As I write this, a new day is dawning in Libya. The “people’s revolt” against yet another tyrant is unquestionably exciting, and the demise (political and/or otherwise) of Muammar Qaddafi will, of course, be widely hailed. But barely below the surface something else is going on, and it concerns not the Libyan “people”, but an elite. In reality, a narrowly-based Libyan elite is being supplanted by a much older, more enduring one of an international variety.

The media, as is so often the case, has botched its job. Thus virtually all of its resources over the past six months have gone into providing us with an entertainment, a horse race, a battle, with almost no insight into the deeper situation..


It’s true that Qaddafi, like many—perhaps a majority of—rulers in his region, was a thug and a brute, if at times a comical figure.  But one doesn’t need to be an apologist for him—nor deny the satisfaction of seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ouster—to demand some honesty about the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes to our own government’s role in funding it, and thus every American’s unwitting participation in that action.

Let’s start with the official justification for NATO’s launch of its bombing campaign—for without that campaign, it’s highly improbable the rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told from the beginning that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombing—indeed, its sole purpose—was to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps because of NATO’s initial intervention, the feared Qaddafi-sponsored, genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the military actions one would expect a government to take when facing a civil war:  after all, remember General Sherman’s “scorched earth” policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians apparently didn’t generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we started to hear about other purported reasons for it.  Qaddafi was encouraging his soldiers to…commit mass rape! And giving them Viagra! And condoms!

Obama (we intervened to stop massacre)

You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO crew did—made it up. The media, always glad to have a “sexy” story, especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no evidence to back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if it was true.

We’ve been expressing doubts about these claims, for a number of reasons—including logic—for some time now. (For more on that, see this and this and this.)  But it’s tough to counterpoise hot-button issues with rationality. If you questioned the mass rape story, you were a “rape-enabler.” If you pointed out that Qaddafi was being bombed for anything other than humanitarian reasons, you were a “Qaddafi-lover.”

The media was so gullible that the professional disinformation guys went onto auto-pilot, recycling tired old tropes that nobody ought to be buying anymore. For example, most news outlets reported recently that Libya had fired a SCUD missile at the rebels.

 “That it didn’t hit anything or kill anyone is not the point. It’s a weapon of mass destruction that Col. Qaddafi is willing to train on his own people,” said one Western official.

If the effort to rally public opinion against Qaddafi centered on any one factor, it was fury over Libya’s purported role in the 1988 bombing of  Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As we noted in a previous article, in the years since the conviction of a Libyan intelligence officer in the tragedy, a chorus of doubts has grown steadily. The doubt is based on new forensic evidence and research, plus subsequent claims by prosecution witnesses that their testimony was the result of threats, bribes, or other forms of coercion. It is an ugly and disturbing story, not well known to the larger news audience.


Yet Lockerbie has continued to touch nerves. In February, when Qaddafi’s Justice Minister turned against him and became a rebel leader, he brought with him dynamite. Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil made the dramatic claim that his ex-boss was the culprit behind the bombing of Pan Am 103. He asserted that he had proof of Qaddafi giving the direct order for the crime. This got considerable media attention, though almost no news organizations followed up or reported that  Jeleil never did supply that proof. The Libyan convicted of the crime has consistently denied any involvement. Nonetheless, his conviction in the case has had Qaddafi on the defensive for years—and working hard to prove to the West that he can be a “good citizen.” Part of this has entailed his paying out huge sums in reparations.


From the beginning of the Libya saga in February until now, the NATO coalition has never wavered from its initial declaration of humanitarian motives. And, to be sure, we may still learn of horrible, previously-unknown atrocities by Qaddafi. Still,  the United States and its allies have little history of using their might strictly to protect civilians. If so, millions of South Sudanese, Rwandans and others might not be in their graves.

Besides, with all the talk about Qaddafi harming his citizens, what about the effect of more than 7000—yes, seven thousand—NATO bombing runs? We heard constant reports about how Qaddafi was facing charges of “war crimes,” with never a word about NATO. To learn the impact of this massive unleashing, you had to be relying on Tweets from Libyans witnessing it, or visiting obscure websites that shared eyewitness accounts.

NATO bombing

Some Western military officials couldn’t even be bothered to participate in the “humanitarianism” charade. For example, the top British general explicitly stated that the objective was really to remove Qaddafi. Nobody—including the media—paid much attention to this admission, perhaps because it was already assumed to be the case.

