Libya : A no lie zone

[Ed Jewett]

Sudanese Army Seizes Southern Libyan Town

July 4th, 2011
Via: Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-town.html

The Sudanese army has seized a town in southern Libya that is the gateway to oilfields crucial to rebel hopes of establishing financial independence.

Officials overseeing the no-fly zone enforced by Nato over Libya said the Sudanese move north of border had not encountered resistance from troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.

Since the February uprising against his regime, the Libyan leader's forces have been concentrated around Tripoli, the capital; Sirte, the eastern town that is Col Gaddafi's birthplace and Sebha, the desert outpost where the dictator grew up.
Officials said control of the town of Kufra and nearby military base granted the Sudanese a key strategic foothold between the regime and the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) which holds the eastern seaboard and a series of rebel enclaves.

Posted in Energy, War

http://cryptogon.com/?p=23333

[Magda Hassan]

Libyan delegation reportedly visited Israel, met Livni

By JPOST.COM STAFF
07/10/2011 20:47

Senior delegation sent by Gaddafi attempted to alter Israeli perception of the embattled leader, passed along "digital media", Channel 2 says.

Talkbacks (3)
A delegation from Libya sent by leader Muammar Gaddafi recently visited Israel and met with opposition leader Tzipi Livni and other officials, Channel 2 reported on Sunday.

According to the report, the delegation of four senior Libyan officials received visas from the Israeli embassy in Paris after gaining approval from Israeli security services. Once in Israel, the delegation immediately asked to meet with Livni.

RELATED:
Gaddafi secretly tried to buy Knesset influence in 2007
Gaddafi invites Libya's former Jews to dialogue

Upon receiving the invitation for a meeting, Livni immediately turned to security officials, who gave their approval for the opposition leader to meet with the Gaddafi delegation.


According to the report, Gaddafi's motive in sending the officials was to attempt changing Israeli perceptions of the embattled Libyan leader, and to try and prevent Israel from supporting Libyan rebels, who have been fighting government forces for months.

As part of that effort, the Libyans reportedly gave Livni "digital media," which she handed over to security officials.

In the four-day visit, the senior Libyan officials reportedly met with other Israeli officials in addition to the opposition leader.

Earlier this year, a leader of a Jewish group told The Jerusalem Post that Libya secretly offered to give Israelis of Libyan descent an undisclosed sum of money if they agreed to form a "Libyan political party."

Meir Kahlon, chairman of the World Organization of Libyan Jews, said that between 2005 and 2007, he and two other members of his organization had secretly traveled to Amman to meet with a representative of the Libyan government over the unresolved issue of Jewish assets in the North African country.

"He said that they could not give us money directly because we live in Israel, but they were willing to give us money if we were to form a Libyan political party," said Kahlon, who lives in the Tel Aviv suburb of Or Yehuda.

"He didn't say how much, and I can't tell you the name of the official, but the offer was on the table."

Gil Shefler contributed to this report

[Magda Hassan]

Read the Pentagon transcript

Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was "No Confirmation Whatsoever" according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi "fired on his own people from the air"
The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians.
Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon.
On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, "admitted their utter ignorance as to what's happening on the ground in Libya"

(for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors' Justice and the "Responsibility to Protect": Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011)
Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance.

Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air?

SEC. GATES: We've seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.
ADM. MULLEN: That's correct. We've seen no confirmation whatsoever.
PENTAGON BRIEFING WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MODERATOR: COLONEL DAVID LAPAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MEDIA OPERATIONS LOCATION: PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA TIME: 2:44 P.M. EST DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011
Federal News Service
March 1, 2011 Tuesday
Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What -- is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces?
SEC. GATES:
... I would -- I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully.
Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we're thinking about, the options that we're providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that.
Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?
SEC. GATES: We've seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.
ADM. MULLEN: That's correct. We've seen no confirmation whatsoever.
Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?
SEC. GATES: Well, the -- I think the honest answer, David, is that we don't know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we're in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven't seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi's forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.
Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes -- (inaudible) -- have you heard of any of that?
SEC. GATES: No.
....
Q: Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, based on what you've seen to date, do you have any reason to think that Gadhafi would be prepared to leave voluntarily, or do you think that some form of force, whether it is rebels, whether ultimately it's U.N. sanctions, Western intervention, whether some form of force would be needed to push him out of power?
SEC. GATES: Well, all I can say is that sometimes you actually have to listen to what people say. And he's saying he's not leaving. (Scattered laughter.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=25103

[Carsten Wiethoff]

I still can't stop laughing.
So the SECDEF gets his best info from PRESS REPORTS (which by all likelyhood have been drafted by his own propaganda staff)?
They should have been asked what they know about mass rape and viagra as well...
These people can effectively say anything without any consequences, it seems. They just cannot be so incompetent as they claim, in other words, if they truly do not have confirmation by now, then it did not happen.
:loco:

[Jan Klimkowski]

Mullen and Gates, veteran deep political facilitators, are playing games here.

