My experience in Libya

I was in the country in 2006. I know most people who are arguing about the revolution on DU have never been there, and don't have any idea which source to trust about the conditions under Khaddafi. I do not claim to be an expert, but here is what I saw while I was in the country.

First, the status of women: unlike other strict Islamic countries, women in Libya struck me as educated. I dealt mostly with university students, and I was especially tuned in to interactions between male and female students. I saw them flirting, laughing together, and behaving like college kids anywhere in the US. That surprised me. There was no uneasiness, no "superior male/inferior female" undertones.

Second, working women: one of our party decided on the spur of the moment to stop in at a local clinic in Tripoli. The visit was completely unannounced. He found male and female medical personnel working together (as they would anywhere in the western world), and utterly delighted to find an American visiting them. They asked if he wouldn't come back to teach. They were short of equipment, and it was clearly not a western medical facility, but they were overjoyed by his visit.

Third, families: while in the desert, we were privileged to see a spectacular total solar eclipse. Because it was such a rare event, Libyan families drove out to the desert by the thousands to watch it, and I'm told that every Libyan citizen was issued a pair of special glasses with which to watch the sky. Because we were the first westerners there in a generation, we were surrounded by mobs of people with cell phones taking pictures of us, and wanting to pose with us. I was a little freaked out because it felt like we might be trampled, but it was not because of hostility, but excitement on the part of the Libyans.

My general feeling was that while women were still not considered first-class citizens, their situation in Libya was certainly better than in Saudi Arabia or Yemen and certainly better than places like Afghanistan. They were educated. They could pursue careers. And based on the literacy rates and life expectancy, (CIA factbook) they were far ahead of their sisters in many middle eastern countries.

I have expressed my concerns about Libya's future without Khaddafi, and have been called a "Khaddafi-lover." What I am is a realist, aware of how quickly a country with warring tribes can backslide into mass violence, and how women always seem to bear the brunt of conflict. I'm sure life under Khaddafi was difficult for those of opposing tribes. I don't doubt that he was ruthless. But in a country where strict order has allowed women to be educated, to not be subject to violence, and for the population to have one of the longest life expectancies in the region, the future could spell far worse possibilities.

The U.S. has got to STOP doing regime change. I'm so sick of it. It does nothing but damage.

Interesting to hear about your experience in Libya. It would be nice to hear from others.

I've never been there, but I do worry for the future. Khaddafi was brutal to his enemies, but I fear his successor may be far worse.

To emphasize, the Libyan historical and spiritual heritage dominating the anti-Gaddafi campaign has drawn on precedents that could not be more distant from the radicalism of al Qaeda. In the words of the eminent scholars Frederick de Jong and Berndt Radtke, editors of the massive 1999 volume "Islamic Mysticism Contested" on Sufism and its opponents in Islam, the Senussi Sufis who ruled over eastern Libya did not persecute "those who were not in agreement with Sufism as adhered to and practised by those in power." According to "Libya: A Country Study," published by the U.S. Government in 1987, as the founder of the Senussi order, Sayyid Muhammad Ibn Ali As-Senussi "did not tolerate fanaticism."

Libya stands as one of the distinguished centers of a Sufism opposed both to unquestioning acceptance of Islamic law and to scriptural absolutism, and dedicated to freedom and progress. With the fall of the dictatorship, it will now be necessary to analyze whether and how Libya's Sufi past can positively influence its future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schwartz/sufis-in-the-libyan-revolution_b_933611.html

---

It seems that Libyan Senussi Islam was on the more moderate end of the Islamic spectrum.

al-Qaeda is a West-created/funded insta-war/invasion/liberty crackdown/fear machine, an artificial hydra, utilizing the 150 year-old methods the British practised in the middle east. The 'tip of the spear' low-level terrorists are many time actual believers in their cause, but the operational control is far removed from that paradigm.


The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda: The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%E2%80%9Carc-of-crisis%E2%80%9D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Power of Nightmares

subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a 3 part BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis.
The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8 part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1z2g part 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, the USA seeds of al-Qaeda started in 1978 and 1979, under Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter regime, (now Gates has been the Sec of Defense under both Bush and Obama) and Brzezinski is a de facto chief architect of geo-political policy for the Obama administration http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65720/zbigniew-brzezinski/from-hope-to-audacity http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama08.htm


Zbigniew Brzezinski:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=cambodia_662


1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/us.html

China and the US sustain the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplies the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”

--------------------------------------------------------

September 4, 1997: Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment


“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America’s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Th US empire's currency (the rapidly-dying dollar) is backed up, collateralized by oil, and the oil is backed up by the global Anglo-American war machine.

This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 5 to 10 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).

This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766,00.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-lenczowski/the-arc-of-crisis-its-central-sector

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_chessboard.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0

-----------------------------------------------------------
2 key books by Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299979870&sr=8

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------

Between Two Ages

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5

http://wearechange.org.uk/london/wp-content/themes/arras-theme/resources/misc/Zbigniew%20Brzezinski-Between%20Two%20Ages.pdf


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East
and Central Asia
The Mumbai Attacks and the “Strategy of Tension”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24770171/Creating-an-Arch-of-Conflict




------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Study - the Libya invasion and US/UK/NATO support of al-Qaeda :



Abdel Hakim Belhaj is a ranking al-Qaeda leader (emir of the Islamic Fighting Group of Libya)

http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/Report/RSIS_Libya.pdf (page 18 has interview with Belhaj)

One of Belhaj's underlings is Nasser Tailamoun, who was Osama bin Laden's driver. Qadaffi released these 2, plus dozens of other radicals, in September of 2010.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libya-releases-islamists-including-bin-ladens-driver-48737

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US and NATO use and support of al-Qaeda in the Libya coup d' etat

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, Tripoli's newly installed military governor (also a key official within Libya's National Transitional Council), is linked to Al Qaeda, reports Liberátion (Leftist French newspaper).

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fmonde%2F01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

Belhaj is the former head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (an affiliate group of Al Qaeda). In 2003, Belhaj was arrested in Malaysia in 2003, later being interrogated by CIA in 2004 in Thailand. He was set free in Libya in 2008.


It's important to note Belhaj is supported by NATO, as Le Parisien and MSN France report:


http://news.fr.msn.com/m6-actualite/monde/libye-calme-relatif-%c3%a0-tripoli-avanc%c3%a9es-dans-louest-statu-quo-dans-lest-2

10 h 20. Un islamiste à la tête du commandement militaire de la rébellion à Tripoli. Abdelhakim Belhadj a été le chef militaire qui a préparé, avec l'aide de l'Otan, la prise du QG de Kadhafi, à Bab Al-Azizya. Al-Jazeera lui a consacré un long entretien en direct du QG à l'issue des combats. Ancien dirigeant du Groupe islamique des combattants libyens (GICL), lié à Al-Qaida, Abdelhakim Belhadj, a été arrêté en 2004 par les Américains en Asie et livré par la suite à la Libye, selon la presse arabe. Il aurait bénéficié de l'amnistie de centaines d'islamistes libyens en mars 2010 ordonnée par Saif Al-Islam, fils préféré de Kadhafi.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karel Abderrahim, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques, a French think tank) said in an interview to La Croix, a Catholic French newspaper, that he is skeptical about the dissolution of Al Qaeda-Libyan Islamic Fighting Group:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-croix.com%2FActualite%2FS-informer%2FMonde%2FKader-Abderrahim-chercheur-a-l-Iris-Je-ne-vois-pas-qui-pourrait-federer-la-Libye-_EG_-2011-08-24-702836

Further background:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libyan-fighting-factions-to-unite-under-single-military-command-1.380955?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2011/08/27/al-qaeda-in-libya-started-to-act-killing-friends-and-foes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"....................


