Massacre in Libya as Lunatic Clown Gaddaffi uses mercenaries

[gman]

Any idiots in Libya targetting people because of the colour of their skin and/or ability to speak Arabic or Berber (as opposed to because of direct evidence that they are mercenaries) ought to bear in mind that the enemy could just as well look like them and speak the same language, as Libyans are not immune from being bribed to be mercenaries too. My friend's relative was one of those murdered last Friday in Tripoli, by an Arab or Berber Libyan Gaddafi "loyalist", or rather "mercenary", as they are certainly being paid, who sprayed the crowd coming out of the mosque with Uzi fire before they had even had the chance to join the protest.
Hopefully Libyans (which includes black-skinned people as well as brown-skinned Arabs and Berbers) will resist the temptation to vent anger on easy scapegoats.
According to my friend his people will never accept U.S./British etc. military forces coming to "save them" (or rather to save those oilfields) but will fight to the death to defend their land against both Gaddafi and any foreign powers who try to intervene for their own ulterior motives. Hopefully he's right....

[News]

Russian military: "Airstrikes in Libya did not take place"

Voltaire Network
March 2, 2011

The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia’s military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space – and the pictures tell a different story.

According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 21 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi – the country’s largest city – and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground.

At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred.

Airstrikes in Libya did not take place - Russian military
The same sources in Russia’s military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya’s oil pumping facilities.

For further comments regarding Al Jazeera’s allegedly unreliable coverage see Libya: Are the US and EU Pushing for Civil War to Justify NATO Intervention?, by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Voltaire Network, 25 February 2011, chapter "The Politics of Al Jazeera" :

"The Libyan government has shut down the internet and phone lines and an information war is underway. Although one of the most professional news network in the world, it has to be cautioned that Al Jazeera is not a neutral actor. It is subordinate to the Emir of Qatar and the Qatari government, which is also an autocracy. By picking and choosing what to report, Al Jazeera’s coverage of Libya is biased. This is evident when one studies Al Jazeera’s coverage of Bahrain, which has been restrained due to political ties between the leaders of Bahrain and Qatar.

"Reports by Al Jazeera about Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified and questionable. Here to, the reports that Libyan jets have been attacking people in the streets have not been verified. No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown, while visual confirmation about other events have been coming out of Libya.

"Al Jazeera is not alone in its biased reporting from Libya. The Saudi media is also relishing the events in Libya. Asharq Al-Awsat is a paper that is strictly aligned to U.S. interests in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region. Its editor-in-chief is now running editorials glorifying the Arab League for their decision to suspend Libya – why were such steps not taken for Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, or Yemen? Inside and outside the Arab World, the mainstream media is now creating the conditions for some sort of intervention in Libya."

http://www.voltairenet.org/article168682.html

...

Did Gaddaffi Bomb His Own People? NO!
Airstrikes In Libya Did Not Take Place - Russian Military
The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a different story.

[News]

Unverified Misreporting on Libya

By Stephen Lendman
March 01, 2011

America's media, Britain's state-controlled BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are spreading unverified or false reports on Libya's uprising.

On February 25, writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian specialist, based on reliable in-country contacts, headlined an important article, "Libya: Is Washington Pushing for Civil War to Justify a US-NATO Military Intervention?"

Access it through the following link: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23375

For greater readership, this article covers key information in it. Its entirety explains much about what's ongoing - what major media accounts misreport or suppress, especially television reaching large audiences, presenting distorted managed news. It shouldn't surprise. Representing powerful interests, carefully filtered sanitized reporting substitutes for the real kind.

Gaddafi indisputably is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," and spawning "an entire hierarchy of corrupt officials," disdainful of popular interests.

Nonetheless, something is "(r)otten in the so-called 'Jamahiriya' (state of the masses) of Libya." Popular anger is justified and real. At issue is whether it's spontaneous or externally generated, and, if so, by whom and for what reasons.

Western powers, especially America, gladly support despots. They only fall into disfavor by forgetting who's boss. Mubarak forgot. So did Gaddafi, long targeted for removal despite rapprochement with America and Western nations. As a result, in-country reports lack credibility without verifiable proof. Much of it is lacking.

