Gaddafi’s son assassinated

Comment: CIA-MI6-Mossad cleaning up "loose ends". 

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

RT

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, has been assassinated, a source close to the family confirmed to RT on Tuesday.

He was killed by four people “who quickly fled the scene after shooting him in his garden,” a family source told Al Arabiya. According to media reports, for the last several years Gaddafi had been living in hiding in Libya.

In 2015, a Libyan court sentenced Saif al-Islam to death for his role in the crackdown on protests during the 2011 unrest that led to the downfall of his father’s government. The International Criminal Court separately charged him with crimes against humanity. Saif al-Islam was released in 2017 as part of a general amnesty.

In 2021, he registered as a candidate for the presidential election scheduled for December, but the vote ultimately collapsed amid political deadlock.

Muammar Gaddafi seized power in a 1969 coup and ruled the oil-rich country until his killing in 2011 by insurgents backed by a US-led military intervention.

Libya has since experienced intermittent civil war and remains divided between rival governments in the west and east. Presidential and parliamentary elections have repeatedly been postponed as political tensions persist.

US strategy of 'regime change' is over - Gabbard

RT

Venezuela earlier this year accused the US president of plotting a coup, while Trump himself has floated the idea of overthrowing Iran's leadership.

US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard has acknowledged Washington's history of regime change but said it ended under President Donald Trump - despite his recent remarks on Iran and accusations about Venezuela.

The US has long faced criticism for pursuing policies aimed at overthrowing governments under the banner of promoting democracy or protecting national interests - from Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 to backing "color revolutions" such as Ukraine's 2014 Maidan coup. Speaking at the 21st Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on Saturday, Gabbard claimed that, unlike its predecessors, the Trump administration prioritizes diplomacy and mutual deals over coups.

"The old Washington way of thinking is something we hope is in the rearview mirror and something that has held us back for too long: for decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building. It is a 'one-size-fits-all approach' of toppling regimes, imposing US governance models, and intervening in 'poorly understood' conflicts, only to walk away with more enemies than allies."

Gabbard said the strategy drained trillions of US taxpayer dollars, cost countless lives, and fueled new security threats, but noted that Trump was elected "to put an end to this."

"And from day one, he has showed a very different way to conduct foreign policy, one that is pragmatic, that is deal-driven. This is what President Trump's America First policy looks like in action - building peace through diplomacy."

Since his inauguration in early 2025, Trump has repeatedly portrayed himself as a global peacemaker, boasting of brokering international deals and saying he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Critics, however, argue his pressure campaigns on Venezuela and Iran mirror Washington's regime-change playbook.

Caracas last month accused the US of plotting a coup against President Nicolas Maduro under the guise of its ongoing anti-drug campaign off the country's coast. Trump himself hinted at "regime change" in Iran after US strikes in June, posting on truth Social: "Why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Tehran, which has long accused Washington of trying to destabilize it through sanctions and covert actions, denounced the strikes as proof of renewed efforts to undermine its government.

How the West’s War in Libya Has Spurred Terrorism in 14 Countries

Mark Curtis
Middle Eastern Eye

Eight years on from Nato's war in Libya in 2011, as the country enters a new phase in its conflict, I have taken stock of the number of countries to which terrorism has spread as a direct product of that war.
 
The number is at least 14. The legacy of David Cameron's, Nicolas Sarkozy's and Barack Obama's overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has been gruesomely felt by Europeans and Africans.

Yet holding these leaders accountable for their decision to go to war is as distant as ever.  

Ungoverned space

The 2011 conflict, in which Nato worked alongside Islamist forces on the ground to remove Gaddafi, produced an ungoverned space in Libya and a country awash with weapons, ideal for terrorist groups to thrive.

But it was Syria that suffered first.

After civil war broke out there in early 2011, at the same time as in Libya, the latter became a facilitation and training hub for around 3,000 fighters on their way to Syria, many of whom joined al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State-affiliated Katibat al-Battar al-Libi (KBL), which was founded by militants from Libya.