Their answers are designed to ridicule the justification for the War Against Gaddafi.

For months, they have been against the Libyan War.

Equally, Gates and Mullen are card-carrying members of the militrary-multinational-intelligence complex.

My questions are:
firstly, why are they opposed to this war?;
secondly, which war would they prefer that better serves the militrary-multinational-intelligence complex's interests?

[Peter Lemkin]

The top Military commander of the opposition force,s Younes, and two of his aides were apparently assassinated while being summoned to a meeting with the National Transitional Council that rules the Opposition in Bengazi. It has been said that it was a hidden group of Quiddafi forces who killed them, but it is all unclear at the moment. However/Whoever, it is a very significant event and will need lots of clarification.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Peter Dale Scott reveals the geopolitics of Libyan intervention here.

[Magda Hassan]

The war on Libya has not gone well. Kim Sengupta's report yesterday detailed this starkly:

"Fresh diplomatic efforts are under way to try to end Libya's bloody civil war, with the UN special envoy flying to Tripoli to hold talks after Britain followed France in accepting that Muammar Gaddafi cannot be bombed into exile.
"The change of stance by the two most active countries in the international coalition is an acceptance of realities on the ground. Despite more than four months of sustained air strikes by Nato, the rebels have failed to secure any military advantage. Colonel Gaddafi has survived what observers perceive as attempts to eliminate him and, despite the defection of a number of senior commanders, there is no sign that he will be dethroned in a palace coup.
"The regime controls around 20 per cent more territory than it did in the immediate aftermath of the uprising on 17 February."


If the Gadaffi regime is now more in control of Libya than before, then this completely undermines the simplistic view put about by the supporters of war - and unfortunately by some elements of the resistance - that the situation was simply one of a hated tyrant hanging on through mercenary violence. Of course, he uses whatever resources he has at his disposal, but a) it would seem that the involvement of imperialism has driven some Libyans back into the Gadaffi camp, as it's unlikely he would maintain control without some degree of support, and b) we know that rebellious sectors started to go back to Gadaffi within mere weeks of the revolt taking off, meaning in part that his resources of legitimising his regime were not exhausted even before the US-led intervention. Despite the defections, he has consolidated his regime in a way that would have seemed improbably in the early weeks of revolt. It's important to bear in mind what this means. Both Ben Ali and Mubarak had the support of the US and its major allies - especially Mubarak. They had considerable resources for repression, and there was financial aid being channelled to them, talks aimed at offering reforms to the opposition... and in the end they proved too brittle, too narrowly based, to stay in power. The state apparatus began to fragment and decompose. The protests kept spreading, and withstood the bloodshed. Nothing they could offer or threaten was sufficient. Gadaffi on the other hand has hung on in the face of not only a lack of support from his former imperialist allies, but active political, diplomatic and military opposition. That he did so to a considerable extent through sheer military superiority doesn't mean that the regime hasn't a real social basis.

Perhaps as important has been the weaknesses of the rebellion. I argued that the chief problem facing the revolt was that it had taken off before any civil society infrastructure had been built up to sustain the opposition. This meant that unrepresentative former regime elements were well-placed to step into the fray and take effective control. As a result of the defeats they faced, those arguing for an alliance with NATO grew stronger and gained more control. There's no question that if NATO really wanted to, they could defeat Gadaffi. It would, however, require a level of commitment (serious ground forces) that they aren't ready to use. I think this is because, far from this being a pre-planned wave of expansionism by the US, the decision to launch an aerial assault constituted a desperate act of crisis management which the 'realists' in the administration were never particularly happy with. Only the zealots of 'humanitarian intervention' could seriously have contemplated the kind of protracted, bloody land war in Libya that would have been necessary to win. So, the bet on an alliance with NATO now appears to have been doomed from the start, even on its own terms - even if the best outcome sought was nothing more than a slightly more liberal regime incorporated into the imperialist camp.