At issue is removing an outlier while keeping his regime intact, one friendly to Washington and Western interests. Acquiescence assures support for the world's most ruthless tyrants. Straying gets them in trouble. Gaddafi strayed, leaving him vulnerable for removal.

Comparing Yugoslavia to Libya

In the 1990s, "pack (or) advocacy journalism" substituted for the real kind, including by promoting the 1999 US-led NATO war of aggression to complete Yugoslavia's long-planned balkanization, characterized as "humanitarian intervention," the same theme repeated now.

From March 24 - June 10, 1999, daily attacks were relentless. Around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties, dropping thousands of tons of ordinance as well as hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles. Its ferocity to that time was unprecedented. Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Vast destruction was inflicted. Two million people lost their livelihoods, many their homes and communities, and for most their futures under military occupation.

Diana Johnstone's "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions" remains the definitive Balkan wars history, explaining what Western media reports suppressed. For America and European powers, it was about deterring Slobodan Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" ambitions, a gross mischaracterization about 1990s events, culminating in naked aggression.

Libyan turmoil appears headed for a similar resolution, driven by unverified misreporting of events on the ground. In Yugoslavia, it was about removing Milosevic for a more accommodative replacement. In Libya, Gaddafi appears headed for the same fate, again by raw force, Washington's alternate "diplomacy," the same kind used to "liberate" Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying both countries, causing millions of deaths as well as vast devastation and despair.

Libyan Analysis in Bullet Points

-- Unlike Tunisia, Egypt, and other regional allies, "upsetting (Libya's) established order is a US and EU objective," by replacing one despot with another.

-- the West "seek('s) to capitalize on the revolt" for new leadership it controls.

-- Heavy weapons are coming in.

-- Destabilizing Libya affects its vast energy reserves and neighboring states, perhaps the entire region.

-- Tensions among Libyan factions complicate matters further, including between Gaddafi's son, Saif Al-Islam, "and his father's circle of older ministers. Libyan ministers are generally divided amongst those (close to Said) and" member's of the "old guard."

-- Other tensions exist between Gaddafi and his sons, perhaps one generation against another, each with its own ideas incompatible with the other.

-- Gaddafi spent years purging opposition. Even so, "little loyalty is felt for (him) and his family." Fear alone gives them power. Now it's gone, denunciation of his regime openly stated. "Aref Sharif, the head of Libyan Air Force," renounced him. Ministers and ambassadors resigned, some going abroad. "Defections are snowballing amongst the military and government." Yet what's ongoing may differ significantly from unverified or willful major media misreporting, including by Al Jazeera.

-- Authentic opposition is real, but not organized. It's "been encouraged and prompted from outside Libya through social media networks, international news stations, and events in the rest of the Arab World." As a result, major media reports are suspect. Accept nothing from them at face value.

-- Internal opposition leadership comes "from within the regime itself." However, corrupt officials aren't populists. They oppose Gaddafi but not tyranny, corruption, and other trappings of power and privilege. Some of them, in fact, wish "to save themselves, while others" want to "strengthen their positions." It's also possible or likely that they've allied with Western powers for their own self-interest.

-- Major media reports, including by Al Jazeera, "about Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified and questionable....No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown." Gaddafi, in fact, controls cities reported to be occupied by opponents. Moreover, some accounts of violence are spurious. Stories are invented to "justify no-fly zones," perhaps heading for war led by America and NATO.

-- Corporate and Western interests in Libya, not despotism, explain what's ongoing. They're fueling civil war to replace one despot with another, one they control. "Chaos in the Arab World has been viewed as beneficial (to) Washington, Tel Aviv," and other Western powers. Balkanization may be planned, similar to Yugoslavia, culminating as explained above - "liberation" for control, not democracy America won't tolerate, including at home. If it happens, regional destabilization may follow, leaders everywhere wondering who's next.

-- Henry Kissinger once said: "to be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." If balkanization is planned, friends and foes alike may be targeted if thought unreliable. Libya's chaos also affects Europe and global energy issues, including price, for oil heading over $100 a barrel and maybe much higher, threatening fragile economies with deeper crisis.

