Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Nordic » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:35 am
by Bruce Dazzling » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:56 am
Nordic wrote:Hillary Clinton is every bit as putrid and disgusting as anyone in the Bush administration. What a piece of shit.
by seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:40 am
Bodies of 53 'Executed' Gaddafi Loyalists Discovered
Corpses dumped in hotel garden in Sirte lead to calls for inquiry into human rights abuses
by Kim Sengupta in Misrata
The dead had been dumped on the "Sea-View Gardens" of an abandoned hotel. Many of the killings had been carried out with shots to the head; some were already injured when the executions took place; some had their hands tied behind their backs. Amid bullet and bomb casings, pools of water from burst pipes provided grim testimony to the revenge meted out on the last of the regime loyalists.
People gather near the site of an explosion in Sirte yesterday. Residents fear criticism of what has taken place will lead to accusations of being regime collaborators. One resident asked, "What would people in Europe and America say if Gaddafi was doing this?"(Reuters) While international focus has been on the killings of Muammar Gaddafi and his son Muatassim and the display of their corpses, little is known about the fate of those who were with the Libyan dictator in his last refuge, his home town of Sirte. The discovery of the 53 corpses at the Mahari hotel, and another ten dumped in a nearby reservoir reveal a glimpse of the bloodletting.
It has not been possible to ascertain who was responsible for the dead in the reservoir. But the hotel had been in the hands of the rebels, by then the forces of the new government, when the slaughter was believed to have been carried out between 14 and 19 October.
Pools of blood had stained the ground beneath the bodies, spent cartridges lay scattered around suggesting a firing squad had been at work.
Yesterday, Mustafa Abdul Jali, the acting head of the country's government, the National Transitional Council (NTC), bowed to rising pressure from abroad and ordered an inquiry into the shootings of Muammar and Muatassim Gaddafi after they had surrendered. Authorities in Misrata, where their remains have been exhibited for the past four days, announced yesterday that the morbid show was finally over.
Human Rights Watch, which discovered the evidence of the hotel massacre in Sirte, yesterday called for a wider investigation. Director Peter Bouckaert, said: "What happened was pretty bad. If the NTC fails to look thoroughly into this crime it will signal that those who fought against Gaddafi can do anything without fear of prosecution. There is evidence to suggest that some of those shot were prisoners."
The NTC was able to force Gaddafi from power, largely with the help of foreign forces, including Britain. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said last night of the Mahari killings: "We condemn human rights violations perpetrated by either side and we expect the NTC to fully investigate all allegations of abuse committed by its forces, and to bring those responsible to account."
The rebels who had been in the Mahari wanted to be remembered. At the entrance, in the flaking rooms and on the outside walls were written the names of the Tiger Brigade (al-Nimar) Support Brigade (al-Isnad), the Jaguar Brigade (al-Fahad), the Lion Brigade (al-Asad), and the Citadel Brigade (al-Qasba). It is not known if fighters from these groups were present when the killings took place.
Sirte, built up as a model city by the Gaddafi regime, and proclaimed as a future capital of Africa by the delusional former leader, had been pulverised during the assault by opposition forces. Street after street had been smashed and most of the population had fled during the brief lulls in the fighting. Many bitterly complained that they were not being liberated, but facing punishment for the city's links to the dictator.
Residents among the small number left had ventured out after the gunfire ended to find out what happened to family, friends and the Mahari casualties. Among the decomposing corpses they could identify four from the neighbourhood – Ezzidin al-Hinsheri, a former Gaddafi government official, a military officer named Muftah Dabroun, and two others, Amar Mahmoud Saleh and Muftah al-Deley, whose political allegiances were not known.
Sirte is now a desolate place, with small communities scattered across the city. The homes which have not been destroyed have been looted, according to local people, by rebel fighters.
Residents fear criticism of what has taken place will lead to accusations of being regime collaborators. Amar al-Bawadi, 46, who sent his family away but stayed behind – unsuccessfully – to protect his clothes shop, said: "This is just the beginning, there will be lots of dead bodies found. They just opened fire without any care who got hit. Now we are seeing what happened to those who were arrested. What would people in Europe and America say if Gaddafi was doing this?"
by seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:12 pm
EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi?