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashback 2 years (including Young Turks video) more US support of terrorist groups

Saudis and CIA back Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s Jundullah in Pakistan and Iran?

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/12/saudis-and-cia-back-khalid-sheikh.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashhback to 2007 (BBC)

Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda'

Zawahri called for North African leaders to be overthrown
A Libyan Islamist group has joined al-Qaeda, according to an audio message on the internet attributed to the radical network's second-in-command.
Ayman al-Zawahri purportedly said the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya was becoming part of al-Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7076604.stm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flasback to 2002 (Guardian UK) French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayler

MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lies, War, and Empire: NATO’s “Humanitarian Imperialism” in Libya (Video + Article)

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/08/26/lies-war-and-empire-nato%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian-imperialism%E2%80%9D-in-libya

snip

It has been said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Libya is no exception. From the lies that started the war, to the rebels linked to al-Qaeda, ethnically cleansing black Libyans, killing civilians, propaganda, PR firms, intelligence agents, and possible occupation; Libya is a more complex story than the fairy tale we have been sold. Reality always is.

What Were the ‘Reasons’ for ‘Intervention’?

We were sold the case for war in Libya as a “humanitarian intervention.” We were told, of course, that we “needed” to intervene in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was killing his own people in large numbers; those people, on the same token, were presented as peaceful protesters resisting the 40-plus year reign of a brutal dictator.

In early March of 2011, news headlines in Western nations reported that Gaddafi would kill half a million people.<1> On March 18, as the UN agreed to launch air strikes on Libya, it was reported that Gaddafi had begun an assault against the rebel-held town of Benghazi. The Daily Mail reported that Gaddafi had threatened to send in his African mercenaries to crush the rebellion.<2> Reports of Libyan government tanks sitting outside Benghazi poised for an invasion were propagated in the Western media.<3> In the lead-up to the United Nations imposing a no-fly zone, reports spread rapidly through the media of Libyan government jets bombing the rebels.<4> Even in February, the New York Times – the sacred temple for the ‘stenographers of power’ we call “journalists” – reported that Gaddafi was amassing “thousands of mercenaries” to defend Tripoli and crush the rebels.<5> Italy’s Foreign Minister declared that over 1,000 people were killed in the fighting in February, citing the number as “credible.”<6> Even a top official with Human Rights Watch declared the rebels to be “peaceful protesters” who “are nice, sincere people who want a better future for Libya.”<7> The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that “thousands” of people were likely killed by Gaddafi, “and called for international intervention to protect civilians.”<8> In April, reports spread near and far at lightning speed of Gaddafi’s forces using rape as a weapon of war, with the first sentence in a Daily Mail article declaring, “Children as young as eight are being raped in front of their families by Gaddafi’s forces in Libya,” with Gaddafi handing out Viagra to his troops in a planned and organized effort to promote rape.<9>

As it turned out, these claims – as posterity notes – turned out to be largely false and contrived. Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International both investigated the claims of rape, and “have found no first-hand evidence in Libya that rapes are systematic and being used as part of war strategy,” and their investigations in Eastern Libya “have not turned up significant hard evidence supporting allegations of rapes by Qaddafi’s forces.” Yet, just as these reports came out, Hillary Clinton declared that the U.S. is “deeply concerned by reports of wide-scale rape” in Libya.<10> Even U.S. military and intelligence officials had to admit that, “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas”; at the same time Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “told a closed-door meeting of officials at the UN that the Libyan military is using rape as a weapon in the war with the rebels and some had been issued the anti-impotency drug. She reportedly offered no evidence to backup the claim.”<11>


snip

------------------------------------------------------------------

article is heavily footnoted and sourced (127 total footnotes) with hyperlinks as well

war.

And before that I was objectively pro-bin Laden because I pointed out that Afghanistan had swallowed empires for a couple of thousand years.

It really won't phase me in the slightest to be objectively pro-Gaddafi too.

Even if I'm wrong this time my batting average will be .666, that's better than any Very Serious Person I can think of.

You could have found Saddam totally unsavory but not support an invasion.

Libya, however, is a totally different situation. That was an internal uprising, not an outside force (the US, virtually all alone) invading. The people rose up. And then the Libyan government was brutally massacring them. NATO--not the US alone but a real coalition of European nations and even Arab support--decided to protect them. And we did not capture Gaddafi. The rebels did. I have no problem with what happened in Libya.

Switching ruling tribes is good in and of itself because why?

Unlike the legitimate Populist uprisings of the Arab Spring there was an ongoing Civil War in Libya.
The US Piggy-Backed on the Arab Spring Uprisings to camouflage the annexation of Libya to the "Global Free Market".

See if you can spot the difference:


Arab Spring in Tunisia






Arab Spring in Egypt






Libyan Civil War

Nice photo comparisons

Thank you for your passion, persistence, and laser logic. :thumbsup:

Here is a sample -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWwBQeS6SxA

neither leader used - or was able to use - the full strength of the military against his own people. Mubarak tried, but the army refused to comply. The Libyan military was a whole different thing.

You may want to revisit the timeline a bit. AJE was on the ground there and they do not report the corporate muck that we normally get.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/10/20111020104244706760.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMPqIAtCO-E

Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera Chief, Resigns

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/wadah-khanfar-resigns-al-jazeera_n_971774.html

CAIRO -- The Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel has announced Tuesday that its director has stepped down after serving the network for eight years.

Wadah Khanfar's resignation follows release of documents by Wikileaks, purporting to show he had close ties with the U.S. and agreed to remove some content in response to American objections.

The leaked 2010 U.S. diplomatic cable indicated that Khanfar was in constant contact with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, responding to U.S. complaints of negative coverage and promising to tone down items on the station's website. The cables referred to Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs as "MFA" which passed him some of the DIA reports.



Last Updated: Sunday, 14 January 2007, 07:39 GMT

Egypt seizes al-Jazeera reporter

Al-Jazeera is one of the Middle East's most influential TV channels

A journalist working for Arabic TV news channel al-Jazeera has been arrested in Egypt for allegedly fabricating videos of police torturing suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6260285.stm



... All is not as it seems.

the reports you cite pre-date events in 2011. In one case, they seem to show that whatever US "influence" had been brought to bear on the AJ President had caused the end of his career and certainly impugned his journalistic credibility.

But I might also be quite sceptical about a Beeb report from 2007 alleging that an AJ reporter allegedly fabricated videos of police torturing suspects in Egypt. Remember those "heydays" of the Bush-Blair "special partnership" when Mubarak was our "friend?"

After all, US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks suggest that the AJ reporter was more likely correct than not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/egypt-police-brutality-torture-wikileaks

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/28/the_murder_brigades_of_... /

"More than 100 militia brigades from Misrata have been operating outside of any official military and civilian command since Tripoli fell in August. Members of these militias have engaged in torture, pursued suspected enemies far and wide, detained them and shot them in detention, Human Rights Watch has found. Members of these brigades have stated that the entire displaced population of one town, Tawergha, which they believe largely supported Gadhafi avidly, cannot return home.

