Fwd: [bangla-vision] Imposed war against Libya

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nemo <anna8@rambler.ru>
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:48 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Imposed war against Libya
To: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com

 

 

Concerning the imposed war in Libya, a report from International Center for Study and Research into Terrorism and Assistance to Victims of Terrorism, and the French Centre for Intelligence Studies, is available here: http://mathaba.net/news/libya/LibyaReport201105.pdf
 
The title of report is "LIBYA: UNCERTAIN FUTURE - Report on a Fact Finding Mission to Assess Both Sides of the Libyan Conflict".
 
A fact-finding delegation of international experts arrived at Tripolitania, and were there from March 31st  through April 6th.  They then went to Cyrenaica, and were there from April 19 to April 25 in order to evaluate the situation in Libya independently, without bias, and to meet representatives from both sides. Read the report, and stand against this war of aggression and genocide that NATO, USA and EC are waging against sovereign Libya.
The delegation consisted of 6 experts from France, Belgium, Algeria and Bulgaria:
 
Mrs. Sayda Benhabylès (Algeria), ex minister of the Solidarity, ex senator, founder member of CIRET-AVT, Prize winner of the United Nations for Civil Society
Mrs. Roumiana Ougartchinska (France/Bulgaria), writer, investigative journalist
Prefect Yves Bonnet (France), former member of the French parliament, ex director of the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST, French Security Service), President of CIRET-AVT
Mr. Dirk Borgers (Belgium) independent expert
Mr. Eric Denécé (France), director of the French Centre for Intelligence Studies (CF2R)
Mr. André Le Meignen (France) independent expert, vice-president of CIRET-AVT.
 
The United Nations, despite very early requests by Col. Gaddafi to send fact-finding investigators to Libya, refused to do so, and, instead, relied on news media reports - an absolutely astonishing decision that certainly must be a first for that body.  As a consequence, most American people, including, unfortunately, most, if not all, of our legislators, have received biased and incorrect information about the war in Libya.
 
It is most unfortunate that we have all been victims of a web of propaganda [remember "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq], and I hope that once you read this 40-page report, you will feel outraged that you had been misled.  And, again, I hope that you will express your objection to this war, and vote on any future legislation that might come up regarding ending U.S. participation, as well as funding, for that war.
 
The military intervention in Libya undertaken by some NATO aggressive members
has now gone far beyond the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1973, and is based on hyped-up accounts of defenseless citizens being massacred by their government, while the truth is that, in Libya, there is an on-going and intense internal armed conflict.
 
We are aware of the economic and geostrategic interests that lie behind the war in Libya,  
in particular, behind NATO support of one of the two armed factions;
NATO military intervention in Libya has killed countless civilians, as well harming and endangering the civilian population, including migrants and refugees, in various other ways.
---
 
The Libyan Army and the Mercenaries
 
The report of the fact finding mission correctly states that Libya does not have a "large professional powerful" military apparatus, but it claims the reason for this is in order to "protect the regime" that a too-powerful army would presumably overthrow.
However, the facts while not in dispute, we draw a different conclusion. The reason that Libya has not invested big money in weapons of mass destruction and powerful "traditional" military such as air force, submarines, naval vessels, is because such things are useless against an external aggressor, unless, perhaps having nuclear bombs in fact, and being ready to use them, something that is not permissible to Muslims who when fighting in self-defence, must not harm innocent life. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate. The fact that Libya never had a WMD program but only a "fake" one to allow for some good publicity as part of an agreement with the Anglo-Americans has been covered elsewhere.
This in fact, we are witnessing now, in that NATO is attacking Libya but from afar. The very reason NATO cannot get involved in a "ground war" i.e. real fighting, is because Libya invested instead in arming its citizens. We believe that in recent years, the easy access to AK-47 weapons was slowed down, but has now again been stepped up, and all Libyans undergo training in their use, including while as students.
The reasoning here was Muammar Qaddafi said that an armed people cannot be defeated militarily, but traditional armies can be routed. Libya's traditional army was routed in Chad, and was again routed by cowardly NATO strikes from remote controlled missiles in that the entire small navy has been sunk, and all Libyan air force jets bombed on the ground, and runways made inoperable.
 