-- Washington wanted Gaddafi replaced for years. Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark once included Libya among future targeted countries besides Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Divide, conquer and control, a game way pre-dating modern America.

-- Libya conducted secret negotiations with Washington in 2001. Formal rapprochement followed, but doing business with imperial powers is dangerous, and in Gaddafi's case perhaps fatal with no safe haven if civil war or NATO ousts him. Either "provides the best cover" for controlling Libya's "energy sector and to appropriate (its) vast wealth."

-- Libyans should be wary. America and Western powers play hardball against popular interests throughout the region.

-- "Actions of opposition to Gaddafi are strong, but there is no strong organized 'opposition movement.' The two are different." Moreover, no opposition force wants democracy.

-- Serious discussion suggests a Yugoslav-type "humanitarian intervention." A "no-fly" zone is mentioned, an act of war if imposed, giving Western powers the right to intervene militarily the way Iraq was bombed in the 1990s. Invasion and occupation, in fact, could follow to replace the already weakened regime. Libya's assets would be plundered, its people left with one despot replacing another.

A Final Comment

For decades, Gaddafi denied Libyans democratic freedoms. Imperial occupation, however, is worse, creating nightmarish conditions for Iraqis, Afghans, and others experiencing US-style rule, exceeding the worst of regional despots' harshness, making some look benign by comparison.

Under more populist leaders than Gaddafi and internal opposition forces, mobilized resistance may prevent it, but not easily or quickly. Libyans must now liberate themselves, independent of Western powers wanting to exploit them for their own self-interest.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2287

[News]

Robert Fisk: The historical narrative that lies beneath the Gaddafi rebellion

independent.co.uk
Thursday, 3 March 2011

Poor old Libyans. After 42 years of Gaddafi, the spirit of resistance did not burn so strongly. The intellectual heart of Libya had fled abroad.

Libyans have always opposed foreign occupiers just as the Algerians and the Egyptians and the Yemenis have done – but their Beloved Leader has always presented himself as a fellow resister rather than a dictator. Hence in his long self-parody of a speech in Tripoli yesterday, he invoked Omar Mukhtar – hanged by Mussolini's colonial army – rather than the patronising tone of a Mubarak or a Ben Ali.

And who was he going to free Libya from? Al-Qa'ida, of course. Indeed, at one point in his Green Square address, Gaddafi made a very interesting remark. His Libyan intelligence service, he said, had helped to free al-Qa'ida members from the US prison at Guantanamo in return for a promise that al-Qa'ida would not operate in Libya or attack his regime. But al-Qa'ida betrayed the Libyans, he insisted, and set up "sleeper cells" in the country.

Whether Gaddafi believes all this or not, there have been many rumours in the Arab world of contacts between Gaddafi's secret police and al-Qa'ida operatives, meetings intended to avoid a recurrence of the miniature Islamist uprising that Gaddafi faced years ago in Benghazi.

And many al-Qa'ida members did come from Libya – hence the frequent nomme de guerre of "al-Libi" which they added as a patronymic. Natural it then was for Gaddafi, who once hosted Abu Nidal's Palestinian assassination groups (who never betrayed him), to suspect that al-Qa'ida lay somewhere behind the uprising in eastern Libya.

It is only a matter of time, needless to say, before Gaddafi reminds Libyans that al-Qa'ida was a satellite of the very Arab mujahedin used by the United States to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Yet Libya's own ferocious resistance to Italian colonisation proves that its people know how to fight and die. In "Tripolitania", Libyans were expected to walk in the gutter if Italians were walking towards them on the same pavement and Fascist Italy used aircraft as well as occupation troops to bring Libya to heel.

Ironically, it was the forces of the British and Americans rather than the Italians that liberated Libya. And they themselves left behind a legacy of millions of landmines around Tobruk and Benghazi that Gaddafi's weird regime never ceased to exploit as Libyan shepherds continued to die on the old battlefields of the Second World War.

So Libyans are not disconnected from history. Their grandfathers – in some cases their fathers – fought against the Italians; thus a foundation of resistance, a real historical narrative, lies beneath their opposition to Gaddafi; hence Gaddafi's own adoption of resistance – to the mythical threat of al-Qa'ida's "foreign" brutality – is supposed to maintain support for his regime.