Qaddafi should never be seen as a victim—indeed, he has always been sleazy and monstrous in various ways. But the US and its allies appear to have cared little about this, while being deeply  troubled by his role as a fly in the geopolitical ointment. A look at the long and complex historical relationship between Qaddafi and the West begins to explain the true reason he had to go. It also dovetails perfectly with a growing body of indications that Western elites encouraged and even provoked the uprising—while tapping into deep discontent with the dictator.


View Page 2 of 3



0 responses to “The Libya Secret: How West Cooked Up “People’s Uprising””

  1. RM says:

    Great article. Informative and insightful. Too bad you can’t choose your audience, and commentary. Keep it going! Your journalism is profound.

  2. Ricarrdo estavans says:

    Your all being conned and bamboozeled. Its all about the western central banks trying to control the tribes of the middle east. I once thought like all of you now I know that these middle eastern muslims do not want to be subjugated and enslaved by these central bankers.All they have to use to fight with is terror. We try to subjugate them they will try to subjugate us.

  3. Ricarrdo estavans says:

    Obammy and Bush in Africa at the same time. What a coincidence. The next take over by the one world globalists is Africa. Lot of wealth and resources. The western central banks needed an African to crack the african nut. This is why Obammy was selected to be president. An African muslim. It doesn’t get better than that. Now Obammy is a multimillionaire for his cooperation. Notice how Obammy does not govern he cant all he can do is vacation, play golf order kobe beef and live like royalty. The central banks call the shots.

  4. Ricarrdo estavans says:

    The western central banks want to subjugate the middle east and enslave them like they have enslaved the west. I am not a fan of islam nut cases but they are doing everything they can prevent their enslavement by the west including terror.

  5. SRV says:

    What happened to all the gold?

  6. Man on the street says:

    The big elephant in the room is fanatic jihadi Islam, and their support from Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The Saudi money even bribes Americans to push for this absurd policy of deposing semi-secular regimes in favor of hate infested crazy Muslims.
    When we invaded Iraq, lots of media commentaries talked about the Iraqi oil? Now, ten years, and several trillion dollars later, Iraq’s biggest oil winner is China. That disprove America’s war for oil BS, it is rather American’s politician war for Saudi Islam.

    • Ricarrdo estavans says:

      The muslims do not want to be slaves of the western banks.All they can use is terror to keep them out of the middle east. The central banks of Europe and America have been trying to crush the middle east for about 70 years.

    • Man on the street says:

      I understand the concept of central banks? The ME however is heavily invested in the West, and central issue of my point was crazy fanatic Islam, and the barbarians who are shoving it down everybody’s throat.

  7. realtalk says:

    Oh brother. This again?

    “In the US left, petty-bourgeois democratism sometimes results in opposition to some of the popular uprisings. The people and trends involved may take part in a number of struggles against racism, war, and poverty, yet they sneer at the struggle against dictatorship in such places as Syria and Libya. They regard themselves as the truest and most staunch anti-imperialists, but they are championing non-class anti-imperialism, a stand which is anti-imperialist only in pretense, because it is detached from the mass struggle in the countries of dictatorship. Non-class anti-imperialism is more concerned with how a democratic struggle might affect the momentary power balance between the big powers, or even the sales of some oil company, than whether the masses of a country are free or how to encourage the class struggle. The non-class anti-imperialists have more faith in benevolent despots (at least many of them seem to persuade themselves that these despots are benevolent, although the legions of victims of these regimes might dispute that) than in the people these despots rule over.

    In a way, the non-class anti-imperialists are still fighting the Cold War. They didn’t understand in the past that both US capitalism and Soviet state-capitalism were both enemies of the working class. And today, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the East European bloc, they don’t recognize that not just the big powers of the West, but Russia, India, and China are imperialist countries, and that siding with one imperialism against another is a betrayal of the struggle against world imperialist system. So they side with any regime which is, or was historically, a bit closer to Eastern imperialism than Western imperialism.(3)”

  8. Dorothy Reik says:

    I have always thought that we saw the Arab spring and figured it was good cover to get rid of Quadaffi. I still think that.

  9. brux says:

    I have to admit the sentence structure:

        has always been a murderous, bastard, horrible person … but the United States …

    Come on … this bull-cycle has been going on forever.  Drop it.  What is the real issue here?  The reality of how the world runs is what is being hidden from everyone – just so they concentrate on talking and arguing over stuff they have no idea about.

    We need names, connections, money trails …. the people either need to know and will do what is needed to find out, or they give their tacit agreement to this system.  After all it is not that bad, the western world doe s not work so bad, except for some people, and those people are marginalized and do not stand up for themselves, or even try.