..."The fierce fight for Misrata has left a penetrating bitter aftertaste. Misratans say they detest anyone who backed Gadhafi. They are not welcome in Misrata, even if the city and its environs was their home for generations.
The Misrata militia is focusing its greatest wrath on Tawergha, a town of about 30,000 people just south of the city. Both Misratans and Tawerghas say residents there were enthusiastic Gadhafi supporters. Hundreds of erstwhile civilians in that town took up arms to fight for him. Misratans say Tawergha volunteers committed rapes and pillaged with gusto, though Misrata officials decline to produce evidence of the alleged rapes, saying family shame inhibits witnesses and victims from coming forward."


http://www.zcommunications.org/gaddafi-was-shot-beaten-and-sodomized-before-being-killed-and-buried-in-unmarked-grave-by-michael-mcgehee

They didn't bother to mention how the rebels violated the UN mandate by blocking the ICRC. Maybe because nearly three weeks before the above article Time published another one on the siege of Sirte where a "rebel" commented on the "civilians" they didn't want supplies to reach:

Ali Faraj, a medical statistician who now drives a Katyusha rocket truck, estimated the fight could take days. "Sirt is a big city and everyone likes Gaddafi there," he said. "There are no revolutionaries inside."

And it's not just Sirte. In one of the few references in the Western press to the massive pro-Gaddafi rally in early July, though without commenting on the size of the demonstration, Time noted that:

Crowds of people converged on the seafront to move toward Martyrs' Square in the heart of the capital, where only two months ago Gaddafi's supporters held demonstrations in support of the dictatorship.

look at Iran. Look at latin America. All they have to do is give a cut of the profits to various native forces.

for nothing. It has broken more than one of them.

Just let them be slaughtered?

The rebels did not represent all of Libyan people.

Sure look like a lot of them to me. How many should we have let be slaughtered and it would be ok with you?

"Back on July 1, after more than three months of the rebel movement's and the "civilized world's" unequivocal demands, something like one in four Libyans stood together on the same day across the country, to say in one loud, green voice "no thank you please!" to NATO's plans for them. The turnout in Tripoli, hosting activists from surrounding cities as well, is said to have been one million (no word from any critics on a better count) standing behind the green flag. This in a country of only sixmillion, riven with a civil war posed as "the people"vs. the isolated regime.

It was said that in these days Gaddafi saluted a miniature NATO flag every morning. Every night, their bombs rocked the capitol, targeting the population's resolve. But it was only wrecking their sleep and starting to piss them off, especially when innocent people (or loyalist soldiers either, for that matter, who were all good guys with families and friends) were massacred by the indifferent and overwhelming brutality of high explosives. As to how Gaddafi could salute their little compass of hate, one young lady explained to Franklin Lamb:
“Our leader does this”, one young lady informed me first with a wide smile and then growing serious, “because the NATO bombing of Libyan civilians, which the US/NATO axis claims Qaddafi is doing, has caused his popularity to skyrocket among our proud and nationalist tribal people. I am one example of this.

Yes, of course we can use some new blood and long overdue reform in our government. Which country cannot? But first we must defeat the NATO invaders and then we can sort out our problems among our tribes including the so-called “NATO Rebels.”

http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/09/not-this-way.html

They were bombing civilians and their air strike on Khaddafi's convoy was specifically to kill him, or aid in his capture. This was more than protecting rebels; this was engaging in regime change.

I do not believe civilians were intentionally targeted as you imply. Also, at the time, defeat for Khaddfai was certain, I have no problem with it being ended sooner rather then later. That the rebels decided to execute him without trial is unfortunate but was their choice.

Edit - Re-iterating my original question... Should we have ignored the no-fly request? That is totally aside from the question of was the no-fly zone followed or not.

...civilian casualties from a NATO airstrike - it was promptly acknowledged that the guidance system had failed. NATO conducted systematic observation to assure that civilian casualties were minimized. Both the civilian population and the military were forewarned by multiple mediums that proximity to military targets such as armored columns, government command facilities, and military bases would be targeted.



This was about protecting a civilian population from collective punishment at the hands of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi simply because they wished to exercise self-determination. It's not like Gaddafi would have allowed elections and did not allow a transparent investigation into the Abu Salim prison massacre.

You might want to check out this Pentagon transcript:

Q: Do you see any evidence that he 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.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777

Again, it might be worth checking on:

Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

I could post a substantial amount of evidence but at this point it's wasting my time.

Is that what you're saying?

What do they want - blood stained mattresses?

What don't you understand about the perception of rape in the Arab world:



More:



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-24/libyan-soldiers-confess-to-mass-rapes/2729410?section=world
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/world/libya.rape.hfr_1_cnn-cell-phone-moammar-gadhafi?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKeB76D8vU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLz8Fv0eik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tisai_ZKvp0

How can you deny such acts?

The psychologist's study that you tout is highly doubtful.

She's supposed to have the resources to track 140 victims in a war-zone? Now that's some double standard bullshit...talk about imperialist.

Yes, the Libyan people are making everything up. And because you went on a regime dog and pony show that Gaddafi feller is a swell guy :sarcasm:

:eyes:

In a country that's war-torn and without postal service?

She had a contained survey field - they were in a refugee camp. Having done surveys in schools I can tell you for a fact that the response rate in a classroom of students is much higher than if you were to say poll people on the street. :hi:

Even Libyan doctors in Benghazi doubt the accuracy of this report.

Not that hard to believe they could be distributed and returned by a team of volunteers - say 5 or 6.

if there were 6 volunteers, they would each do 62.5 an hour, assuming an 8 hour day.

That would be a survey completed every 59 seconds.

sure.

And why are none of those surveys available for examination by Amnesty International?

I would think 12-16 hours a day would be much more likely.

500 subjects questioned a day. That works out to less than two minutes per subject. In under two minutes, you get a complete interview (which includes a lot of other details) PLUS the details about being raped by Khaddafi's forces. That would include the usual Arabic greetings, name exchanges, family information, home town, etc.

Really. Use your noggin.

And the interviewers wouldn't have even a minute per day to pee.

US says Gadhafi troops issued Viagra, raping victims

Allegation suggests troops encouraged to turn to sexual violence, envoys say

By Louis Charbonneau

updated 4/28/2011 9:31:26 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS — The U.S. envoy to the United Nations told the Security Council Thursday that troops loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were increasingly engaging in sexual violence and some had been issued the impotency drug Viagra, diplomats said.

Several U.N. diplomats who attended a closed-door Security Council meeting on Libya told Reuters that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice raised the Viagra issue in the context of increasing reports of sexual violence by Gadhafi's troops.

"Rice raised that in the meeting but no one responded," a diplomat said on condition of anonymity. The allegation was first reported by a British newspaper. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42809612/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.TqXeG96ImU8



US intel: No evidence of Viagra as weapon in Libya

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42824884/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.TqXejN6ImU8

UN Ambassador Rice reportedly had said drug was being used in systematic rapes

NBC News and news services
updated 4/29/2011 1:52:00 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS — There is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas, US military and intelligence officials told NBC News on Friday.

Diplomats said Thursday that US Ambassador Susan Rice told a closed-door meeting of officials at the UN that the Libyan military is using rape as a weapon in the war with the rebels and some had been issued the anti-impotency drug. She reportedly offered no evidence to backup the claim.

While rape has been a weapon of choice in many other African conflicts, the US officials say they've seen no such reports out of Libya.

Yes, all the Libyans are making evidence up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuorv7zatz4

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not thrown under the bus. Threw herself under the bus.

And I was a big fan of hers, so I am deeply disappointed.

For them, it was the CIA that told that Dr. to say that.

The crowds? Photoshopped by the CIA.

The videos? 3D animations done by the CIA.

They are in a state of denial.

Nothing will prove them wrong.

Ever.

I gave up.

Not worth it.

The pro-Qaddafi crowds were never shown, despite the many pictures of them and articles stating the numbers. It's just the nature of propaganda and why it works.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/231026-Huge-PRO-Gaddafi-Rally-takes-Place-in-Tripoli

They agree with Amnesty International

Denying first hand reports of rape doesn't exactly support your claim of the benefits of the regime. x(

In every war, rapes occur. On every side. But systematic, Khaddafi-ordered rapes? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where are your sources for systematic rape? Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International believes there's evidence for this. Right now, it seems to be in the category of the Kuwaiti babies-taken-from-incubators story.

also doubts the systematic rape claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_rape_allegations

So far you consider Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Doctors Without Borders as untrustworthy organizations.