In Libya itself, a rebranding of existing al-Qaeda-linked groups in the north-eastern area of Derna produced Islamic State's first official branch in the country in mid-2014, incorporating members of the KBL.

During 2015, IS Libya conducted car bombings and beheadings and established territorial control and governance over parts of Derna and Benghazi in the east and Sabratha in the west. It also became the sole governing body in the north-central city of Sirte, with as many as 5,000 fighters occupying the city.

By late 2016, IS in Libya was forced out of these areas, largely due to US air strikes, but withdrew to the desert areas south of Sirte, continuing low-level attacks.

In the last two years, the group has re-emerged as a formidable insurgent force and is again waging high-profile attacks on state institutions and conducting regular hit-and-run operations in the southwestern desert.

Last September, UN Special Representative to Libya Ghassan Salame told the UN Security Council that the IS "presence and operations in Libya are only spreading".

Read more

Will the US ever be held accountable for its war crimes?

Jean Perier
New Eastern Outlook

For more than a decade, the United States has been steadily increasing the scale of its illegal military operations across the Middle East, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Eighteen years ago, the US invaded Afghanistan under the pretext of ousting the Taliban who allegedly granted sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. According to a study released by Brown University, more than 140,000 Afghan militants and civilians have died in the fight.

Since December 2001, the United States has been conducting various operations in Somali, and even today the Pentagon carries out both air strikes and ground operations, accompanied by a constant toll of civilian lives.

Back in 2003, Washington launched Operation Iraq Freedom to strip Saddam Hussein of WMDs he didn't even have and to convert Iraq into a «democracy», plunging this country into a state of perpetual chaos guaranteeing that it will remain a Western bastion in the Arab and Islamic World for years to come.

Eight years ago, the US succeeded in destabilizing Libya, when US warplanes attacked the troops of Libya's most successful ruler to date - Muammar Gaddafi. Back then, Washington took every step to ensure his government would be ousted and and its key leaders murdered. The Libyan conflict has since produced tens of thousands of dead. In 2016, Barack Obama said that Libya was probably the "worst mistake" of his presidency.

The seven years of war in Syria resulted in a death toll of half a million Syrian nationals. Here, American troops are stationed illegally to fight ISIS and "indigenous ground forces." The strange wording that Washington uses in its official rhetoric is no coincidence, since more than on one occasion US armed forces have opened fire on both Syrian government troops and civilians, with no official rationale ever being given to explain this brutality.

In Yemen, the United States has been backing Saudi Arabia's efforts to put an end to the Houthi rebellion for three years. Washington carries on supplying Saudi authorities with high-precision weapons, combat aircraft and intelligence. This war has already triggered the largest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, with 20 million people finding themselves on the brink of starvation. 

Read more

Tulsi Gabbard - Why she is running for president

Comment: Much as I like Gabbard she won't be allowed to get anywhere near the presidency.

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

Tulsi Gabbard

Stand with Tulsi: https://www.tulsi2020.com | If you share only one thing about Tulsi with your friends and family, make it this video. Over six minutes, this raw and emotional exchange encapsulates the reason she is running for president. 

From Tulsi Gabbard: 

As a soldier, I know the cost of war—on my brothers and sisters in uniform, their families, and the people in those countries where we intervene, whose lives are completely devastated. Over the last two decades, through the Iraq War, the invasion of Libya and the Syrian War, we’ve seen the catastrophic impacts of American intervention. But it’s not only those who are impacted by combat who pay the price—every single American pays the price for these wars.

My mission as president will be to put an end to wasteful and reckless regime change wars, the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and introduce a Peace Dividend to reinvest the trillions that would be spent on those wars to instead meet the needs of the American people.

Our needs are great—redirecting those trillions of dollars means investing in universal healthcare and education, climate change solutions, clean air and water for our communities, rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure, investing in a green energy economy, and protecting Social Security for seniors.