So we have to draw also the logical conclusion that while the report correctly states that investment was not made in a "large, powerful professional army" of the traditional type, it was made instead in training, and arming, the people as a whole. Thus also we can infer from this that the conclusion drawn by the French investigating team, or rather the assumption, that this is to avoid the government being overthrown, is not a logical deduction.
If Qaddafi was afraid of the people, why would he arm them? Which "dictator" would arm his entire population or at least give them easy access to weapons, and train them all without exception, in their use?
The report goes on to note the smaller professional components of the army, and that one of those units is under the control of one of the Qaddafi sons, but so what? It has to be under someone's command.
 
With that caveat, the report states:
The Libyan government has always been careful not to allow a large, powerful professional army to be established. They prefer to rely for the security of the regime on the system of tribal militias organized by revolutionary committees.
The Libyan Army consists of about 50,000 men, of whom only 10,000 are properly trained, equipped, paid and motivated. These forces are most loyal to the regime, divided into four brigades, notably the 32 mechanized brigade commanded by Khamis Gaddafi, son of the Leader, which is 4,000 men strong, well-‐equipped in tanks, armoured troop transport vehicles and self propelled artillery.
 
The rest of the army is organised into 10 battalions with armour plated vehicles, 10 mechanized battalions, 18 infantry battalions and six commando battalions to which must be added 22 battalions of Artillery. Before the crisis the arsenal of the Libyan Army was substantial with 500 tanks, (T-‐72, T-‐62, and T-‐55), 1,500 diverse armoured vehicles and 2,000 pieces of artillery. It also comprised several dozen assault helicopters. As with the air force these assets were considerably reduced during the years of embargo, bad maintenance and a number of defections. Nonetheless there remain enough to fully equip a force of tens of thousands of men. Even though short of training and weakened by the desertion of some of its units, this army is technically and tactically superior to the rebels, who do not have any individual or collective military competence.
The air force of 18,000 personnel before the NATO campaign, consisted of about 100 combat aircraft (mig 21/23, SU 24, etc), without counting the helicopters. It should be noted that some pilots were of Serb origin, the Navy has 8,000 personnel and a number of their small tonnage vessels play a minor role in the operational plan. In addition to the military, there is the police force, whose number is not known, and different local militias run by the tribal chiefs. During the fighting there were no desertions from the Libyan forces loyal to the regime, even during the time when they could make no progress at Misrata/Abadija. This is explained by the recruitment of troops from tribes loyal to Gaddafi, notably the Kadhafa.
 
The 'Mercenaries'
 
Much has been written about 'mercenaries' serving in the Libyan Army but little is accurate. In fact the practice of using of mercenaries is longstanding. For several decades foreigners have served the regime close to military units or armed militias. Their impact on the operational plan remains limited.
At the end of the 1970's, the Colonel created an Islamic Legion that would intervene in the whole continent in which he dreamed of creating the United States of Africa. After the events in Chad in 1987 this unit was disbanded.
During recent years new recruitment of foreigners has been undertaken. This phenomenon is in line with what one finds at all levels of the Libyan economic life. A high proportion of workers are foreigners.
Currently the recruits are mainly Malian, Tchadian, Nigerian, Congolese and Sudanese. Even if their salary does not reach the $2,000 announced by media propaganda, it still is of consequence compared to the pitiful salaries they have in their countries of origin.
 
The information emanating from the rebel forces who decry these foreign intruders is vague, and should be treated with caution. At the beginning of April the insurgents said that they had captured three Algeria mercenaries in Adjdabiya and had killed three of them during fighting in that town. The spokesperson for the rebels immediately accused Algeria of assisting Gaddafi, claiming that this country 'turning a blind eye' on the arrival of the mercenaries.
Jennifer Rubin, of the Washington Post, citing an ex-‐member of the regime now gone over to the opposition, wrote that 450 mercenaries from the Sahara were involved in the suppression of the insurgents. They came from camps in Tindouf in Algeria where members of the Polisario are based which implies the complicity of Algeria. These fighters, according to the Washington Post are paid $10,000 for two months tour of duty, that level of pay is simply not believable. Moreover, the Polisario has rejected these accusations.
 