May I ask what YOUR sources are?

Opening up to outsiders? Not too likely.

to anonymous questionnaires? Confessed being raped to this psychologist who now can't produce a single questionnaire for human rights organizations?

So I don't really know what you're trying to do here other than defend an unconscionable position that Gaddafi's thugs did not brutalize people in Libya.

Even if she's being misleading - there are so many other reports that your argument is moot.

I'm done arguing this. Some of us do care about human rights. :thumbsdown:

You keep saying that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Doctors without Borders is lying.

I think that tells us how reliable YOUR sources must be.

of Black African Immigrant women, WHO HAVE been willing to talk to Human Rights Orgs about the rape and abuse they are subjected to on a daily basis by the 'rebels'. And today's news of two separate mass graves containing over 150 murdered Gadaffi supporters in Sirte, executed by the 'rebels' it is believed by the Human Rights Org. who found them.

The truth is there is far more actual evidence along with victims who are willing to talk and have, against the 'rebels' starting early on in this war. Yet, those who supported them have pretty much ignored the reports, and ignored the Human Rights orgs pleas for intervention by NATO. NATO claimed to be there to protect civilians, but they completely ignored all pleas to protect Black Africans from rape, murder, torture and wrongful detention.

They also ignored pleas last week from HR Orgs to protect the people of Sirte, now they have found those mass graves.

I stopped supporting these thugs months ago when it became clear how brutal and bigoted they were. So please do not tell those of us who have trying to get attention for the plight of the Sub Saharan Immigrants since last March and who have been accused of being 'Dictator Lovers'.

Those immigrants now have spoken out, some of them from Ghana, calling Gadaffi a 'hero' who protected them and gave them a living with good pay. But I don't expect anyone who is on this Colonial War train to care what they think. I find it hard to believe that anyone could NOT have been aware of the brutality of those 'rebels' especially towards the African Immigrants, many of whom are dead, lynched, murdered, brutalized for no reason other than the color of the skin.

Nice country this is going to be. At least under Gadaffi, women and minorities had rights. Now it's mob rule and Sharia Law. I am ashamed I ever supported it. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made.

Desmond Tutu has condemned the killing of Gadaffi, and if Tutu and Mandela respected the man, sorry, I don't buy the neocon's version of anything.

one of those rapes, torture or murders.

Hard to believe that since I've been reading HRs reports about those rapes and lynchings and murders on a regular basis since last March.

And now they are hiding the Mass Graves, I read today. So if it is a rogue element, then why is the NTC covering up for them? Sorry, this is a bloody, brutal gang of thugs. Rightwing thugs. What just happened in Libya would be the equivalent of the racists who used to lynch African Americans before the Civil Rights movement finally got laws in place to stop them, getting help from say, China to oust LBJ and take over the country. LBJ wasn't perfect, like Gadaffi, but he did do some good things.

There still has not been the promised investigation into the murder of the Rebel leader either. And with Jibril lying every day about, about Gadaffi's murder, about the massacres (he claims all those people killed each other) only some of whom were with Gadaffi, the rest HRs say, were most likely civilians.

This whole thing was a brutal, unnecessary war crime from the minute NATO started bombing that beautiful country. And many there will now be living in fear and I won't be surprised to hear of more murders. Murderers like these don't stop after getting away with it for so long.

The Iraqis now miss Saddam. The Libyans when they realize what is happening, I see the Brits are 'packing their bags to go 'take advantage of the business opportunities' in Libya now, they will long for the days when they had free everything, free cars, practically free gas, free education and HC, and tuition and expenses paid if they wanted to go abroad. They were the most educated people in Africa. And Gadaffi believed that owning a home was a 'human right' so he paid for their housing, provided housing for disabled and care. Their wakeup call when all of that socialism stops will be shocking.

a feeling we've heard the last of them, and it will all be swept under the rug. "We came, we saw, he died" - that sends quite a message. We 'saw"???? How about "we accepted lies to enable our campaign of brutal bombing and destruction, allowed atrocities against human beings ..... many whose only crime was to be black". Humanitarianism only applies in certain cases ... the rest are collateral damage and we all know, the war machine doesn't do body counts unless they're needed to score points.

http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rebel-atrocity-videos.html
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-black-racism-among-libyan-rebels.html

murder, when she basically ordered the 'hit' on Gadaffi as many people have pointed out. And she wants credit for that, which is why she said 'we came, we saw, he died'. So did his son, the one she welcomed to the State Department not so long ago.

To think I used to respect that woman. Now, she is to me, a cold-hearted, blood-thirsty, untrustworthy disgrace to this country. She is fully assimilated into the New World Order, her hit on Gandaffi proves she can be as murderous as any man. Desmond Tutu was shocked by her behavior and said so. But he is a decent human being, I doubt she cares what he thinks.

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2011

The murder brigades of Misrata

Gadhafi's demise was just a part of a vast revenge killing spree

BY DANIEL WLLIAMS

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/28/the_murder_brigades_of_misrata/

"More than 100 militia brigades from Misrata have been operating outside of any official military and civilian command since Tripoli fell in August. Members of these militias have engaged in torture, pursued suspected enemies far and wide, detained them and shot them in detention, Human Rights Watch has found. Members of these brigades have stated that the entire displaced population of one town, Tawergha, which they believe largely supported Gadhafi avidly, cannot return home.

As the war in Libya comes to an end, the pressing need for accountability and reconciliation is clear. The actions of the Misrata brigades are a gauge of how difficult that will be, and Misrata is not alone in its call for vengeance. In the far west, anti-Gadhafi militias from the Nafusa Mountains have looted and burned homes and schools of tribes that supported the deposed dictator. Anti-Gadhafi militias from Zuwara have looted property as they demanded compensation for damage they suffered during the war."...

..."The fierce fight for Misrata has left a penetrating bitter aftertaste. Misratans say they detest anyone who backed Gadhafi. They are not welcome in Misrata, even if the city and its environs was their home for generations.

The Misrata militia is focusing its greatest wrath on Tawergha, a town of about 30,000 people just south of the city. Both Misratans and Tawerghas say residents there were enthusiastic Gadhafi supporters. Hundreds of erstwhile civilians in that town took up arms to fight for him. Misratans say Tawergha volunteers committed rapes and pillaged with gusto, though Misrata officials decline to produce evidence of the alleged rapes, saying family shame inhibits witnesses and victims from coming forward."

enough to stop buying the propaganda. He came from the largest tribe in Libya who were affiliated with other tribes. None of them wanted this war. The fact that NATO still cannot win against them, shows how little the 'people' were involved in this. This is just another Imperial takeover of a resource rich nation who had a leader who was not the most cooperative with them.

I've seen nothing but the claim.

Some would say there is no such thing as coincidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

that money makes the world go around.

Just a youtube CT... Sheesh.

How about recent history?

That was the request.

If any part of that report is not factual, I'd truly appreciate enlightenment. I do believe that there are monied interests who are breathing easier now that Ghadaffi is gone. It remains to be seen who will reap the benefits in the end. I hope that Libya is headed for true reform and liberation. That is my true hope, but I am skeptical.

No one needed military intervention to prevent a plan that would never get off the ground. Now... Any evidence his people did not rise up against him? They did not ask for a no-fly zone? That was the contention I asked for evidence of and CT non-sense does not cut it.