The people in charge of our foreign policy—the ones ratcheting up tensions with Russia, China and North Korea, the ones who are making the case for regime change war in Syria, Venezuela and Iran, either don’t know or don’t care about the true cost of war and the very real threat of nuclear war in our world today. To effectively address the threats we face in a global economy and as a global community - including nuclear war, climate change and global pandemics—we need to get out of the Cold War mentality that pits one nation against another nation. This is fossilized 20th century thinking that doesn't fit the world we live in today.

We're not in a win-lose scenario anymore—we have to be committed both militarily and economically to a win-win approach based on cooperation for mutual security and prosperity. Regardless of party or label—Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Progressives—we must come together to bring about a sea change in our approach to foreign policy.

This is why I’m running for president: to institute a Peace Dividend by ending regime change war, ending the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, taking the trillions of dollars wasted in these wars and giving them back to the American people. With this Peace Dividend, we can provide Medicare for All, we can protect Social Security, we can ensure our students have access to an affordable education, we can rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure and we can protect our air and water, to build a brighter future for all Americans. 

 #TulsiGabbard #TULSI2020 #PeaceDividend #IraqWar #AfghanistanWar #Venezuela

Against All Odds, Libyans Fight to Regain Their Freedom From Western Occupation

Libyan War The Truth

In 2011, an evil scheme by the Western Mafia of Khazarian Zionists (UN, NATO, US, UK, France, Qatar), began a false flag titled "Arab Spring". This scheme was developed to destroy one sovereign country - Libya. The reason behind this was many fold but mainly, Ghadafi had started a gold currency for Africa called the gold dinar. This gold backed currency was already started in the Comoro Islands and all Arab countries has signed up along with more than half of Africa. This dinar would have caused the demise of the toilet paper bankers who control most of the world with their vacant petro dollar. 

The entire premise of "Protecting the Innocents" from an oppressive regime used in 2011 to foment the invasion and destruction of Libya was a complete and utter lie. 

Let's put this in perspective:

A huge invasionary force professing to protect the Libyan people causes one sixth of their population to be dead or missing, Two million Libyans must live in exile to preserve their lives. The entire infrastructure of the country is destroyed with 100's of thousands of bombs dropped on the country. Destroyed were Power plant's, water treatment plants, hospitals, universities, roads, agricultural areas, homes, etc. Total destruction in Libya will run into the trillion dollar range. The occupational force of 250,000 terrorist mercenaries that were brought into Libya in 2011 by the CIA, Mossad, Mi6, etc.,were left in Libya to enjoy all the spoils and continue the destabilization of the country. These occupying forces enjoyed full support of weapons, money and training for the past 8 years by the US,UN, NATO, UK, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

The Libyan people's right to vote was ignored or taken from them. A non elected UN puppet government was installed (GNA or Government of National Accord) with no basis in law and given access to the Libyan people's 500 billion dollars which was held in the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and Bank of Japan. With this huge amount of monetary resources, nothing has been done to aid and assist the beleaguered Libyan people. There are now however, many billionaires in the ranks of the terrorists, phony politicians and many,many influential foreigners.

The Libyan people have suffered such oppression for the last 8 years that lesser beings would have folded and given up. But Libya is an ancient culture of Tribes who have strong family units and great love of their country. Since 2011, the Libyan people have told us that the truth and their God will free them from the oppressors, now they are teaching the world how a country, oppressed by western ogres, can take back their sovereignty and their freedom.

We believe that the real "Libyan Model" is how every country can take back their sovereignty after years of oppression. 

Read more

Rogue State? – Britain Railing Against International Norms and Laws

truepublica.org.uk

Leaving aside Britain’s past, most particularly that of empire, the country is not just continually moving towards authoritarianism it is beginning to demonstrate all the early signs of a rogue state. These are strong words but the actual definition of a rogue state is – “a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.” Examples such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, Syria and latterly Libya are very clear. Irrespective of the technicalities, they all broke the rules of International laws or norms. But other examples demonstrate how lawless Britain as a state really is.