    Let’s say we just equate all leaders, Obama = Bush = Reagan = Saddam = Khadaffi … etc.  Even if that was true, so what.  It’s not, but there is something to be said for our side winning.  After all the US has not managed the world as badly as Russia, China or the Middle Eastern or African counties.

    It is important to look clearly at the world to put our own country in perspective – the bad and the good, and what works and what doesn’t.

    If we want to solve problems, then we have to define, focus, collect data, discuss and plan a solution.  I don’t see much of that going on in the left.  The leaders of the left just may have been co-opted, because that is the only way to neutralized a movement like the left without murdering people.

    So, any leftist political celebrity is a fake, a phony, a plant, an informer, a spy, most likely.

  10. Ohhnonotagain says:

    lest we forget, all the news is controlled by 6 corporations in the US…….why they all repeat the same propaganda………

  11. KD says:

    Exxon Mobil reported second quarter profits of $10.7 billion, up 41 percent from the previous year.

  12. Davidinnewmexico says:

    Thanks E. Bernays

  13. JRArnold says:

    If it’s so easy to manufacture an insurrection, as you claim happened in Libya and now Syria, why hasn’t it been done in Cuba? The answer, of course, is because there is no genuine popular opposition there to infiltrate and attempt to co-opt.

    The French monarchy intervened in the American Revolution. So what.

    Your opposition to U.S. policies leads you to dismiss revolutionary movements against dictators the U.S./NATO don’t like, and thereby objectively defend the dictators against their people, simply because the U.S./NATO intervene to try to co-opt the movements for their own ends.

    Any popular movement will be glad to get outside support of weapons, supplies, and even air support — from anyone — and worry about the consequences later. So whose side are you on?

    • brux says:

      Good points, but the nature of the covert operation is to make all operations suspect.  Most of the world is festering under all kinds of corruption so I tend to think that what the US does in at least some cases is an improvement.  I don’t know this and cannot prove it, and I do not deny the bad cases, usually around oil.

      The thing is the biggest game in this world is the military competition between big empires.  If the US were to unilaterally become a pacifist nation it does not mean this largest, oldest, game in history would end, just that we would lose out, in fact there is not even any we, now the participants in this game are global entities, and I imagine even as far back as WWI and WWII it was the same thing, though fewer less informed players.

      How can the average people play or participate in this process, or would they want to?  I don’t know, but I do know that for people to be informed citizens they need to be prosperous citizens with enough leisure to follow what is going on in the world in an informed way, not just pawns playing whatever game is put out here on the Internet, You-Tube, etc.

    • brux says:

      > Let’s look at the history of corruption attended by US ‘intervention.’

      It’s amazing that you can do that so much better than I, in just a paragraph, proven with just a example too!

    • Man on the street says:

      The Cuban tradition of guarding their borders, as well as their great oppressive secret police prevent infiltrators. That is how Castro managed to survive all these years.

  14. Johmiller says:

    Russ, isn’t this the ideal model for the conversion of the rest of the Arab dictatorates? One at the time rebel groups overthrowing with our humanitarian support. Then its, “Everybody out of here, except the friendly Oil Minster”.

    My first day at WHOWHATWHY and I am grateful that it is here. This story on Libya looks just like Russ Baker at work asking all the right questions! Everything makes perfect sense given the oil industry ownership of US Foreign policy in the greater region. Perhaps Netenyaho can sleep like a baby tonight. Sweet dreams all of you Neo-Cons. And oh I forgot, thank you so much for helping the automakers build stupid, gasoline driven cars for the next twenty years.

  15. Sfu1m3r says:

    Russ – the multiple comments you made exposing a lack of media interest in this story are disturbing because they are true, and, I’m afraid, only the tip of the doldrums iceberg of the mind-numbed, disinterested-media-conditioned public.  It was bad enough that Iraq was painted over Vietnam, but at least there was some outrage.  Now Libya is being painted over Iraq, and even the most obvious questions aren’t being asked.  Given the cynicism raging throughout the US, is there a measure for the pathetic acceptance of humanitarian militarism?  

  16. Tocasaid says:

    Interesting stuff. Sadly, not surprising.

  17. dan more says:

    Yeah yeah, Gaddafi has gone is now time for Libyans to pay for the bombs
    that kill their brothers and sisters. The bombs that destroy all the
    infrastructure in their country which Gaddafi has put in place for years. Is time to sign a contact with the so called sympathy’s of  Lybian. 

     He Gaddafi may has made some mistake as a human being but one thing is for sure, non of this  countries France, UK,  USA  loves you like Gaddafi. They only have one interest in your country and African countries at large but not you Libyans. You will know the truth one day why the killed the great leader of Africa.