Which EU countries export the most arms to Libya? Get the full data here
• Get the data
• UK arms sales to the Middle East and North Africa
• UPDATE, 2 MARCH 2011: The Maltese government claims it accidentally added an extra '0' to its arms figures for 2009 - you can read the report on MaltaToday.com here.
Which EU countries armed Libya under Gaddafi? The EU arms sales to Libya statistics, collected by the European Union, are not exactly public knowledge.
We only know about them because of some excellent work by Dan O'Huiggin, who found the complete breakdown of EU military exports in some distant corner of the Europa website and published a breakdown of 2009, the latest year available.
The data, only available as a PDF, is tricky to export but we bring you the latest five years here. It covers from 2005 (the first year after the end of the arms embargo in 2004) right up to 2009.
Roll over bars for numbers. Download the data
Last week we looked at the UK's exports to the Middle East and North Africa. How does the EU data compare?
The key points are:
• The EU granted export licenses for €834.5m worth of arms exports in the first five years after the arms embargo was lifted in October 2004
• 2009 is the highest amount ever: €343.7m
• Italy is the top exporter, with €276.7m over the five years
• The UK got off to a big start in 2005, with €58.9m of the €72.2m total. UK licenses over the five years are worth €119.35m
• Malta saw some €79.7m of guns go through the Island en route to Libya in 2009 - apparently sold via an Italian company
It's worth checking out Dan O'Huiggin's round-up of the brilliant European coverage of these sales for examples of the arms trade in action.
Where do I get the data?
There's no single entry point. You can find the 2009 report here and this search term will get you 2008 as well. You can get earlier years here too.
There are some caveats you should take into account too - these are licenses, so actual sales could be less. They also don't show who the end-user is. So, for example, some of the French licenses are undoubtedly granted for UK companies exporting via Paris. The data is perhaps deliberately obscure.
But we've got the full five years below. What can you do with it?
Data summary
EU arms exports to Libya
Value of export licenses granted. All figures in €m. Click heading to sort. Download this data
by lupercal » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:33 am
by Sounder » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:17 am
Evidence of fakery?
by Seamus OBlimey » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:48 pm
by MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Seamus OBlimey wrote:As the "What is Madman of Tripoli's fate?" thread is locked I'll have to ask here.. does anyone know the source of this report/rumour..
In recent days, images have emerged from video footage of the moments after Col Gaddafi's capture that appear to show him being sodomised with a pole or knife.?
No footage or pics please.
by The Consul » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:38 pm
by Pele'sDaughter » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:17 pm
by seemslikeadream » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:01 pm
Lindsey the Liberator
by Justin Raimondo, October 28, 2011
Has there ever been a war Senator Lindsey Graham didn’t support, or a military appropriation he didn’t think needed to be doubled? His enthusiasm for profligate military spending at a time when even most Republicans are saying some spending cuts may be necessary stands out. He’s even speaking out against cutting foreign aid, and his vehemence on this issue of overseas spending may now be at least partially explained.
When the Charleston-based GenPhar, a pharmaceutical research company, was awarded more than $19 million – as part of a military appropriations bill that funneled $279 million to South Carolina military contractors – Sen. Graham hailed the news as evidence as evidence of his political leadership in the service of his state’s economic interests:
"Once again," he declared, waxing eloquent,
"South Carolina is demonstrating that we are on the forefront of military technology. Military facilities in South Carolina are the tip of the spear for our nation’s armed forces. I am proud to be from a state that is invaluable to America’s fighting force. We provide the human assets and support systems that make the U.S. military the world’s premier fighting force."
Is Graham also proud that GenPhar’s top officials have been indicted for fraud, embezzlement of government funds, and face up to 100 years in jail? Read all about it:
"A major campaign contributor to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) allegedly defrauded the federal government out of at least $3.6 million that was supposed to be used to research vaccines to combat deadly diseases.