Chagos

Here, an entire population were forcibly removed from their island homeland at British gunpoint to make way for a US Air Force nuclear base, the people were dumped destitute over a thousand miles away, their domestic animals gassed by the British army, their homes fired and then demolished. To achieve this, Britain maliciously threatened the Mauritian government into ceding the Chagos Islands as a condition of its Independence.

Recently, the International Court of Justice found that the British occupation of the Chagos Islands was unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1. Britain rejected this ruling.

Ex British ambassador Craig Murray wrote – “this represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.”

Read more

Libya army launches operation ‘Volcano of Rage’ against Haftar

Middle Eastern Monitor

The Libyan Army has launched a new military campaign to combat General Khalifa Haftar’s assault on the capital Tripoli, dubbed “Volcano of Rage”.

Newly appointed spokesman for the Libyan Army Mohammed Gununu announced the move yesterday, stating that troops of the Government of National Accord (GNA) had already advanced on several fronts and captured many military vehicles from Haftar’s forces.

“The Libyan Army rejects coups and militarisation of the state. Libya will always be a civilian state and the army will protect it and secure the people,” Gununu said. “This attack is a surprising one that destroyed the Libyans’ hopes for democracy at a time when they were preparing for the upcoming national conference in Ghadames.”

Last week, General Haftar’s forces announced the start of an assault on areas in the west of the country, including Tripoli, despite warnings from the international community that the attack could plunge the country into active civil war.

In a televised interview this weekend, President Council head Fayez Al-Sarraj slammed the move, citing the arrangements he had made during previous meetings with Haftar, saying his opponent had “broken the covenant” and “tried to stab him in the back”.

Read more

The Great Fraud of National Zionism

The Saker

[This article was written for the Unz Review] 

The Defining Event for the USA

 

There is no doubt that the 9/11 false flag (now even admitted (by direct implication) by NIST!) was a watershed, a seminal event in our history. While millions (or even billions) watched in horror as the twin towers burned, a small group of Mossad agents stood nearby and danced in overwhelming joy. Why exactly were these Israelis dancing? Surely there was more than just Schadenfreude in this spontaneous expression of euphoria?  Considering that these three dancing Israelis were just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, we can rest assured that there were many more folks dancing in joy that day, especially in Israel.

Why were these Mossad agents so blissful?  The answer is obvious: 9/11 put the following notions front and center of the concerns of most people in the USA:

• We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
• Islam wants to destroy our way of life
• Those who did 9/11 also want to destroy Israel
• We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
• Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
• If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Almost a decade before 9/11, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama had explained to us that history itself was coming to an end while Samuel P. Huntington explained to us in 1996 that we were witnessing a “clash of civilizations.” This kind of “scholarly” research created the perfect political background to an already rather disquieting perception of the upcoming Year 2000. In 2001, when all hell broke loose, the general public was already well prepared for it (just like the AngloZionist elites who had already prepared the huge “Patriot Act” long before the Twin Towers came down).

9/11 was as much the culmination of a significant preparatory effort as it was the trigger for a decade or more of wars.

Still, all this immense effort into shaping the West’s perceptions was not good enough to hammer the sufficiently hysterical mindset into most people, in spite of the best efforts of the legacy Ziomedia to explain to us that Bin Laden decided that “we” were next in line for some kind of horrible (possibly nuclear) terrorist attack. Inside the USA the constant fear-mongering of the legacy Ziomedia did induce the suitable hysterical panic, while in the rest of the world things were not going quite as well. Especially not in Europe (which was vitally needed as a fig-leaf to pretend like the GWOT was not a US-Israeli thingie, but that there was a large “coalition of the willing” formed of the best and brightest countries out there). Something else, bigger and better, was needed and, sure enough, it was found: a mass exodus of poorly educated immigrants, the vast majority of them from Muslim countries.