  18. Duane says:

    This article provides the many realities behind the
    Libyan leaders fall.

  19. SqueakyRat says:

    I don’t seem much in this to justify depicting the revolt as “cooked up” by Western powers. I have no doubt that Lybian dissidents have been approaching Western governments for many years. But I do not see how the West could have had any sort of trigger to pull to set off the rebellion.

    • HerrinSchadenfreude says:

      We’ve all heard the chatter, so to speak. But to actually see resolute denial and complete failure of connect the dots type logic in action like you’ve shown here is breathtaking. Such complete swings and misses can’t be happenstance. This is deliberate ignorance.

  20. Joe Otf Roberts says:

    the true story
    and as a leader he let his people rule themselves and their standard of living before NATO was higher then most western societies

  21. doug vaughan says:

    The Dark Side of “Humanitarian” Intervention: the Imperial gambit to turn Arab Spring into Our Thing: Russ and I have had our differences over the years, including some stories on which we collaborated. But this time he’s absolutely nailed it — and shame on Juan Cole, Richard Falk and others for rallying to NATO. The only nits to pick: US, Brits, Isrealis have been maneuvering against Qaddafi ever since he expelled Wheelus AFB; Saudi, UAE, Egyptian military role in recruiting, coordinating,$$- laundering and sheep-dipping merc jihadis — is that what Prince’s Blackwater/Xe has been up to? He was the quirkiest of bogeymen, but one of Qaddafi’s sons was named Hannibal for good reason.

  22. billgoodacre says:

    thank you Russ for the insights in this piece. However is it necessary to add all the gratuitous remarks about Qaddafi being such a nasty character? The fact that under his watch Libya did move from one of the poorest to the wealthiest economies where wealth was shared far more equitably than in your own country.  A comparison with Saudi Arabia in terms of horrid leadership skills might shed light on why NATO is bombing Libya; always nice to have compliant tyrants.

    • Russ says:

      Lots of dissenters were jailed, tortured, killed. Lets not minimize that–anywhere.

    • MuslimLeedsUK says:

      You appear to write well and I’m glad that you go beyond the mainstream media to dig deeper. For this I’d say, humanity should be grateful. However,  I agree with billgoodacre. You continue painting the otherside whether it be Qaddafi or Iran Mullahs (in another report) in a very negative light; almost by nature. Firstly, it’s untrue that they are all bad. If nothing, I’d ask for the evidence. It would be ironic if you point towards a media report. Secondly, if they are indeed as you claim, then wouldn’t your own reports contradict that in the sense that their crimes would appear pale in comparison to the crimes comitted by Westerners/NATO, and as such why the derrogatory remarks and looking down on them while NATO is simply discussed in a journalistic fashion; not ridiculed. Thirdly, those reports on people like Qaddafi or Saddam for that matter that does state for instance the torturing and killing of people. If you actually do some digging, this is done after due legal process and a conviction in a court of law for crimes that are not tolerated even in the West i.e. defecting, spying, attempting to assasinate the president etc. We have much worse cases of killings and torture in the West. Only thing is, it is either not reported, conducted in another country beyond the standard jurisdiction, is carried out by first demonising the individual or group (and therefore, no one batters an eyelid) or if reported is considered an isolated incient -which it hardly is. I believe in innocent until proven guilty in a fair court, not a kangaroo court set up by the West.

  23. Davidbrown says:

    best living standard in africa, free health, education, housing, water and electricity for homes. equal rights for women, virtually no crime and religious tolerance. seems to me the libyans have got nothing to complain about. what is to follow if gaddafi loses is an islamic state, where nothing is free and there is certainly no democracy and freedom. oh and to top it off western parasites will be straling your resources. bring back gaddafi now

  24. Rocky Racoon says:

    aThe reason is that Ghadaffi was supporting other African countries develop in a manner that wouldn’t leave them paying impossible interest to the IMF and other Western Instittutions.  To many in Africa including Nelson Mandela he was a Saint who would not participate in the economic boycott.  He paid for the satelite that gave all of Africa radio so they wouldn’t have to pay a 500 million a year fee to the west.  He was goong to start a central bank with the gold standard and Africa would have it’s own currency backed by gold.  This would have gotten rid of the Franc in many countries which is why France was so hot to get rid of him.  It was mainly France who initiated this situation.  Ghadaffi di dmor efor his people than the Western governments do for their;s.  The bombs by Reagan and more pressure forced him to allow foreign corporations in and to marketize the economy.  Libyan’s got free medical education and health care.  He was the humanist.  The only time he strayed was when there were cruise missles being lobed into his living room and killing his family.  The attack on Libya is based on nothing more than old fashioned imperialism hands down.