Now, what can Libya expect? The leading war powers are once more bruiting negotiations, but to what end? Gadaffi may be persuaded to abandon direct control, in which case the result will most likely be a moderately reformed continuity regime, with ties to European and US capital fully restored. There appears to be little prospect of his going into exile. But that's not all. The transitional council led by former regime elements continues to state that it is the only legitimate authority in Libya. It has been internationally recognised as such by a number of crucial powers. But this is pure cynicism. The imperialist powers know that the transitional council can't control all of Libya. They're certainly not taking any steps now to give them the military means to do so. So this means that the tendencies toward partion are sharpened. There are signs of such a resolution being offered as a 'temporary' measure to secure the peace and allow some process of national reconciliation to take place (note that this conflict has increasingly been described as a civil war). This would be economically disabling for all of Libya, including those territories controlled by the rebels. It would also be dangerous in ways that I hope I don't need to spell out.

The final justification for this debacle will be that speedy intervention, however half-hearted, prevented a massacre. Now, there may once have been reason to believe this. But there no longer is. Gadaffi has enough blood on his hands, and deserved to fall to the insurgents, but there's no reason to submit to war propaganda. In reality, as Amnesty put it, "there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen". Which is an interesting way of putting it. It's no secret that the coalition that was supposedly preventing a genocidal bloodbath in Libya was actually behind much of the bloodshed in Yemen. This completely demolishes the last leg of the moral case for war. The 'humanitarian interventions' of the 1990s left the US in a stronger position, both geopolitically and ideologically. I'm not convinced that this will be the result of the bombing of Libya. In fact, if there was any idea that the US could offer an alternative model of development for the populations of the Middle East, it now lies in ruins. It is more than unfortunate that Libya had to be reduced to ruins for this to become apparent.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/07/libya.html

[Jan Klimkowski]

Another assassination to foment Khaos.

Tribal strife and civil war.

Do the shooters know whose interests they serve?

I don't think so.

Abdel Fatah Younis assassination creates division among Libya rebels

Mourners descend on Benghazi for funeral parade following revelation ex-Gaddafi aide had been called back to city

The fractious coalition fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi was plunged into disarray on Friday as the mysterious death of the rebels' army commander sparked anger from his powerful tribe and distrust among those loyal to the cause.

The assassination of Abdel Fatah Younis, one of Gaddafi's former right-hand men and a high-profile defector to the rebels, was announced at a late-night press conference on Thursday by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, president of the ruling National Transitional Council. But yesterday Jalil, who said only that Younis had been killed on his way back to Benghazi where he had been "summoned" for questioning, failed to explain the circumstances of the death.

The killing of Younis came a day after Britain said that it had extended official recognition to the National Transitional Council. It is likely to have caused consternation in Whitehall after William Hague praised the "legitimacy and competence" of the rebels. The Foreign Office is now faced with the spectre of serious divisions within the rebels leading the five-month uprising against Gaddafi.

As hundreds of mourners took to the Benghazi streets for the funeral procession, the opposition capital was tense, with reports of gunfire in the early hours. As he followed Younis's coffin through the city, the commander's nephew, Abdul Hakim, told Reuters: "We got the body yesterday here [in Benghazi], he had been shot with bullets and burned."

Jalil had initially said the body of Younis had vanished, but it was paraded, together with those of a colonel and major killed with him, before mourners in Benghazi's Tahrir Square. Gathered for Friday prayers, they chanted his name as the coffins passed.

Hours before his death was made public, Younis was rumoured to have been arrested and detained in Benghazi by members of the NTC over links he had supposedly kept with the regime.

Under pressure to say whether Younis has been arrested before his death and if so, whether this was linked to his killing, Jalil refused to comment, failing to say where the attack happened, or when, or to confirm that the attackers were pro-Gaddafi elements, though he has announced one unnamed attacker has been arrested.

Suspicion that pro-rebel elements may have had a hand in the death of Younis was boosted when a special forces member under his command reportedly pointed the finger at a rebel faction. Mohammed Agoury told the Associated Press that he had been present when rebels from the February 17 Martyrs' Brigade came to Younis's operations room and took him away for questioning. In an accusation that reflected growing rifts in the rebel movement, Agoury said the group had killed Younis and dumped his body outside Benghazi.