What can be confirmed and the mission encountered them, is that the Touregs of the Niger came in May to Tripoli to offer their support to Gaddafi. Their coming there is a debt of honor and is spontaneous. They say that they number 30,000, which is somewhat exaggerated. The mission was able to meet some of their leaders who were staying at the hotel Corinthia in Tripoli.
In truth, the effect of these foreign fighters is difficult to evaluate. The figures that are bandied about are exaggerated, up to 6,000 according to some sources, and it appears that a deliberate confusion is made about the Libyan fighters and genuine volunteers from other countries. Whatever their number is, they do not constitute more than a very small part of the Libyan forces.
---
 
 
Don't trust them Muammar

Posted on 2011/07/05 by zhurnalist
 

Rumours are flying around about NATO offering an under-the-table deal to Colonel Gaddafy to step down and receive a declaration of immunity in return. This brings two notions into play: first, NATO's word has as much credibility as a spiv in a shell-suit and secondly, have those behind this ill-conceived crusade finally seen the folly of their actions?
When you receive an offer from NATO, there are two things you should do: remember the guy in a scruffy raincoat who hangs out behind the local train station hissing at passers-by: "Hey man, you wanna buy a second-hand Romanian wristwatch?" and secondly, say No!
Why? Because NATO has lied time and time and time and time and time again. NATO lied to Russia, stating it would not move eastwards and encroach into former Warsaw Pact countries and look where it now stands – encircling Russia from the Baltic States to the north, down through Poland to Bulgaria to the west, Turkey to the south and as if that was not enough, is making overtures to Georgia, a thorn in Russia's side as was so admirably demonstrated by Tbilissi's act of slaughter not so long ago (Summer of 2008).
 
The fate of Georgia, it is true, would be the fate of NATO if it tried anything on, namely a hail of missiles so thick they would blot out the sun before a crater twenty kilometres either side of a military build-up appeared on the other side of Russia's borders. As the Georgian troops and their military "get back inside" (Southern accent) advisers found out, the Spetsnaz are a force to be reckoned with, as are the soldiers from the Chechen divisions, the darlings of the West, as the western mercenaries among the Georgians felt only too well.
The same nations invented barefaced lies to create a casus belli against Iraq, where none existed, lying that Saddam Hussein's government had tried to get yellowcake uranium from Niger, then forging documents to back up the claim, then getting their (pig-)ignorant media to claim Baghdad was trying to obtain it from (wrong country) Nigeria; then there was a doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the Net providing "wonderful intelligence" for Colin Powell to present to the UNO. We had chemicals factories which were providing milk for babies and we had evidence of WMD and pinpointed locations as to where it was, except it did not exist. As Saddam Hussein himself said.
 
We had the media demonising the Iraqi President and tying him to Al-Qaeda, even though he and bin Laden hated each other. Meanwhile we have had NATO countries complaining about cyber hacking yet doing the same thing themselves time and time again against Iraq, against Iran and now against Libya.
And now we have NATO lying about the casus belli in this north African state, claiming that poor innocent unarmed civilians were being attacked when what really happened everyone knows – thousands of armed terrorists, unleashed by NATO itself, ran amok torching government buildings, raping girls and slaughtering people in the street. They never mentioned the UN Report providing the basis for a humanitarian prize to be awarded to Colonel Gaddafi in March this year, they never mentioned any of his many actions in the African Union, providing services for free whereas beforehand, Africans had to pay fortunes for the same to western providers.
 
NATO, the same gang which organised the kidnapping of Slobodan Milosevic and his illegal detention in The Hague, its kangaroo court which has not yet tried a single NATO member for war crimes, despite tremendous evidence towards this, now makes overtures to Muammar al-Qathafi to stand down and accept immunity.
Muammar, believe that and you may as well give a million dollars for that second-hand Romanian wristwatch.
 
The fact of the matter is NATO sees what is happening in western Libya, sees that Gaddafy is genuinely popular there as indeed he is with most tribes across the country and knows that in military terms, their crusade has failed, miserably. They never expected to be spending 50 to 100,000 dollars per aircraft per day, flying 100 sorties a day, in July 2011, they never expected the Libyan Armed Forces to have weathered the storm and gone onto the offensive against the terrorists NATO supports.
Once again, the way forward is for NATO to disengage, claiming the no-fly zone has been imposed and to allow the African Union to broker talks between the sides without making offers, neither did anyone ask for NATO's opinion. Nobody should believe them because given the recent history of this organization, NATO has as much credibility as a heroin addict desperate for a fix.
 
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru

__._,_.___

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/