"Jian-Yun ‘John’ Dong, the president of the South Carolina-based biotechnology firm GenPhar, and his estranged wife are accused of making at least $31,000 in illegal campaign contributions to Graham and his political action committee. GenPhar was Graham’s sixth largest contributor between 2005 and 2010, with $46,269 in donations coming from GenPhar employees.
"The indictments came down in April, but federal authorities didn’t unseal the charges until Monday. Federal prosecutors allege Dong took $30,000 from a German national and funneled that money to support Graham’s reelection. Graham’s treasurer said that they were cooperating with federal authorities."
Sen. Graham is a proud one, all right – he’s proud of finding every opportunity to turn a foreign policy "crisis" into a money-making opportunity:
"One of the problems I have with ‘leading from behind’ is that when a day like this comes, we don’t have the infrastructure in place that we could have. I’m glad it ended the way it did. It took longer than it should have. If we could have kept American air power in the fight it would have been over quicker. Sixty-thousand Libyans have been wounded, 3,000 maimed, 25,000 killed. Let’s get in on the ground. There is a lot of money to be made in the future in Libya. Lot of oil to be produced. Let’s get on the ground and help the Libyan people establish a democracy and a functioning economy based on free market principles."
The "human assets and support systems" of South Carolina’s military-industrial complex would be more than happy if we "got in on the ground floor" in Libya and utilized the "free market principles" so assiduous practiced by Mr. Dong – the fifth largest contributor to Sen. Graham’s reelection campaigns.
Unlike most of the Republican candidates for President and conservatives in general, Graham joined with the Obama administration and former "antiwar" stalwarts of the Bush era to hail the conquest of Libya – while averring he would have done it quicker, and with far more American chest-beating. Yet the Libyan operation, initially seized on by administration apologists as fresh evidence of the Dear Leader’s great "foreign policy successes," is looking more like a Pyrrhic victory by the day.
The first blow to the triumphalists came when Libya’s new leader announced that Sharia law would form the basis and "framework" of the new constitution and body of laws. Polygamy, he declared, was now legal. US officials rushed to "spin" this latest outburst of honesty from their untamed clients: he was speaking in a "general" sense, every Arab country pays lip service to Islamic law in theory, albeit not always in practice, etc. Yet how, then, to explain the explicit reference to the legalization of polygamy – and who’s to say cutting off the hands of thieves and the stoning of adulterers aren’t next?
It’s one episode of US sock-puppets behaving badly after another. Initially claiming Gadhafi was killed in the "crossfire" between his loyalists and his captors, the rebels were forced to backtrack and face questions about how the horrific lynching death of the Libyan dictator reflects on the new regime. After all, sodomizing Gadhafi with a knife, and then shooting him in the head, is not exactly indicative that the Rule of Law has come to "liberated" Libya – or is coming anytime soon. So the National Transitional Council (NTC) is now saying they’ve been "investigating" the dictator’s death all along, and Gadhafi’s killers are going to be put on trial.
Pardon my skepticism, but whatever happened to the "investigation" into the death of former rebel commander-in-chief Abdul Fatah Younes – who was murdered after being recalled to Benghazi by the ruling NTC, which had him up on charges of "treason"? And then there’s another prominent prisoner who nearly came to a bad end while in the NTC’s custody, former Gadhafi intelligence chief Abuzed Omar Dorda – who was thrown out of a window on the second floor of the prison where he’s presently incarcerated. While he survived the fall, the 71-year-old Dorda is in serious condition, and his family has appealed to the United Nations to protect him from what they view as an attempted assassination. The militiamen guarding Dorda at first blamed the mishap on an escape attempt, and then tried to convince reporters it was a failed suicide attempt – but no, the inquiring scribes were told, they couldn’t see or interview Dorda because the whole matter is "confidential."
What isn’t "confidential," however, is that the Obama administration and its European allies have installed Stone Age savages in power in Libya who aren’t that good at lying. Oh well, a good public relations agency – paid for by you and me – should fix that. Perhaps Hillary can give them a preliminary tutorial.