While the (totally fictional and therefore totally unsuccessful) GWOT was petering out, the AngloZionists directed their stare at Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had warned that unless Europe was willing to pay Libya to contain the many millions of African refugees, a major catastrophe would happen. He explained that “Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in“, “we don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and “we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

The AngloZionists heard his message loud and clear and proceeded to immediately (and illegally!) overthrow and brutally murder Gaddafi (it is still unclear how many Israelis were dancing the day Col. Gaddafi was murdered).  Almost exactly a decade after 9/11 the Zionists finally had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” but this time the victim was the entire European continent.

Read more

Escobar: Are The Neocons Ready For Their Tropical Vietnam?

Pepe Escobar
Strategic Culture Foundation

Cold War 2.0 has hit South America with a bang – pitting the US and expected minions against the four key pillars of in-progress Eurasia integration: Russia, China, Iran and Turkey.

It’s the oil, stupid. But there’s way more than meets the (oily) eye. 

Caracas has committed the ultimate cardinal sin in the eyes of Exceptionalistan; oil trading bypassing the US dollar or US-controlled exchanges.

Remember Iraq. Remember Libya. Yet Iran is also doing it. Turkey is doing it. Russia is – partially – on the way. And China will eventually trade all its energy in petroyuan.

With Venezuela adopting the petro crypto-currency and the sovereign bolivar, already last year the Trump administration had sanctioned Caracas off the international financial system.

No wonder Caracas is supported by China, Russia and Iran. They are the real hardcore troika – not psycho-killer John Bolton’s cartoonish “troika of tyranny” – fighting against the Trump administration’s energy dominance strategy, which consists essentially in aiming at the total lock down of oil trading in petrodollars, forever.

Venezuela is a key cog in the machine. Psycho killer Bolton admitted it on the record; “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” It’s not a matter of just letting ExxonMobil take over Venezuela’s massive oil reserves – the largest on the planet. The key is to monopolize their exploitation in US dollars, benefitting a few Big Oil billionaires.

Once again, the curse of natural resources is in play. Venezuela must not be allowed to profit from its wealth on its own terms; thus, Exceptionalistan has ruled that the Venezuelan state must be shattered.

In the end, this is all about economic war. Cue to the US Treasury Department imposing new sanctions on PDVSA that amount to a de facto oil embargo against Venezuela. 

Read more

Psychoanalysing NATO: Projection

Comment: He's overdone the hyperlinks in this article but it's still worth reading.

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

Patrick Armstrong
Strategic Culture

"NATO" can be a rather elusive concept: Libya was a NATO operation, even though Germany kept out of it. Somalia was not a NATO operation even though Germany was in it. Canada, a founding NATO member, was in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Some interventions are NATO, others aren't. But it doesn't really mean much because NATO is only a box of spare parts out of which Washington assembles "coalitions of the willing". So it's easier for me to write "NATO" than "Washington plus/minus these or those minions".

We are told – incessantly – that Putin is "Winning the Information War", "We have no counterattack to Russia’s information warfare". Nonsense. The real information war is being conducted by the British Army's "77^th Brigade", the soldiers of Fort Bragg, NATO's Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. Or by the BBC, RFE/RL, Deutsch Welle, AFP et al; each of whose budgets is many multiples of RT's. They manipulate; they dominate; they predate; Moscow is a minor newcomer.

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist or any other kind of psychist, but I cannot fail to notice the projection and gaslighting practised by Washington and its minions. They accuse Russia of doing things that they actually do – projection – and they manipulate our perception of reality – gaslighting. I will discuss gaslighting in the next essay.

Wikipedia defines projection as

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.