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, however, the "People's Masses" of Libya are a tribal rather than a societal nation. Hence two members of Gaddafi's own family – the head of security in Tripoli and the most influential intelligence officer in Benghazi – were respectively his nephew, Abdel Salem Alhadi, and his cousin, Mabrouk Warfali. Gaddafi's own tribe, the Guedaffi, come from the desert between Sirte and Sebha; hence the western region of Libya remains under his control.

Talk of civil war in Libya – the kind of waffle currently emerging from Hillary Clinton's State Department – is nonsense. All revolutions, bloody or otherwise, are usually civil wars unless outside powers intervene, which Western nations clearly do not intend to do and the people of eastern Libya have already said they do not wish for foreign intervention (David Cameron, please note).

But Gaddafi went to war in Chad – and lost. Gaddafi's regime is not a great military power and Colonel Gaddafi is not General Gaddafi. Yet he will go on singing his anti-colonial songs and as long as his security teams are prepared to hold on in the west of the country, he can flaunt himself in Tripoli.

And a warning: under UN sanctions, Iraqis were supposed to rise up against Saddam Hussein. They didn't – because they were too busy trying to keep their families alive without bread or fresh water or money. Saddam lost all but four provinces of Iraq in the 1991 rebellion. But he got them back.

Now western Libyans live without bread or fresh water or money. And Gaddafi yesterday spoke in Tripoli's Green Square with the same resolution to "rescue" Benghazi from "terrorists". Dictators don't like or trust each other; but unfortunately they do learn from each other.

Source: independent.co.uk

[gman]

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/06/140425.html
On Libyan front, zeal compensates for inexperience
Sunday, 06 March 2011
 
Ras Lanuf, LIBYA (Agencies)
 
Opposition fighters in east Libya regrouped on Sunday and moved back towards Bin Jawad after forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi had ambushed rebels and ejected them from the town earlier in the day, a Reuters witness said.

"We are just outside Bin Jawad. There are thuds of mortars landing near rebel positions, leaving puffs of smoke, and also the sound of heavy machine guns in the distance," Reuters correspondent Mohammed Abbas said in a brief report.

"There's a steady stream of rebels heading back west towards Bin Jawad," he said.

Earlier Gaddafi’s forces backed up by warplanes, pushed rebels away from the coastal town of Bin Jawad to stop their advance on Gaddafi's home town of Sirte.

Previously sky-high morale plummeted among the rebels after they were pushed back from the tiny hamlet of Bin Jawad near the Mediterranean, the furthest west they had advanced from their eastern bastion in their uprising against the Libyan strongman.

They said Gaddafi loyalists lured them into a trap, secreting themselves in homes, mingling with civilians and hunkering down on rooftops. As rebels drove on, oblivious to the hidden threat, they unleashed a massive salvo of fire.

"This is what pushed us back. This is what got us out of Bin Jawad," shouted one rebel, jumping out of a car with part of a shell cradled in his arms.

Those who spoke to AFP after fleeing the latest battle said they were powerless in the face of heavy machine gun fire and air strikes, despite having already captured much of eastern Libya.

Down the road in nearby Ras Lanuf, which cheering rebels endured heavy fighting to capture on Friday, young men argued and nerves frayed as medics in screeching ambulances rushed in casualties from the front.

Frustrated by defeat Libyan defected soldier (2nd L) explains how to use a rocket launcher One group stood round a pick-up truck filled with rocket launchers, arguing about what had gone wrong and how they should proceed.

"Whoever has a weapon should advance and fight," said one rebel.

"But we only have light weapons," interjected another.

"Well either that or we should all go back to Benghazi," insisted the first man. Another man just shook his head. "The problem is we have no leadership."

"What about Colonel Bashir," said someone else, referring to one of the rebel commanders most widely known in Ras Lanuf, particularly among reporters.

But the first man was unimpressed. "Who is this Colonel Bashir? I've never heard of him," he retorted.

Two others argued outside Ras Lanuf hospital as a loudhailer atop an ambulance yelled warnings to rebels not to gather in groups.