The only conspiracy is lack of honesty about our motivations for military actions. It wouldn't have been the first time we've been lied to about reasons for war, and it will not be the last.

Again... 1 - A fool plan is no reason for military intervention. 2 - Zero evidence the Libyan people did not ask for help.

What mechanisms were in place to prevent it?

And regarding CT, remember this one?




But such things don't happen in real life.

Europe was not going to fork over all their gold for oil, they would be laughed at and good luck finding anyone else to do it. Iran/contra does not prove the Libyan people wanting to be free of a despot never happened, that is silliness. Do you have anything even remotely concrete to offer that the Libyan people did not want him gone?

And I am not grieving over his removal from the world stage. However, NATO's motivations were not "humanitarian". Of that I am also certain.

The point of the sub-thread is if the Libyan people went into revolt or not. They did, there is plenty of evidence to support that and none to the contrary.

She is the one who believe it is a fake and that there was no such thing.

were in revolt. The old opponents, supporters of the king who Gadaffi ousted in a BLOODLESS coup over 40 years ago, never accepted him. But they were not the majority. They could never have overturned the government. But they were used. Some of them already know it and said so a couple of months ago. Even they benefited from the Social State created by Gadaffi. Gadaffi believed that owning a home was a 'human right' and every Libyan was given money to buy one when they were ready to do so.

They had free HC, free Education and if they wanted to abroad for an education, the government paid for that also. There were special programs AND homes, for the disable and the elderly all paid for by the Government. Libya was the most prosperous country in Africa and its infant mortality rate and lifespan expectancy was better than ours, especially for African Americans. Libyan men had a life expectancy of 75 years.

That is all gone now. The Imperialists, as the news said today are on their there with their bags packed to 'make money' and when the shock of this war wears off, and their Government checks don't come anymore, and their HC is no longer free, and their water and electricity is not restored (still not restored in Iraq, we're good at breaking things, not so good at fixing them we just keep the money allotted) it won't be long before they realize what a paradise they were living in BEFORE the Western Powers decided to bring them DEMOCRACY. That has become a bad word in Africa and the ME. As the Egyptian rebels said 'we do not want Western Democracy like in Iraq'.

But hey, keep cheering. The Looters are on their way for their 'reward' in fact they say they want to be paid in Libyan Gold. That didn't take long. And the Mass Graves?? Shhhh, NATO doesn't do protecting civilians. Their job really was to take out the man who was keeping them from getting what they need to try to pay their gambling debts in Europe before the EU collapses.

The war is over.

Do you know how many people were in Gadaffi's tribe? How many tribes supported him?

The British have already said they will have to put 'boots on the ground' to 'stabilize' Libya. If the war is over, why would that be necessary?

Do you know who has consistently overblown tribal loyalties compared to national one's? Muammar Gaddafi. You are almost quoting the Green Book chapter and verse when you argue that tribal loyalties have always dominated Libyan society above all else. Libyans from the start of the revolution have displayed an overwhelming sense of nationalism symbolized by the adoption of the monarchical flag. Libya will be a democracy and it will be a functioning democracy with a strong memory of the perils of dictatorship.

I have a feeling this is your source for your misguided second claim:



And you must have missed this:



You don't have a leg to stand on! Just like Old Fuzzhead!

'Fuzzhead' I am assuming that you are unaware that that insult in Libya is the equivalent of the 'N' word in this country. It was used by the murderous and bigoted rebels in reference to Gadaffi's support for Black Africans. To them there is no greater insult than to compare someone of lighter skin to Dark Africans. Gadaffi was a supporter of the South African's ANC during the period of Apartheid. I doubt Nelson Mandela eg, would ever refer to him with a such a vile insult: Both Zuma (S. African President) and Nelson Mandela have fondly referred to Gaddafi as “Brother Leader.”

The Sub-Saharan Africans were hated by those 'rebels' as much as the bigots in this country hated African Americans. And Gadaffi's jobs program for them was fiercely opposed by what are now our 'new allies' in Libya. The treatment of those immigrants by the 'rebels' as reported by several Human Rights Organizations as far back as March, witnesses themselves, and reporters on the ground, is reminiscent of our own past history. 'Fuzzhead' = 'N****r'. It was that treatment and the obvious hateful bigotry we were witnessing, among other things, that caused ME to stop supporting this 'uprising'.



My sources for African nations come mostly from African media. They do have media on that continent. I do not rely on Western media when I am researching the African Continent or South America, except for comparison. The Western media which appears to be what you are relying on, has little understanding or desire to understand that Continent which has been obvious here over the past several months. I think they are capable of speaking for themselves, and as is the case here, there are many different views of all these issues there. But one thing that caused me to wonder about this 'up-rising' was the completely different views of many African countries of Libya compared to the views of the Western media.

For a different pov from some of those Black Africans, now unable to stay in Libya, speaking from their home country about the death of Gadaffi:

Ghanaian returnees from Libya mourn Gaddafi





Western media regarding African or South American Affairs are, in my experience having been involved in Human Rights issues for several years, dubious at best, biased mostly towards Western assumptions about the people of those continents, and mostly subtly racist in most cases and in some, overtly so. Your 'fuzzhead' is a perfect example which I know was used, ignorantly, by the Western media. I hope they are made aware of the bigotry they are promoting by repeating it so cavalierly.


The Western media's reporting of those continents still reflects old Colonial attitudes, and it is very sad to see the hubris, which I have witnessed especially during the Libyan Colonial War, which is how it is viewed in many African countries, so typical of the European and US Imperial Governments.

We are there only for one reason, and most Africans know it, even if people here do not, and that is to control their resources.

YOU may hate Gadaffi, but in many African nations he has long been viewed as a hero and while the West cheered a brutal war crime, many in Africa wept. As one prominent African professor said with sorrow, 'this is the beginning of the re-Colonization of Africa. Gadaffi was our hero'.

It's not all about US, or our politicians and how it will make them look. The world does NOT revolve around America or Europe.

We need to stop interfering in other people's business and thinking we know what's good for them. We don't. And we don't do any better job of attempting to control their lives than the last Empire, now our primary ally, Britain.

So, to the West Gadaffi was a bad guy, as if we or Europe have any right to point fingers anywhere, after the past ten years of bloody wars and torture and theft of resources we are responsible for and with more on the horizon.

And from the Western Media, for comparison, someone who actually did recognize that in Africa, many do not share the views of the White Colonialists. So kudos to the NYT this time for presenting THEIR view:

Many in Sub-Saharan Africa Mourn Qaddafi’s Death



In many parts of Africa his death, being that it was caused by a US Drone and a French Jet, is viewed as just another Western murder of an African leader who stood up for African nations against Colonialism. That is THEIR view, and all of our opinions and sense of superiority will not change that.

It appears we have supported the equivalent of the wrong side of our own Civil Rights Movement. Maybe if people educated themselves about other cultures, we would not, as Bush supporters did with Iraq, be so quick to jump on bandwagons, cheering the video war games along as if they were a sport and betting on OUR team winning. Things are far more complex than the black and white presentations we get when our Government embarks on its resource wars.

How sad that another African leader has been killed by Western Powers. Italy was the last Colonial Power to hang publicly, in a brutal and humiliating manner, one of Libya's heroes who remains a hero, and the insult from that has never been forgotten. Nor will this. And they had so much hope as we all did, when America elected its first African American president.

Next time btw, if you want to know what sources people use to get information, don't make wild guesses, ask them.

The impression I get is that it does not refer to sub-Saharan Africans but to bedouin Berbers (who Gaddafi often sought to portray himself as one of i.e. his bulletproof tent).