Another source calls it a "defence mechanism":

Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

Interference: Russia! Russia! But NATO actually does it

Russia, we are told, interfered in the US presidential election. And Brexit, and France, and Germany, Hungary, Greece, populism, and and and. The American story has metamorphosed from its initial version which was supposed to have been an attempt to elect Trump into an attempt to sow division in US society. The NYT attempts to explain how both stories fit together. The absurdity of the charge was shown when the 3500 or so Facebook ads paid for by the so-called Internet Research Agency were revealed: they were all over the place. Even more amusingly, Mueller, who no doubt thought he was safe to indict a Russian company, is trying to get out of having to prove it now that the company's lawyers have shown up. If the matter ever does come to trial it will likely show that the whole operation was a scam designed to create interest groups to sell advertising to. (Which would explain why the majority of the ads appeared after the election: the election was the bait to create the groups.)

This is projection at its most obvious: the USA is by far the world champion at interfering in other people's elections. No less an Establishment outlet than the Washington Post (one of the principals in sustaining Putindunnit hysteria) listed many in: "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere"; but piously insisted "the days of its worst behavior are long behind it".

Read more

Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS

Nafeez Ahmed
Insurge Intelligence

Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’.

 

 This story is published by INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project. 

Support us to break the stories that no one else will — become a patron of independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.

---

A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of this strategy, and warned that it could destabilize Iraq. Despite anticipating that Western, Gulf state and Turkish support for the “Syrian opposition” — which included al-Qaeda in Iraq — could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the document provides no indication of any decision to reverse the policy of support to the Syrian rebels. On the contrary, the emergence of an al-Qaeda affiliated “Salafist Principality” as a result is described as a strategic opportunity to isolate Assad.

---

Hypocrisy

 

The revelations contradict the official line of Western governments on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

Read more

Towards a Post-War in the Greater Middle East

Thierry Meyssan
VoltaireNet.org 

Contrary to the picture portrayed by Atlanticist propaganda, Thierry Meyssan takes a long-term view of international relations. For him, what we have seen in Syria over the last seven years is not a civil war, but rather a seventeen-year regional war in the greater Middle East. This vast conflict, from which Russia emerges victor over NATO, is gradually giving rise to a new world equilibrium.

All wars end with winners and losers. The seventeen years we have just lived through in the "Greater Middle East" is no exception. Yet, while Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi have been eliminated and Syria is winning, the only real losers are the Arab people.

At the most, one can pretend to believe that the problem concerns only Syria. And that in Syria, it is circumscribed to Ghouta. And that in Ghouta, the Army of Islam has been defeated. Yet, this episode will not be enough to declare the end of the hostilities that have ravaged the region, destroyed entire cities and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

Nevertheless, the surviving myth that "civil wars" spread by contagion [1] allows the 130 states and international organizations that participated in the "Friends of Syria" meetings to shirk their responsibilities and to hold their heads high. Furthermore, since they will never admit failure, they will continue to perpetrate their abuses in other theaters of operation. In other words: their war will soon be over in this region, but it will resume elsewhere.

From this point of view, what has played out in Syria since the US declaration of war nearly 15 years ago - i.e. when the Syrian Accountability Act was passed into law in December 2003 - will have shaped the world Order that is currently emerging. Indeed, while almost all the states in the "Greater Middle East" have been weakened or completely wrecked, Syria is the only one still standing and independent.

Read more 

€10bn vanished from ‘frozen’ Gaddafi accounts in Belgium – report

RT
 

Some €10 billion of Libyan government funds, frozen as part of sanctions against the late Muammar Gaddafi’s inner circle, has mysteriously disappeared from a Belgian bank somewhere between 2013 and 2017, according to local media. 

Back in November 2013, four Euroclear Bank accounts belonging to the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and its subsidiary Libyan Foreign Investment Company (LFICO) in Bahrain and Luxembourg, contained some €16.1bn in frozen assets. However, when authorities tried to seize the funds in 2017, it turned out there was only just over €5bn left in those accounts, an investigation by Le Vif weekly revealed.