Sen. McCain’s Libyan Two-Step
October 28, 2011
John McCain cheered the brutal slaying of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but the Arizona senator was singing a different tune last decade when Gaddafi was an ally in the “war on terror.” Then, McCain was eager to help Gaddafi strengthen his security apparatus, reports Morgan Strong.
By Morgan Strong
A delegation of U.S. senators, led by John McCain, visited Libya in early October to pledge American support for the new government, to praise the revolution, and perhaps most importantly to extract promises of favorable treatment for U.S. business interests.
The McCain gang – including Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Marco Rubio of Florida – told the Libyan interim government, the Transitional National Council, that American investors were watching Libya with keen interest and wanted to do business as soon as the last remnants of Muammar Gaddafi’s resistance were routed.
Sen. John McCain
American firms are indeed watching Libya and have been for some time, but not simply in the context of promoting a new democratic society. Some large U.S. companies had been eager to profit as well from sales to Gaddafi’s dictatorship – with McCain helping to clear away political obstacles.
In August 2009, McCain visited Libya as part of another congressional delegation and, according to a confidential U.S. Embassy cable published by Wikileaks, regarded Gaddafi quite differently. Then, McCain viewed the dictator as an important collaborator in what President George W. Bush had dubbed the “war on terror.”
McCain – along with three other senators, Graham, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Susan Collins of Maine – held meetings with Gaddafi and one of his sons, Muatassim, to discuss the dismantling of Libya’s WMD programs and expanding Libya’s cooperation on counterterrorism. According to the cable, McCain expressed a willingness to give Libya equipment to help with its security challenges.
“Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security,” the cable read. “He stated that he understood Libya’s requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. …
“He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation.”
Lieberman, a leading neoconservative, also praised the new era of cooperation with Gaddafi’s regime and marveled at the meeting.
“We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi,” Lieberman said, according to the cable, which added that Lieberman also called “Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.”
Indeed, McCain’s entire delegation was effusive about the prospects for future ties between the U.S. government and Gaddafi. “The Senators recognized Libya’s cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both countries to make the relationship stronger,” the cable said.
“Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the U.S. interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary [Robert] Gates. The Senators expressed appreciation for Libya’s counterterrorism cooperation in the region.”
Muatassim Gaddafi did mildly complain to the senators that “Libya has not been adequately rewarded for its decision to give up WMD and needed some sort of security assurance from the United States,” stressing “the need for Libya to purchase U.S. non-lethal equipment in order to enhance its defense posture,” the cable said.
During the conversations with the senators, the elder Gaddafi mostly listened quietly, though he “commented that friendship was better for the people of both countries and expressed his desire to see the relationship flourish,” according to the cable.
‘Interesting Man’
After the meetings, McCain gushed via Twitter about his impression of Gaddafi, “Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his ‘ranch’ in Libya – interesting meeting with an interesting man.”
As that congressional visit began, a “scene-setter” cable by the U.S. Embassy had reminded McCain and the other senators that “Libya’s decision to give up its WMD programs and to renounce its support for terrorism [during the Bush administration] opened the door for a wide range of cooperation in areas of mutual concern. Libya has acted as a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, and Libya is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters. …
“We have begun some successful training programs to assist Libya in improving its security capabilities, under the rubrics of anti-terrorism assistance and border security.”
That strong cooperation dated back to late 2003 when Gaddafi agreed to dismantle his nuclear and chemical weapons programs, a move that was hailed by the Bush administration as a key foreign policy success and a step that brought Libya in as a partner in the “war on terror.” Libya soon was jailing and torturing suspected “terrorists,” including some turned over by the CIA’s rendition program.
Stephen Kappes, the second-in-command of CIA’s clandestine service, became chummy with his Libyan counterpart Moussa Koussa. A Kappes memo, discovered in the ruins of the Libyan intelligence bureau headquarters after Tripoli fell, begins, “Dear Moussa” and is hand-signed “Steve.”
Among the suspected terrorists handed over to Libya was Hakim Belhaj, who had been the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
This year, Belhaj told the New York Times that he was captured by the U.S. government in 2004 and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.
After his release from prison, Belhaj emerged as a military leader in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, eventually commanding the forces that drove the Gaddafi regime from Tripoli. Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group now deny any allegiance to al-Qaeda.
