informers about Younes allegedly being overheard speaking to Gaddafi on the phone by saying “yes sir” which he is reported to have only ever said to Gaddafi. Other rumours claimed that he had smuggled arms to Gaddafi’s troops as well as giving deliberate reckless orders resulting in many casualties coming under heavy fire; and the list goes on to this effect. What almost every story on the death of this constantly targeted man seems to present is a complete diversion from the obvious malicious intent of Gaddafi’s regime. Blame has been pointed toward almost every tier of Libya’s opposition. However, barely any suspicion seems to have emerged over Gaddafi’s arguably imperative role in masterminding not just the assassination but the influx of controversy and confusion it would unleash.
Numerous reputable and alternative news sources have all consistently stated intimate details of an alleged emotional breakdown by one of Younes sons at his father’s funeral. The detailed accounts as state that Younes’ son spoke in favour of Gaddafi’s rule and even called for the return of Gaddafi’s green flag.

Here are three examples of the intimate accounts as reported by left, right and alternative news sources:
The Guardian:
At Younis's funeral, his son Ashraf called for Gaddafi's return to bring stability back to Libya. "We want the green flag back," he shouted to the crowd, referring to Gaddafi's national banner. It was a risky display of emotion in a region so supportive of the rebels.

Sobbing uncontrollably as his father's body was lowered into the ground, Ashraf Younes began to shout repeatedly: "We want Muammar to come back! We want the green flag (of the Gaddafi regime) back!"

At the funeral Younes had a 300 gun salute and his son broke down crying to the crowd, “We want Muammar Gaddafi to come back! We want the green flag back!”

As it happens the BBC reported the funeral procession in video and no such events were either caught on camera or noted in the accompanying text.

Aside from this alleged event not appearing on the BBC’s footage, or on any other footage recorded to that matter, endless accounts by eye witnesses present at the funeral have unreservedly denied the occurrence of any such display not just by Younes’ son but by any funeral goers.
Among those present at the funeral was my own father, Abdul Fattah Senussi, a retired university professor and an old friend of Younes. His friendship with the deceased goes all the way back to the 1960s. He was present with several other close friends and associates, which also attended the funeral, when I asked him over the phone to verify whether there was any truth in this story. He was shocked to hear such allegation and so were his companions. They all confirmed that no such event occurred. However, they seemed to be more concerned over the fact that such a baseless and damning rumour, unheard of in Benghazi, had made its way to international media. It indicated to a potential deliberate misleading of international opinion; most likely pursued by Gaddafi supporters still in contact with international media.

Was the story’s source a “trustworthy” Gaddafi minder in Tripoli’s Rixos hotel? Where did this bogus account otherwise originate? Should General Younes’ sons hold a press conference to formally deny and condemn such claims would all the news agencies that reported these false allegations revoke their inaccurate reports? Would public apologies be offered to the bereaved family?
Younes’ family held the third and final night of the bereavement ceremony in Benghazi’s Freedom Square, outside the courthouse, to accommodate the masses that flocked from all around the country to pay their respects. The choice of location was also a display of national unity and solidarity against Gaddafi.

The manner in which this incident has been reported complies almost exclusively with Gaddafi’s blatant threats and claims about the fate that awaits General Younes in person and Benghazi as a whole. Nevertheless, No due accuracy or impartiality can be said to have applied this story. Media coverage of Libya’s crisis seems to have gauged at an all time low in terms of journalistic integrity. An article in The Independent, by Kim Sengupta, on 27 July 2011, among many other articles by many other authors, demonstrates the illogical political bias many have taken against Libya’s opposition and the NATO mission. At a time when Libya is drawing closer than ever to ending the tyrannical rule of Gaddafi, remnants of his manipulative PR and media infiltration remain abound.
The Telegraph went on to quote Gaddafi’s spokesman from Tripoli, with whatever underworld authority he still claims, in a response to Younes’ death stating that: "It is a nice slap in the face of the British that the council that they recognised could not protest its own commander of the army,"

Despite UK denouncement of Gaddafi’s authority, and recognition of the National Transitional Council , The Telegraph still labelled Mousa Ibrahim Gaddafi as the “Libyan government's spokesman” as opposed to the Gaddafi Mafia spokesman (the below photos are a glimpse of the company Mousa Al-Gaddafi keeps). Sadly, his 15 year Libyan-state-paid adventure in the UK seems to have won him some undeserved charm over international media. The continuation of the Rixos hotel journalistic circus is a void of suspicion in itself, considering the untold massacres that Tripoli’s residents have been engulfed in under the noses of the world’s press.
Another recent article by Kim Sengupta in The Independent, on Saturday 30 July 2011, embodied the political gains Gaddafi’s regime would reap from the killing of Younes by suggesting every possible blameworthy party as a likely suspect expect Gaddafi himself. So called rebel division, shady Islamist affiliation and tribal retribution all in one assassination executed at the crucial moment of NTC recognition by the UK - the one nation Gaddafi and his sons thought to have had ownership over since the release of the Lockerbie suspect in return for lucrative contracts in oil, security and arms as Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi repeatedly boasts. The revolting association with reputable British Higher Education institutions also leaves the Gaddafi’s with particular bitterness over the UK recognising the NTC.

Libya can only hope that this episode is the last of its kind. The attempted mongering of nonexistent tribal feuds, the bogus LIFG/Al-Qaeda allegation and the rival rebel faction fall-out, Gaddafi has so desperately tried to ensue, have all failed miserably. International media, nonetheless, has portrayed events as envisaged in Gaddafi’s parallel universe and not that of real life.
The Gaddafi regime business: for those who ever wonder whether money buys power...

This post was sent as an open letter, via email, to over 50 international news agencies on Monday 01 August 2011 at 07:45 AM GMT.