“There remains a little less than 5 billion euros on the four accounts opened at Euroclear Bank SA,” Denis Goeman, a spokesman from Brussels’ prosecutor’s office told the Belgian publication. The remaining funds are still subject to seizure, but so far Euroclear reportedly has refused to hand over the accounts, prompting the prosecutor to threaten the institution with “more coercive measures” unless Euroclear releases the remaining Libyan funds “within a certain period.” 

Read more

Western Media Finally Wake Up to Libyan Slave Trade, but Completely Whitewash all Western Responsibility for its Emergence

Sarah Abdallah @sahouraxo

 

"Thanks to Obama, Hillary and their NATO buddies, Libya went from having the highest human rights index in Africa to a failed state ruled by warlords and terrorists who sell human beings in slave markets. So much for 'humanitarian' intervention."

https://on.rt.com/8tka

Leak of Nations

Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya

 

Twenty-first century slave markets. Human beings sold for a few hundred dollars. Massive protests throughout the world.

The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets. Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.

In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles, destroying the government’s ability to resist rebel forces.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) used NATO’s own materials to show how “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misrata even referred to themselves in 2011 as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—an eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.

The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafi’s convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebels—sodomized with a bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared live on CBS News (10/20/11), “We came, we saw, he died!” The Libyan government dissolved soon after.

In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed. Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority. Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaced—a staggering number, nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.

Read more 

Manchester Attack Briefing: Blurring the lines between 'blowback' and complicity

Mark Curtis and Nafeez Ahmed
Insurge Intelligence

(This briefing will be updated as more evidence emerges. Sources are overwhelmingly from mainstream media, except where clearly stated).

A PDF version of this briefing is available here

Introduction

 

The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from the overt and covert actions of British governments. The British state therefore has a serious case to answer. We focus primarily here on UK policies towards Libya but also touch on some of those related to Iraq and Syria.

Summary

 

In summary, the evidence so far shows that there are six inter-related aspects of blowback:

1. Salman Abedi and his father were members of a Libyan dissident group — the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) — covertly supported by the UK to assassinate Qadafi in 1996. At this time, the LIFG was an affiliate of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda and LIFG leaders had various connections to this terror network.
2. Members of the LIFG were facilitated by the British 'security services' to travel to Libya to fight Qadafi in 2011. Both Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, were among those who travelled to fight at this time (although there is no evidence that their travel was personally facilitated or encouraged by the security services).
3. A large number of LIFG fighters in Libya in 2011 had earlier fought alongside the Islamic State of Iraq — the al-Qaeda entity which later established a presence in Syria and became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). These fighters were among those recruited into the British-backed anti-Qadafi rebellion.
4. UK covert action in Libya in 2011 included approval of and support to Qatar's arming and backing of opposition forces, which included support to hardline Islamist groups; this fuelled jihadism in Libya.
5. One of the groups armed/supported by Qatar in 2011 was the February 17th Martyrs Brigade which, some reports suggest, was the organisation which Ramadan Abedi joined in 2011 to fight Qadafi.
6. Qatar's arms supplies to Libya in 2011 also found their way to Islamist fighters in Syria, including groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS.

 

Conclusions

 

The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups.

Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May — who was Home Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi — clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is urgently needed.

The evidence suggests that British actions in three different theatres — Libya, Iraq and Syria — cannot be viewed in isolation:

• In Libya, US and UK led intervention destroyed the functioning state and created a vacuum allowing hardline Islamist fighters to consolidate their foothold in the country. This paved the way for the empowerment of ISIS. The direct line between Libyan and Syrian Islamist rebels fuelled jihadism in both countries.
• In Iraq, US and UK led intervention also destroyed the existing state infrastructure and fuelled an Islamist insurgency which incubated al-Qaeda in Iraq and culminated in the emergence of ISIS.
• In Syria, US and UK covert action, again in partnership with Gulf states such as Qatar, and Turkey, has had the effect of augmenting the role of al-Qaeda in the rebel movement.

Read more

Terror in Britain: What did Prime Minister May know?