1. Nowhere can I find a source that specifically conflates it with what you describe. Libyans use it widely; I'll reserve the right to use it to mock your "King of All Kings of Africa." Would you rather I call him a raping, torturing, mass murdering, genocidal, maniac plutocrat who stole hope from his own people and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands?

I think it's sorely disappointing that Mandela maintained a relationship with Gaddafi - Gaddafi bought that friendship - but I have not seen a single statement from Mandela during the revolution - or frankly the last decade supporting Gaddafi's policies in Africa.

I guarantee you they are quite pleased with his demise in Chad, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Ethiopa where he either waged military conflict or supported brutal dictators including Idi Amin, Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Robert Mugabe, and Mengistu_Haile_Mariam.

This is how Gaddafi treated Africans in Libya at the end, as pawns in his desperate struggle for power:





The Couch of Aisha Gaddafi



You're right - Gaddafi supporters in Africa are at most - 1%.

as I said, of people who are not of European origin.

One publishes something and the rest copy it.

The word is a slur against Berbers, the indigenous people of N. Africa, whose hair was curly, unlike the that of Libyans with European or Arab heritage. I'm sure many of those 'rebels' you support do use it a lot, they are the ones who have been murdering and raping Black Africans.

Looks like they are murdering more than Black Africans now.

Mass graves being discovered filled with Gadaffi supporters. Where was NATO when the HR orgs asked them to protect those people?


Libya 'must probe mass 'executions'



NATO was asked to protect those people. But it's obvious now that regime change was the goal, as some people said, all along.

Desmond Tutu has condemned the killings of Gadaffi and Hillary Clinton. Not good for the US to be involved in this disaster.

I would not want to be a Libyan in Libya today.

which turned out to be camel bones.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2022001

sources today. The NTC is opposed by the 'rebels' so they cannot control them.

And this is supposed to be better than what they had before. Also reported, 60% of the country is without water, possibly caused by NATO bombing. Which, as far as I know is a war crime also.

Just like Iraq. I read yesterday that Iraq's infrastructure destroyed by the Allied bombing, water, electricity etc. will take decades to fix. Yet, contracts, which should have gone to the Iraqi people, went to Bechtel and KB&R years ago who were supposed to 'rebuild' what the allies destroyed.

African leaders are saying that there was no need for any of this. That if their proposals had been accepted, there could have been a peaceful resolution to the problems.

I hope someone can stop these killings but everyone is now armed there and I can't imagine how they are going to disarm them.

I'm impressed.

More of this thoughtfulness and thoroughness and the world would be a better place.

Reminds me of my own recent visit to Ethiopia... that was so NOT like the country gets represented in western media.
They've recently discovered large gold deposits in the western part of the great rift valley there.
So we might here more of the country in the near future. :(

valuable resources and they are not Europe or North America or Australia, their future is no longer secure. And we are moving on to Africa now, see 'Africom'. The recolonization of Africa has begun. The Imperial Powers are in financial trouble and traditionally when Empires need money, they go back to their old ways.

So tragic, all of it. Gadaffi feared a new colonization of Africa and was trying to unite the Continent, and had succeeded to a certain extent, to strengthen it against a repeat of that history. He wanted an African version of NATO which would protect member nations from exactly what has just happened to Libya. And he has now been proven right. We are in Somalia, maybe because of the gold in Ethiopia? And next, Uganda, maybe because of the oil in The Sudan?

One thing is certain, none of these wars are for humanitarian purposes. If they were, the mass graves found yesterday would have been condemned by NATO nations, as well as the war crime that was Gadaffi's murder, but no one in a position of power has even commented on them.

What they have commented on how much money can now be made 'rebuilding Libya'. Like Iraq those military contractors are already 'packing their bags' and the Libyans, especially those who thought this was about 'liberation' are going to find out what the Iraqis found out, that their jobs will all go now to foreigners and 'liberation' meant 'liberation from their resources'.

They will miss Gadaffi before very long when their free HC and Education is no longer available, and the gifts he used to give them (he believed owning a home was a 'human right' so every Libyan was given money to buy a home) will no longer be handed out and Libyans are about to go from being the most prosperous country in Africa to being like Iraq. One day I think, there will be another uprising.

The problem is that a different tribal government may not be better for Libya, regardless of how convenient it might be to the imperial powers.

--in support of the rebels. You don't have that many sorties without massive slaughter of civilians.

to dispel the 'babies in the ovens' stories, but like you, have been called 'dictator lovers' as we were once by Bush supporters.

I took the trouble, a bit late as I too fell initially for the 'babies in the ovens' stories, to finally do some research on Libya and was shamed by my own willingness to buy the propaganda we are constantly fed about other countries. I thought I was smarter than that.

Too late now, but I too doubt things will be too great for the majority of Libyans from now on. For the minority who joined the Western Super Powers, life will probably be fine, for a while, but for the tribes who supported Gadaffi, I have great fears. Also, I am afraid that the Social Programs he instituted will now be gone. Their standard of living, the highest in African and better than some in the so-called first world, is likely to deteriorate.

Anyhow, thank you for your firsthand account, it corresponds very much with what I have read and it is a tragedy to see the horrible destruction and breakdown of yet another nation by the same Colonialist powers.

Fareed Zakaria was in Iran for his (taped) show on CNN today. He interviewed Akhmadinejad and made a few brief observations on life in Tehran. He reported that women have to stay covered from head to toe--and are "making fashion statements" with it--but are allowed to drive cars and get an education. Perhaps Libya will start to look something like that with its new drift toward Sharia law. ??

Thanks for the informative post. :thumbsup:

We can not be making assumptions that just because most women in Libya are educated they were not in favor of removing Ghaddafi.

last Spring, an Emirati woman told me that Emirati women are the most educated women in the Arab world. Women hold all sorts of jobs all over the place, from teachers to doctors to shop women. Still, a few years ago a room full of Emirati college students laughed out loud when an academic counselor told them that a mother is the first moral influence on her children. It was commonly known that a woman is not capable of moral choices, so she must rely on her male relatives to guide her. Also, women are not allowed as witnesses in court, except for Dubai where two women can take the place of one male witness. So can you say that women are very well off here, or that they are very oppressed? It is somewhere in the middle. But if someone was to visit for, say, a week or a month, they would probably be impressed with the status of women here.

My views on Libya are influenced by the fact that I live in the Middle East and I have talked to people from this region and read several enlightening books. When I first heard that Samantha Power was encouraging Obama to support rebels in Libya, I was inclined to believe she had good reason. I've read her wonderful books "A Problem From Hell" and "Chasing the Flame" and she convinced me she is most concerned with preventing genocide, or mass murder in general.


I was enormously glad to read the book "Paradise Beneath Her Feet" by Isobel Coleman, which is about women and men fighting for women's rights throughout the Islamic world. It may very well be that Sharia law is adopted in Libya. But it isn't necessarily going to be so repressive as everyone assumes. Sharia law is open to interpretation. I certainly have hope that the women in Libya can learn from history and look to their Muslim sisters around the world for inspiration in making a democracy that includes advantages to themselves.

I got invaluable insight into people's lives when they live under a dictator by reading "People Like Us" by Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk. I can't recommend this short book highly enough. I learned so much about life under dictators and the limits of journalism as it is practiced now that it astonished me. The most relevant point he made for this discussion is that you can't trust people to tell the truth when they live under a dictatorship.

The way I came to understand something about the headscarf issue was through reading the novels of Orhan Pamuk and also reading "The Geopolitics of Emotion" by Dominique Moisi. I don't agree with everything from the latter book, but it had some interesting points to make about identity.

In case I haven't made this clear, I think the Libyan people are better off without Khaddafi, and I think there is hope that things will be better for everyone there. Libyans deserve their chance at democracy.

