The Lessons of Libya - A War That Brought Total Societal Collapse

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.


A War That Brought Total Societal Collapse
The Lessons of Libya
by DAN GLAZEBROOK

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the ‘state of the masses’ – in the face of a massive onslaught from N ATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.

It took seven months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special forces operation to finally win control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons either looted from state armouries or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a ‘failed state’.

Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had ‘come in from the cold’ and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of ‘rapprochement’, with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and co-operation between Libya and the West.

Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite ‘rapprochement’, Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that “there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive”; hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of ‘rapprochement’. Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he warned the assembled heads of state that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day”. So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.


Full article:

The Lessons of Libya
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Bernard Lugan, a well recognized scholar, university prof, author, on subjects concerning Africa and geopolitics, speaks with RT on recent geopolitical changes in the region and their implications.


A total mess and the bastards want to do the same thing to Syria.

It's amazing that Zintan has now accepted Saif al Islam Gaddafi as their leader - after keeping him in prison for two years. Mind you, they refused to hand him over to the so called Libya government or the ICC during that time so they may, in a way, have been protecting him. Great interview, it really shows how we must stand by Syria. At least in Libya nearly everyone is Sunni Muslim, but if the Islamists ever got control over in Syria we would see an absolute genocide of all the minorities.
 

Ire-land

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
4,730
Likes
7,215
Location
Doubling
I'm trying to keep track of all the Sunni/Shia sides, and I find I run into confusion over some if the reasoning...

Gaddafi- Sunni
Saddam- Sunni
Al Assad- Shia/Alawite
Syria- Sunni majority
Iran- Shia majority
Saudi Arabia- Wahabism/extreme Sunni
Isis- Sunni (edit)
AQ- Sunni

Etc...

Why is Isis fighting Assad, from a Religious perspective, is something I'm confused about. Or how did he get in power in a Sunni majority country? I suppose they were travelling(happily enough) down a secular road.

My general sense on whoever is in power is that they need to be very strong, or dictatorial in some eyes in the West, because of the basic hatred between the two sets. So whoever is in power, from whatever side, becomes marketable to Westerners as needing to be ousted. Even though they may just be doing what's needed, and be doing a great job.
 
Last edited:

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I'm trying to keep track of all the Sunni/Shia sides, and I find I run into confusion over some if the reasoning...

Gaddafi- Sunni
Saddam- Sunni
Al Assad- Shia/Alawite
Syria- Sunni majority
Iran- Shia majority
Saudi Arabia- Wahabism/extreme Sunni
Isis- Shia
AQ- Sunni

Etc...

Why is Isis fighting Assad, from a Religious perspective, is something I'm confused about. Or how did he get in power in a Sunni majority country? I suppose they were travelling(happily enough) down a secular road.

My general sense on whoever is in power is that they need to be very strong, or dictatorial in some eyes in the West, because of the basic hatred between the two sets. So whoever is in power, from whatever side, becomes marketable to Westerners as needing to be ousted. Even though they may just be doing what's needed, and be doing a great job.

ISIS are Sunni a chara. Saddam was Sunni, but Iraq is majority Shia. Assad is Alawite, but Syria is majority Sunni. The thing is that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the Muslim world had become quite secular. The kind of fanatical sectarianism we see now was stirred up by the Zionists and the US régime in the hope of breaking up Arab Nationalism and the secular Arab states.
 

Ire-land

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
4,730
Likes
7,215
Location
Doubling
ISIS are Sunni a chara. Saddam was Sunni, but Iraq is majority Shia. Assad is Alawite, but Syria is majority Sunni. The thing is that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the Muslim world had become quite secular. The kind of fanatical sectarianism we see now was stirred up by the Zionists and the US régime in the hope of breaking up Arab Nationalism and the secular Arab states.
My mistake, it makes more sense now.
 

Ire-land

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
4,730
Likes
7,215
Location
Doubling
Bernard Lugan, a well recognized scholar, university prof, author, on subjects concerning Africa and geopolitics, speaks with RT on recent geopolitical changes in the region and their implications.


A total mess and the bastards want to do the same thing to Syria.
It's funny that he says Tribal Democracy is unacceptable to the US, and it has to be 'one person, one vote'; you could make an argument that the electoral college system they use basically Tribal Democracy, and it's certainly not 'one person, one vote'.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
A rare insight into life on the ground in southern Libya after the NATO Holocaust of 2011.

 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Libya’s Link to Manchester’s Tragedy


By John Pilger

The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organization, which seeks a “hardline Islamic state” in Libya and “is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida.”

The “smoking gun” is that when Prime Minister Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in “battle”: first to remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the “Manchester boys.” Implacably opposed to Muammar Gaddafi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gaddafi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.

Suddenly the control orders were lifted. “I was allowed to go, no questions asked,” said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.

Full article,

Libya's Link to Manchester's Tragedy
 

Kershaw

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
8,588
Likes
15,940
Libya’s Link to Manchester’s Tragedy


By John Pilger

The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organization, which seeks a “hardline Islamic state” in Libya and “is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida.”

The “smoking gun” is that when Prime Minister Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in “battle”: first to remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the “Manchester boys.” Implacably opposed to Muammar Gaddafi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gaddafi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.

Suddenly the control orders were lifted. “I was allowed to go, no questions asked,” said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.

Full article,

Libya's Link to Manchester's Tragedy
Fascinating stuff. Not a narrative we'll hear in the MSM.
Was the guy on the Late Late one of these boys?
 
Top Bottom