John Pilger
Counterpunch

 The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.

Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".

The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.

The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida". The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology.

The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. 

Read more

UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked To Manchester Blast For Decades

Tony Cartalucci

 

UK Proscribed terrorist organization, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), maintains large presence in Manchester area and is now being linked to recent blast. 

As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe – including both in France and Belgium – the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.

The Telegraph in its article, “Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber – what we know about him,” would report:

Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

While initial reports attempted to craft a narrative focused on a a “lone wolf” attacker who organized and executed the blast himself, the nature of the improvised explosive device used and the details of the attack revealed what was certainly an operation carried out by someone who either acquired militant experience through direct contact with a terrorist organization, or was directed by a terrorist organization with extensive experience.

Read more

Italian prosecutor accuses NGOs of colluding with human traffickers in Libya

RT


A prosecutor in Sicily has made the extraordinary claim that NGO migrant rescue boats are in direct communication and collusion with human traffickers in Libya. 

“We have evidence that there are direct contacts between certain NGOs and people traffickers in Libya,” Carmelo Zuccaro told Italian newspaper La Stampa.

"We do not yet know if and how we could use this evidence in court, but we are quite certain about what we say; telephone calls from Libya to certain NGOs, lamps that illuminate the route to these organizations' boats, boats that suddenly turn off their transponders, are ascertained facts," he said.

Zuccaro is a member of a group of prosecutors investigating the trafficking and exploitation of migrants. He told Italy’s parliament in March that he was sure traffickers were in contact with rescuers, but didn’t have proof.

Read more

Libya Tribes leader: Trump's travel restrictions justified, terrorists using fake Libyan passports to enter U.S.

Harrison Koehli
Sott.net

In his first week in office, President Trump signed an order temporarily freezing immigration from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Libya. According to Trump, the order's purpose was to "keep America safe" by blocking groups of people who can not yet be properly vetted. Trump's critics labeled the order a 'Muslim ban', deeming it unfair, mean-spirited, and racist. One recent editorial even criticizes Trump for playing up "the imaginary threat of terrorists" from the countries in question.

Now, after the U.S. court of appeals upheld federal judge Robart's restraining order on the executive order, it appears that Trump plans to sign a new executive order before, or perhaps alternatively to, the appeal to the Supreme Court. But the question remains: is the executive order unreasonable? And is the terrorist threat 'imaginary'?

Libyan tribal leader Sheikh Khaled Tantoush doesn't think so. Sheikh Tantoush, a fierce critic of the jihadist movements and one of Libya's most esteemed clerics, was captured by Libyan "rebels" in Sirte in 2011 along with Colonel Gaddafi. He performed the final Islamic rites over Gaddafi's body after he was murdered, and the Sheikh himself was subsequently imprisoned and tortured. In a 2013 show trial he was sentenced to life in prison on trumped-up charges of "glorifying Gaddafi", but was released last month after spending over five years in prison.
In his first interview with Western media since his release from rebel captivity, Sheikh Khaled told SOTT.net that the so-called Muslim ban is meaningless to the vast majority of ordinary Libyans, who find it difficult enough to move from city to city, let alone leave the country for the U.S. There is an extreme cash shortage in the country, and the only Libyans with the means to come to the U.S. are mostly criminals and terrorists. He said:

A small number [of Libyans] might travel to the USA for studying, but the others [who travel] are traitors who have been working for and are paid for by the US government. The majority of Libyans don't care about this ban, because we are struggling to travel from one city to another in Libya... The real Libyans don't care to travel to the USA. They care about finding a solution for Libya. This [travel ban] is a small thing for us.

Syrian President Assad gave a similar assessment of the 'ban' on Syrians, telling Yahoo News that it is "an American issue" and that his responsibility is simply to restore stability in his country, "in order to bring [the refugees] back". When asked if he thought some of the refugees are aligned with terrorists, he replied, "Definitely." 

Read more