"They're hitting them in groups," one medic shouted.

"Whoever has a gun, go now and fight in Bin Jawad," said one rebel.

"No, no this is how we'll start the civil war," hit back the other.

Bloodied casualties stretchered into a small hospital shouted of betrayal.

His scalp grazed by a bullet, 21-year-old Abdul Ali Abdulkhair tried to lift himself out of bed and raised his fingers to flash the rebels' trademark V for victory sign as soon as he saw an AFP reporter.

"Really I'm very, very comfortable. I'm just perfect right now," he claimed, launching into a chant mocking the Libyan strongman's battle cry: "Alley by alley, room by room, we're going to come and get you Gaddafi."

"We were combing Bin Jawad and when we went on the main road, they hit us with the heavy machine guns," said Abdulkhair, a volunteer from Al-Baida, a town far to the east.

A French cameraman shot in the leg while travelling in a car with a group of rebels said his shattered camera saved his life.

When the bullet pierced his calf, he fell to the floor on his back. Despite the pain, he managed to take a quick photograph of a Libyan fighter lying on his stomach in a sand dune, shooting, and his own burning video camera.

"That was my camera. It saved my life," the journalist said.

Zeal and divine intervention Wreckage of a loyalist jet shot down the day before by Libyan rebels The opposition fighters lack training but not enthusiasm. They credit their success so far to a mix of revolutionary zeal and divine intervention.

"We are not an organized army. We don't use military tactics," said Bashir Abdul Gadir, a former colonel in Gaddafi's army now serving as an officer in the rebel force seeking to end his four decades in power. "Our tactics are revolutionary. We don't take death into account," he said.

Most of the fighters are young, with little military training. A few are armed only with knives. There appears to be little concept of discipline in their ranks.

"We don't take orders from anyone, only God, who will give us victory. We took Benghazi, Dirna, Tobrouk, and al-Bayda, without a military plan, it was God," said young rebel fighter Ali Faituri, sat in a pick up truck with a large machinegun.

Faituri is typical of many of the enthusiastic young men who appear to move without formal orders, instead advancing on plans passed between rebels by word of mouth or mobile phone, or simply joining in the action wherever they find it.

"You can't control it"  We watch the news, ask other youths to find out where the clashes are and go to help our brothers   
Civilian volunteer Abdullah Shouaib"We hear by phone from people in towns along the way that they need help. We come, free them, they join us, and we move on," said Alaadine Omran, 26, a rebel volunteer, who helps with logistics and the wounded.

Typically before opposition fighters’ movements, a group takes the lead ahead, and others then join without asking where they are going or what they are doing beyond "getting rid of the dog Gaddafi".

Tyres screech as vehicles spin round to join the charge, mostly pick up trucks loaded with men, rifles and machineguns. Most trucks are spray painted with slogans such as "revolutionary army" or "people's army".

"We watch the news, ask other youths to find out where the clashes are and go to help our brothers," said civilian volunteer Abdullah Shouaib, 27.

The collapse of Gaddafi's control in the east has left his opponents with access to abandoned military bases, vehicles and weapons.

Chaotic mix  We went to Benghazi and they registered our names and we formed a brigade   
Adem FarajThe pro-Gaddafi security forces are a chaotic mix of regular troops and fighters in mismatched uniforms and green bandanas, heavily armed and, analysts say, motivated by the fear of opposition fighters’ retribution if Gaddafi falls.

But they appear to be struggling to re-organize after units defected, and there is also a question mark over the loyalty of the air force, with revolutionaries saying most of their bombing runs in the east fall just short of the target.

Although the rebel forces include professional soldiers as well as volunteers who have registered at opposition-held bases and received some training, they appear to be in the minority.

In Benghazi, Libya's second city, rebels have formed a military council, from whom some fighters at the front line said they took orders.

"We went to Benghazi and they registered our names and we formed a brigade," said Adem Faraj, labelling others who had not registered "hangers on".

"There's not been enough time to include them formally. But our cause is the same," he said. Opposition officer Abdul Gadir said: "This is the nature of the people's revolution. You can't control it. Only 10 percent of us are professional soldiers."