However, over the last decade, the Bush administration believed that the hotbed of anti-Gaddafi sentiment near Benghazi in eastern Libya was supplying many of the foreign fighters flocking to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight U.S. troops. So Gaddafi, who considered Belhaj and other Islamic militants not just “terrorists” but internal enemies, became one of Washington’s allies of convenience in the “war on terror.”
That cooperation with the United States made it possible for Gaddafi to have the Bush administration help him neutralize Islamic militants like Belhaj. Gaddafi also obtained a variety of surveillance equipment from international suppliers, strengthening his ability to crack down on internal dissent and surely costing the lives of many Libyans once the uprising against Gaddafi began earlier this year.
Confused Dictator
The cozy “counterterrorism” relationship between Gaddafi and the U.S. government also helps explain the dictator’s miscalculation in believing he could wipe out his opponents by force, simply by linking them to al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups.
In March, after President Barack Obama supported a United Nations-backed military intervention in Libya to “protect civilians,” Gaddafi sent the President a personal letter expressing confusion over why things had changed.
“We are confronting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more,” Gaddafi wrote. “What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”
But Gaddafi had slipped from the ranks of America’s new “better friends” whom Sen. Lieberman had hailed two years earlier. Gaddafi was again demonized in the Western press and targeted for extinction.
The UN-approved operation to “protect civilians” soon evolved into a NATO air war to achieve “regime change” with European war planes and American drones enabling the Libyan rebels to eventually overthrow Gaddafi’s government. NATO air power also blocked Gaddafi’s escape from Surt on Oct. 20, allowing rebels to kill him and his son Muatassim.
Why Gaddafi was so surprised by the U.S. about-face in its security alliance with Libya was partly explained by the leaked U.S. Embassy cables and by secret Libyan files that reporters from Western publications obtained after Gaddafi lost control of the capital of Tripoli.
On Aug. 30, the Wall Street Journal reported that Gaddafi’s security officials, alarmed by the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt early this year, held talks with the American firm, Narus, a division of Boeing Corporation, along with French, South African and Chinese technology firms.
Gaddafi’s regime sought to add more sophisticated Internet-filtering capabilities to existing monitoring operation of Libyan citizens phone and Internet use, though Libya’s capability to identify and spy on dissidents was already the most sophisticated in the Arab world.
However, the February uprising in Benghazi heightened the Gaddafi’s regime’s desire to acquire more intrusive technology. So, Libyan Telecom official Bashir Ejlabu held an urgent meeting with Boeing’s Narus division in Barcelona, Spain, in March in an attempt to have a comprehensive monitoring system put in place quickly.
The Narus officials were told that they were expected to fly to Libya immediately to begin installation. They declined to go to Libya fearful of damaging Boeing’s reputation if discovered.
However, tech firms in the U.S., Canada, Europe, China and elsewhere had already, for great profit, helped Gaddafi’s regime block Web sites, intercept e-mail and eavesdrop on telephone conversations.
Although Gaddafi justified this repression as necessary to identify suspected “terrorists” while he served as one of America’s “primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters” – as the U.S. Embassy cable put it in 2009 – the firms providing this technology also bolstered Gaddafi’s ability to engage in internal repression, which included the torture and killing of Libyan dissidents.
The Journal reported that the Chinese telecom company ZTE corp. provided new technology for Libya’s improved monitoring operation. Amesys, a French firm, equipped the regime’s monitoring center with “deep packet inspection” technology, the most intrusive technique available for monitoring Libyans’ online activities.
Libya also wanted to acquire the capability to control the encrypted online-phone service Skype, censor YouTube videos, and block Libyans from disguising their online activities by using proxy servers, according to documents the Journal said it reviewed. The Libyan dissidents relied on Skype extensively in coordinating demonstrations and for planning attacks on Gaddafi’s security forces.
The Journal’s reporters discovered dossiers of Libyans’ online activities in a basement storage room of Gaddafi’s former headquarters in Tripoli. The storage room was adjacent to detention cells where it is claimed those unlucky revolutionaries whose conversations or e-mails were intercepted – and were subsequently arrested by Gaddafi’s security forces – spent their last hours.