Another account, reported by the rebels' Radio Misrata, said Younis had been killed after being attacked in a Benghazi hotel room, where he had been installed by the authorities after being summoned back to the rebel capital on Thursday for questioning. The report said Younis and two aides were dragged from the room by gunmen and later found burned and riddled with bullets on a city street. It said the identities of the gunmen were unknown. Neither Agoury's nor the radio station's report could be confirmed.

A Gaddafi regime spokesman claimed yesterday that al-Qaida killed Younis.

Whatever the truth of the killing, Jalil will face the hostility of Younis's clan, the biggest tribe in Benghazi, if he fails to conclusively show that rebel forces had no hand in the general's death. Members of the Obeidi tribe shot out the windows of the hotel where Jalil gave his late-night press conference, shouting that the rebel authorities had killed him. With the rebel coalition already fractious, a split with the largest tribal group is the last thing the NTC needs.

In the besieged city of Misrata, too, the death sparked consternation. Misrata's military spokesman joined the city's ruling council in emphasising that its army units did not take orders from Benghazi. And security was stepped up amid fears of attacks by pro-Gaddafi elements, the fabled "fifth column" that is an anxiety across rebel-held areas.

Younis was a controversial figure as chief of staff, having defected after quitting his post as Gaddafi's interior minister at the start of the revolution. Many in the rebel camp did not fully trust a man who had been a close confidant of Gaddafi for 40 years. When asked by the New York Times in April whether Younis had kept in contact with her father, Gaddafi's daughter Aisha "pointedly" refused to respond, reported the newspaper.

From a diplomatic point of view, the controversy over his death comes at a delicate time for the rebels. On Friday Britain, which firmly endorsed the NTC as the "sole governmental authority" on Wednesday, issued a statement which shied away from attributing responsibility for the assassination. The minister for the Middle East and North Africa, Alistair Burt, said: "Exactly what happened remains unclear. I welcome chairman Abd Al-Jalil's statement yesterday that the killing will be thoroughly investigated, and he reiterated this to me during our conversation. We agreed that it is important that those responsible are held to account through proper judicial processes."

Mahmoud al-Nacua, the newly appointed diplomatic envoy of the NTC in London, refused to comment.

In Brussels, Nato officials stressed that they were not fully in the picture on the circumstances of the murder, and that the military alliance did not want to be seen to be speaking for the opposition to Gaddafi. But they delivered a warning to the NTC, suggesting Nato was confident the opposition was to blame. "The opposition forces have a big responsibility to ensure the transition to democracy occurs in an orderly fashion. We expect them to live up to this," said a Nato official. "So far they've done a lot to ensure that this is an inclusive process, reaching out to different groups. We expect that to continue."

A Gaddafi spokesman said his forces had killed at least 190 rebels in fighting in the west of the country since Wednesday.


Chris Stephen in Misrata, Lizzy Davies and Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 July 2011 19.30 BST

[Keith Millea]

August 2, 2011

Dispatch From Libya

End Game for Benghazi Rebels as Libyan Tribes Prepare to Weigh In?

By FRANKLIN LAMB
Tripoli
On July 30, the day before this 97.5 per cent Muslim country began the holy month of Ramadan, NATO spokesperson Roland Lavoie has been lamely attempting to explain to the press at the Rexis Hotel and internationally, why NATO was forced to bomb three Tripoli TV towers at the Libyan Broadcasting Authority, killing three journalists/technicians and wounding 15 others. Like most people currently in central Tripoli, this observer was awakened at 1:50 a.m. by the first of a series of nine blasts, three of which I watched from my balcony as they happened, and which seemed to be about 800 yards away as I saw one TV tower being blown apart. On the four lanes' divided highway adjacent to my hotel and below my balcony, that runs along the sea front, I could see two cars frantically swerving left and right as they sped along, presumably trying to avoid a NATO rocket, fearing they themselves might be targeted.

According to NATO spokesperson Lavoie, allowing Libya's population to watch government TV, and by implication, to hear terrorist public service announcements concerning subjects as gasoline availability, food distribution for Ramadan, updates on areas to be avoided due to recent NATO bombing, prayers and lectures by Sheiks on moral and religious subjects during Ramadan or see the Prayer Times chart posted on government TV, during this month of fasting, plus children's programs and normal programming, had to stop immediately.

The reason to bomb Libyan government TV, according to NATO is that Libyan leader Ghaddafi has been giving interviews and speeches following repeated NATO bombings which recently have included hospitals, Ramadan food storage warehouses, the nation's main water distribution infrastructure, private homes, and more than 1,600 other civilian sites. NATO believes that preventing Qaddafi's use of Libya's public airwaves by bombing transmission towers is within UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, the scope of which are being expanded beyond all recognition from their original intent. NATO spokesperson Lavoie claims that Libya's leadership is using TV broadcast facilities to thwart NATO's "humanitarian mission" and, yet again are, "putting civilian lives at risk."