I always remember the feminist Egyptian student who wore complete cover. In contrast, I can remember an extremely conservative young Arab, Muslim lady who dressed like Britney Spears complete with boostier.

The Muslim world is in a major transitional period and sits (in my mind) about where the West was in 1960... on the cusp of great social changes, but not there yet.

Also, as you live here, you know the constant battle between the conservative religious forces and the moderates/secularists is unending.

I hope Libya works out, but when I see the opposition leader has a callous on his forehead from praying too much I am given pause.

I also remember reading in the English language newspaper in Dubai that employers would far prefer to employ Arab women rather than men because the women are more reliable and don't feel they can slack off the way men do, due to male privilege.

As for headscarves, I observed that women in Libya cover the heads, but their faces may go uncovered (at least the ones who are working or in university) so that's certainly better than you'll find in Yemen.

They have more to gain if they are well educated.

Emirati women usually wear some sort of head scarf, although I've noticed a lot of the younger ones wear the kind that slip easily. At my bank, they usually have at least one worker who wears a scarf halfway on their head and then lets it slip every minute or so.

There's a real art to tying it on securely. Especially if they're made of silky material. Mine was always slipping off, so I can see where it's easy to have it not stay in place.

In Dubai, there was a real variability in headscarf use, but maybe because so much of the population is not Arab but foreign workers.

women than Saudi Arabia or afgahnistan. Iran is also pretty good when it comes to women. they have to cover up but they can drive, work, educated etc.

the places where women have some freedoms are the ones that are demanding change.

the same happened with the Soviet Union where more open policies led to people demanding even more.

And as with the Iraq war, this war too may be based on a crumbling foundation of untruths.

My parents are from Iran and I lived there for many years. The women in Iran were also very educated and they would take part in the day to day activities just like any other men. That however had nothing to do with their aspiration for regime change.

But it serves as a standard for comparing what their lives will be like AFTER regime change.

Already, the new regime wants to allow polygamy again (outlawed before). If it also outlaws educating women, if life expectancy and literacy drops, we'll at least know what to compare the new Libya to.

It is too early to be making these assumptions.

And we can check back in a year or so.

Let's see their status in a year or two. If they're covered up, hidden away, and unable to attend universities, then you can ask whether this was the freedom they hoped for.

what did their "freedom" earn them beside time in prison or worst? East Germany had equality - it was still a violent, repressive police state.

Your fear mongering is beyond pathetic at this point.

If it's a peaceful country with women's rights to education and careers, I'll be happy to say you're right.

But I am a realist. And unlike you, I do not have total and complete faith in the wonderfulness of the rebels.

"Already, the new regime wants to allow polygamy..."

Part of the new regime. There are currently seven different interst groups being represented by the interim government.

do you think they might have a somewhat different perspective?

but you still have the right to political expression and you can actively oppose the government. Women in Libya never had that right.

Out of 131 countries, Libya ranks #95 in per-capita women in prison. US imprisons more than twice the number of women per capita.

High longevity, high literacy rates, say something about the status of women in Libya.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_fem-crime-prisoners-female

or do you believe that there was no political repression in Libya and everyone was happy to live in a one party police state?

So if you take away the criminals, how many political prisoners does that leave?

are you listening to yourself? Do you deny he was the despotic ruler of a police state?

is the US. By many miles so.

OWS would never happen in a real police state - think about before making the ridiculous statements. You have freedoms that many people in the world would literally die for. You do not live in a police state.

nearly 1% of its population as US does. In fact, no other country on earth (some of them real dictatorships) does.
It is hard for me to believe that US population is so much more given to criminal tendencies than that of any other country.
So I must conclude that such inordinate incarceration rate is a function of specifically American justice system,
which jails many more people than is really necessary for maintaining order in society. If that is not a definition of "police
state", I don't know what is. Qaddafi may have jailed people for expressing political opinion, but even then Libya's per
capita prison population was truly miniscule in comparison to that of the US. So in terms of unnecessary deprivation of
freedom US beats Qaddafi's Libya hands down. You are not going to argue that not letting a person to voice his opinion
freely is more limiting to his/her freedom than putting them in jail, are you?

it has nothing to do with maintaining order - that is merely your misinformed anti-American fantasy. Police states don't have vibrant and active political cultures.

As for the incarceration rates - of course despots like Qaddafi can be trusted to be completely transparent and honest.

incarceration rate in the world? Of course, it has nothing to do with maintaining order -
it is exactly my point - your government puts people in jail just for the heck of it.
That's what police states do. If you think that US has "vibrant and active political
culture", I feel sorry for you, for you truly have no idea what vibrant and active
political culture is. Yours is as close to being a single-party state as one can get
without actually having a single party.

not to maintain order. Not for the heck of it. We have a puritanical streak we have a hard time overcoming.

Surely, there is always a particular official reason for incarceration, which is almost never
"what the heck". What I meant was the combination of policies, prejudices and outright superstitions
which inflate US prison population without serving any actual useful purpose. War on drugs is but
one, albeit very important, part of it. Another is ridiculous in its severity sentencing practices
which put minor offenders behind bars for decades. Yet another is the inhumane and overcrowded
penitential system, that self-perpetuating monstrosity which takes juvenile offenders on one end
and spits out hardened recidivist criminals on the other. Yet one more is the ingrained racial
prejudice of the American justice system, stubbornly persisting even 150 years after abolition
of slavery. But the biggest problem is the paralysis of the political system which continues to
fail to address any of those problems through legislation. Again, continuing war on drugs is
but one example. Overcoming that programmed paralysis is exactly the point of OWS, their main
criticism being that of the supposedly "democratic" system which lives 99% of population unrepresented.

a real one that is - not just a relatively conservative country that you don't like.

of "police state" you have implanted in your head. My opinion is different -
US is very near, and by some metrics has already crossed into, police state
territory. Treatment of people participating in peaceful political protests
is but one such metric. Incarceration rate is another. But the main metric
which clinches US as a police state for me is lack of political representation
by vast majority of its population.

you are delusional if you think America is a police state. Be honest - you just don't like the "evil empire".

And you still refuse to admit that it is a police state. Talk about delusional.
Of course, I don't like the "evil empire". Why should I? I have aversion to police
states in general. Is that wrong? You seem to be mightily confused about cause
and effect here, mate.

and tortured? Because that's what real police states do. There is nothing acceptable about torture but don't you think it significant that the reason GITMO exists is because the government is prevented from torturing on American soil?

It is amusing watching you stretch the phrase so far beyond it's accepted meaning just to justify your dislike of America.

incompetent government does good enough job of it all on its own. What truly amusing is to watch
its brainwashed citizens blindly proclaiming their misguided patriotism regardless. Next thing
you going to tell me the US is the best country in the world, right?

According to the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Australia is a serial human rights violator:

http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/hr_violations.php

And let me personally express my thanks for the routine military and intelligence assistance Australia provides America on a daily basis. And lets not forget the brave and noble Australian men and women who fought next to us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps you should pick that beam out of your eye first?

or doesn't do. But I am damn proud that it does not haul peaceful protesters off the streets into jail by the hundred, that it does not imprison
nearly 1% of its population, that it does not torture people, that it does not kill its own citizens without a trial, that it provides free healthcare
to all. Sure, it can do better. Isn't it always the case? But it already does better than most and sure as hell better than the US (though I admit
that is not saying much). So I am not sure what "beam" are you talking about? Is that in reference to Australia's military and intelligence
assistance to the US? Or to Australian military fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? While I don't have any problem with the former (that's
what trusted allies do) and disagree with the latter, neither strikes me as a "beam in my eye" or any stain on my country's reputation.
Please, clarify what you mean.

and this obligates you to pass judgment on the less worthy. Well fuck off.