The discovery of a mass grave, containing about 900 bodies, after the rebels captured Tripoli, and numerous other sites scattered around the capital including one within Gaddafi’s sprawling headquarters, may have been the final resting place for dissidents whose messages were intercepted by the technology provided by these foreign firms.
Outmatching Gaddafi
As the uprising grew, Gaddafi shut down Libya’s Internet system in early March, but his move came too late. Qatar had given the revolutionaries access to its satellites. The uprising’s Western-trained Libyan engineers, with the apparent help of Western intelligence agencies, maintained effective communications between the rebel forces and their headquarters.
Although Gaddafi ultimately couldn’t defeat the rebellion, his infrastructure of repression surely had benefited from his counterterrorism alliance with the Bush administration. Bush’s lifting of sanctions in September 2006 allowed Gaddafi to acquire communication monitoring equipment commercially from U.S. and other international firms.
In September 2008, a high-profile visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heightened Gaddafi’s international legitimacy, which was raised further by visits such as the one led by McCain in 2009. Last decade, in pursuit of the “war on terror,” the U.S. government essentially turned its back on Libyan dissidents and collaborated with Gaddafi.
After the Libyan uprising showed promise, however, McCain, the fabled straight-shooter, rushed to embrace the rebels and urged President Obama to commit more U.S. military assets to the battle. McCain also insisted that he hadn’t actually cleared the way for the release of Libya’s C-130s, despite his earlier promise to the Gaddafis that he would.
During his most recent visit to Libya – after the fall of Tripoli – McCain told a news conference that the Libyan people deserved all the credit for the success of the revolution. McCain also appeared to be assigning himself the role of U.S. point man on behalf of Libyan interests.
He spoke with vigor about the U.S. responsibility to care for wounded Libyan revolutionaries, as many as 30,000, by sending them to American military hospitals and utilizing Navy hospital ships, although the U.S. military health care system is already overburdened with casualties from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(As a sometime patient within this system, I have witnessed first-hand the terrible struggle the military health care system must undertake to care for America’s wounded.)
Yet, McCain’s two-step dance regarding Libya – from finding common cause with the “interesting” Gaddafi to embracing the forces that killed him — can perhaps best be understood by considering Libya’s billions of dollars in oil reserves and other commercial opportunities.
American oil companies and a variety of other business interests are now frantically attempting to secure contracts with Libya. McCain by positioning himself at the intersection of foreign affairs and international commerce could have a critical hand in those endeavors.
Shortly after McCain left Libya, the Transitional National Council reversed itself regarding a commitment to honor all existing contracts. Instead, the interim government announced that all contracts to foreign firms signed under Gaddafi’s rule would be reviewed for evidence of corruption – and since corruption was widespread, that could be an out on nearly every contract.
Voiding contracts – and then renegotiating them – also would mean hefty profits for Libya’s new ruling elite and their foreign friends. In particular, U.S. firms now stand a much better chance to get lucrative oil deals than they did when Gaddafi was in power and set the rules on Libya’s oil production.
While McCain and his congressional colleagues may be even more sanguine about securing business with Libya now than they were in 2009, their orations about the Libya’s liberation do sound hypocritical when contrasted with their earlier praise for the odious Gaddafi family.
Morgan Strong is a former professor of Middle Eastern history, and was an adviser to CBS News “60 Minutes” on the Middle East.
by lupercal » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:54 pm
by 153den » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:42 am
by Gouda » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:06 am
A feasible, I don’t know if it’s feasible or not, but I think the kind of thought that would be occurring to the Pentagon planners is to sponsor a liberation movement, so-called, in the area near the Gulf then move in to defend it.
Again, I would be amazed if there aren't efforts to sponsor secessionist movements elsewhere...The strategy appears to be: try to break the country up internally, try to impel the leadership to be as harsh and brutal as possible.
So it could be that one strain of the policy is to stir up secessionist movements, particularly in the oil rich regions, the Arab regions near the Gulf...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