Government officials admit using the media for communication with the population, including to urge tribal unity, to dialogue with those based in Benghazi referred to here as "NATO rebels", to argue for an immediate ceasefire and yes, even to call for all Libyans to resist what many here, including Colonel Ghaddafi, call "the NATO crusader aggressors."

In western Libya, and even among many in the east, according to recent rebel defectors who daily arrive on the western side, NATO has lost the respect of this country, Africa, the Middle East and increasingly the international community. The reasons are well known here and include the serial false premises and descriptions of what happened in February in Benghazi and Misrata areas.

In addition, NATO daily bombing strikes have increased approximately 20 per cent since July 25 and will continue to increase according to French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet who, along with UK Defense Minister Liam Fox, while publicly saying NATO must continue the bombing, is privately expressing his frustration with the killing of rebel military commander Abdul Fatah Younnis. This assassination, according to Libyan officials was very likely carried out by Younnis' rebel leaders or Al Qaeda. Both are said to feel that the rebel leadership in Benghazi is collapsing. So do many NATO leaders and the Obama Administration.

One Libyan government supporter who just arrived here in Tripoli, claims he spent the past two months on the ground in Benghazi "undercover" as a liaison between the rebels and NAT0. He told his rapt audience at a Tripoli hotel this week many details of what he claims is NATO's frustration with the deterioration, the corruption and incompetence of their "team" in the east and the CIA view that "Al Qaeda will eat Mahmoud Jibril and the entire rebel leadership for Iftar during one of the Ramadan feasts during August. They are just waiting for the right opportunity to make a dramatic move."

Only the zealots of "humanitarian intervention" could seriously have contemplated the kind of protracted, bloody land war in Libya that would have been necessary to win. So, the bet on an alliance with NATO now appears to have been doomed from the start, even on its own terms.

The force that is rapidly entering into this conflict is the leadership of Libya's more than 2000 tribes. In a series of meetings in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere, the Tribal Council is speaking out forcefully and forging a political block that is demanding an end to Libyans killing Libyans.

Generally considered Libya's largest tribe, are the Obeidis to which the Younnis family belongs. Some of the tribal leaders and members have vowed revenge against rebel leaders and as they carried the coffins of Abdul Fatah and his two companions they chanted, under the gaze of security forces, "the blood of martyrs will not go in vain."

Libya's Tribal Council has issued a manifesto which makes clear that it intends to end this conflict, help expel "the NATO crusaders", achieve reforms while supporting the Gaddafi, Tripoli based government. Before Ramadan is over, it intends to end Libya's crisis even if it needs to rally its hundreds of thousandsof active members to march on Benghazi.

NATO, according to various academics at Al Nasser and Al Fatah University, and Libya's Tribal leadership, appear surprisingly ignorant and even contemptuous of this country's tribes and their historic roles during times of crises and foreign aggression and occupation. One tribal leader well known to Italy was Omar Muktar.

As NATO and its backers contemplate their End Game they may want to consider some excerpts from the Libyan Tribal Council's manifesto issued on July 26. Speaking for Libya's 2000 tribes, the Council issued a Proclamation signed by scores of tribal leaders from eastern Libya.

"By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn't been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO."

"What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries."
…
"The Trial Council assures its continuing cooperation with the African Union in its suggestions aimed at helping to prevent the aggression on the Libyan people".…
"The Tribal Council condemns the crusader aggression on the Great Jamahiriya executed by the NATO and the Arabic regressive forces which is a grave threat to Libyan civilians as it continues to kill them as NATO bombs civilian targets."…
"We do not and will not accept any authority other than the authority that we chose with our free will which is the People's Congress and Peoples Committees, and the popular social leadership, and will oppose with all available means, the NATO rebels and their slaughter, violence and maiming of cadavers. We intend to oppose with all the means available to us the NATO crusader aggressors and their appointed lackeys".

According to one representative of the Libyan Supreme Tribal Council, "The tribes of Libya have until today not fully joined in repelling the NATO aggressors. As we do, we serve notice to NATO that we shall not desist until they have left our country and we will ensure that they never return."

Franklin Lamb is in Libya and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb08022011.html