For clarification refer to your bible.

about how "special" it is. So special that it just can't leave all the rest of us the damn alone. That's all we ask for, really.
Enjoy your "greatness" within the confines of whatever miserable shithole you have built for yourselves. The rest of the
world could manage its business without your infinite wisdom just fine. You, stupid assholes, can't even take the fact
that other people could be proud of their countries too and think that everyone on earth must dream about sneaking
into your glorious paradise and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Sorry to pop your bubble.

just another rude, judgmental bigot motivated by a smug moral superiority that allows one to insult millions with simplistic broad brush stereotypes.

lately? Insult millions? How grandiose. All that time I thought there was just one of you behind those stupid posts. Well, folks, if it took millions
of you to come up with those pearls of wisdom, what the heck, I appreciate the opportunity to insult all of you at once.

while it is clear we don't see eye to eye on this matter, that doesn't excuse my language and insults. I think this is a good time to drop this discussion - Peace.

I spent 10 years of my life in the US. Those years I still consider the best and happiest. It pains me so to see from afar what your country
is turning into. Good luck with turning that around.

I uimagine we'll soon begin seeing a full rehabilitation of Ghadaffi's reign, and that the rebels instrumental to his removal will soon be called terroritsts...

Anything that doesn't fit that script needs to be ignored.

the profound ignorance by some on this site is astounding.

since the Western powers decided the guy was low hanging fruit.

Just look at the bloodlust on display in our 'civilized' western nations.

Heads on pikes never go out of fashion.

You certainly sum up very well the fears held by us Khaddafi apologists/lovers/whatever.

I very, very sincerely hope that I'm wrong this time around.
Albeit that would be a first.
But hope, yes.

when you think it couldn't get any worse and all that...

on the future status of women under the new Libyan regime. Not an optimistic view.

have degrees in privatization from Western universities. LOL, that's some "democratic revolution" right there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

However there is a major difference between Iran 79 and in Libya today. Both are revolutions against an authoritarian dictator, but in Iran it was also a war against western imperialism while in Libya the west assisted with the overthrow.

The fact that we will have a positive starting relationship with the New Libya may help ameliorate some of the worst possible results for women.

And Iran in 1953. Iraq and Libya were both secular, sovereign nations, with relatively equal rights for women and good professional growth potential. In Iraq our motive was (as usual) to install multinational corporations to seize oil wealth, the same as was done in Iran in 1953. Probably soon to be done to Libya.

I agree with the OP.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Diplomats said Thursday that US Ambassador Susan Rice told a closed-door meeting of officials at the UN that the Libyan military is using rape as a weapon in the war with the rebels and some had been issued the anti-impotency drug. She reportedly offered no evidence to backup the claim.
While rape has been a weapon of choice in many other African conflicts, the US officials say they've seen no such reports out of Libya.
Several U.N. diplomats who attended the closed-door Security Council meeting on Libya told Reuters that Rice raised the Viagra issue. The allegation was first reported by a British newspaper.
Pfizer Inc.'s drug Viagra is used to treat impotence.
Diplomats said if it were true that Moammar Gadhafi's troops were being issued Viagra, it could indicate they were being encouraged by their commanders to engage in rape to terrorize the population in areas that have supported the rebels. That would constitute a war crime.
But several diplomats said Rice provided no evidence for the Viagra allegation, which they said was made in an attempt to persuade doubters the conflict in Libya was not just a standard civil war but a much nastier fight in which Gadhafi is not afraid to order his troops to commit heinous acts.
"She spoke of reports of soldiers getting Viagra and raping," a diplomat said. "She spoke of Gadhafi's soldiers targeting children, and other atrocities."
And on Friday, military and intelligence officials, speaking anonymously, said there was no evidence that that was true."


If you dispute this, please provide a link to the evidence.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42824884/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.TqYMEnaJ1xV

There have been plenty of attrocities committed by the Ghaddafi regime long prior to the rebel revolution to justify what NATO and the US did.

What CAN we believe, if our involvement in this regime change was based on something appalling that wasn't true?

Is this the equivalent of the false babies-ripped-from-incubators in Kuwait?

Plus, we're confronted with the "mass grave" of Khaddafi's prisoners that turned out to be a field of camel bones. And the US admission that no air-strike attacks on Libyan citizens was perpetrated by Khaddafi (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777), and you begin to wonder what we're left with to justify regime change.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

How to circumvent international law and justice 101. (My title, not theirs ... but it fits)

That 'no-fly zone' resolution was obtained with completely unsubstantiated, undocumented evidence (iow, proven lies) provided by the 'Prime Minister of the NTC'.

I was amazed and disgusted how easy it was and, in retrospect, how obviously 'humanitarian' it wasn't.

Thanks for the link.

I came to my own conclusions about Libya through my own path. And it is saddening and maddening how we never learn.

I was taken in at the beginning. The more I learn, the worse I feel.

just like the principled, disciplined youth movement there that has been building and training for three generations now.

This exposes a shameful abuse of the R2P doctrine.

sorry but that's just nonsense.

That is the question. Many countries seem like they'd be better off with regime change. But why did we decide to force it on Libya?

I think they have long been waiting for an opportunity like this. Probably ever since Pan Am 103.

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Libyans may be celebrating the killing of Muammar al-Qaddafi, but you'd better believe that Western governments are breathing a sigh of relief themselves.

BY DAVID RIEFF | OCTOBER 24, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/24/the_man_who_knew_too_much

The UN General Assemlby's Libyan Review dated Jan. 4. 2011.

Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review* - Libyan Arab Jamahiriy

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriy was praised by leader after leader for its strides in human rights and social programs.

An interesting article exploring the man, both good and bad.

http://www.thisisafrica.me/city-life/detail/2802/How-bad-was-Gaddafi%3F

Sorry about that. Thank you for an excellent post, mainer.

I'm no fan of dictatorships, either. Instead of going straight to war, though, I'd first try an election. Radical, I know...

housing and education rights and all that other evil, evil dictatorship stuff!1!) Good thing those misguided Libyans are liberated now. All hail the freedom drone. :nuke: :patriot: :nuke:

I learned a lot from your post... :thumbsup: :hi:

I wonder though just how long you were in-country, in what capacity and for what purpose?

I can tell you from my own experience of living and working in North Africa for eight years that it is not at all uncommon to see men and women working side by side in professional capacities there. In fact, I first lived and worked in NA in the early 1960s and found that women civil servants, e.g., teachers, medical personnel (and there were large numbers of women in both of those professions), there enjoyed more workplace protections than did women in the US, i.e., a full two months paid leave for pregnancy and a guarantee of one's position upon return to the workplace. And I repeat, that was in the 1960s!

It is not as if Gaddafi was the only one to institute reforms - and in fact, he did not institute them, merely continued what was already in place as regards the situation of women in Libya. If anything though, in later years especially, their working conditions became more difficult under his regime.

While it is true that Americans generally are woefully ignorant about the Arabic-speaking Muslim world, the fact that you were even surprised to find such things happening in Libya in 2006, which has always had close ties to Europe, in part due to its proximity and the different colonial experiences of North Africa generally, shows that your pre-visit orientation to Libya was somewhat deficient.

I have also been to Egypt numerous times, and have traveled to UAE as well as throughout the Mediterranean, including frequently to Turkey, (and Malaysia as well) so I'm aware that women are well integrated in many Islamic countries around the world. However, after years of hearing Reagan/Bush and the US media talk about Libya as hellhole, I went with obviously biased views.

:hi:

.