  25. Edantes195 says:

    Piracy and looting have been the backbone of British and then American foreign policy for more than 400 years. 

  26. Morley Evans says:

    When one discovers that Gaddafi tortured victims who were “rendered” for torture by the CIA (just like Assad in Syria and Mubarak in Egypt) and that the CIA helped Gaddafi come to power in 1961, we see that Gaddafi was exactly the same as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Gaddafi was a satrap whose usefulness to Washington’s global Empire had come to an end. Libyans can expect the same fate as Iraqis. Americans, Canadians and Washington’s other subjects, can expect no better.  Wake up, people! Your “duhmockricy” is a sham.

    • Ivan_K says:

      “When one discovers that Gaddafi tortured victims who were “rendered” for torture by the CIA”

      Yes, but when does one discover that?

      It’s not been discovered yet.

      If you mean the Belhaj case. Belhaj is an al-Qaeda asset and he was tortured in Abu Salem by Brits. Check: More about the context: Westerners aren’t just prime looters. You/your media are prime liars.

    • Boris says:

      good point Ivan K. Many of observers who comment on Nato atrocities in Libia, think that they must make a reference to how bad Qaddafi was, what a tyrant he was. Only after that they allow themselves to criticise Nato and the west. They do not have to make these comments to try to be objective. In fact in order to be objective, they should do their own recearch and see that the main fault of Qaddafi was his eccentricity. He was not tyrant, but one of the very few rulers who actualy cared about his people and about people in general.

    • jazz says:

      “the main fault of Qaddafi was his eccentricity”… MAAANNNN…. that’s all I’m finding too!  It’s outrageous that we allowed rumors from the whitehouse (AKA “The Lie-house”) to wreck the lives of these people and this man.  And according to Qaddafi himself, he’s absolutely not their leader but they look to him.  He has this (Jamahiriya) set up where the different tribes basically govern themselves, which is totally foreign to us Westerners.  Georgea is right when she lists our “Commanders in Thuggery”.  The last one that tried to save this country was JFK (though not a saint) he did try to reverse the damage that was done.  Honestly, I’d rather deal with the Mafia than our government anymore.  

      To all:  PLEASE check out; “Kick Them All Out”… is empowering and a real solution to this nightmare called “The American Dream”!!!

      Here’s the latest update on Libya that mainstream media is not reporting:

      A note for Colonel Qaddafi– please accept my humble apologies for not researching on my own to discover the man of honor that you are.  You and the people of Libya will prevail!!

      Love, peace and happiness to all!  It’s time to “heal our land”, folks.

    • Sam says:

      American corporate imperialism has been on a relentless march, armed with their IMF and the World Food Bank and the full support of the US military and now their corporate owned militias.  Corporate national and international news monopolies have been feeding the American news consumer  a steady diet of histrionics, pulp fiction and outright propaganda.  Today investigative Journalism is in it’s death throes 
      because anything from outside the corporate mainstream generated fluff causes every substantive investigative report to be perceived asa likely  conspiracy tale:  too shocking to be true!  Control the information access and it’s dissemination and you control the outcome.

    • Rocky Racoon says:

      And war propaganda is also against the Geneva convention.   In any case this is not the worst thing we in the West have ever done and actually is probably on the Barbarism scale probably down around about a 1 with a high of 10 being worse. 

  27. Georgea says:

    Please explain instead of poisoning the well-“Qaddafi should never be seen as a victim—indeed, he has always been sleazy and monstrous in various ways” Would you like to compare Blair, Cameron, , Obama, Bush 1 & 2, Clinton, LBJ. Nixon, Truman, Roosevelt, Reagan Wilson, to Qaddafi.I’d say Qaddafi is a saint compared to the other beasts of prey

  28. Claude says:

    Hi Russ,

    I referenced your excellent article on my blog at I loved it. You have made an excellent work. I also added a Mail Online article about a threat that Qaddafi made to swarm Europe with Black immigrants if the EU didn’t give him 5 bn euros a year…I think that also explains why NATO took him down. They had no choice.

    Continue your great work.

  29. Lodewijk Langeweg says:

    About the gold:
    “The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED”:

    A young Libian women about life under Gaddafi:

    “Shocking Truth About Gaddafi — what you don’t know.”

  30. Lodewijk Langeweg says:

    The experts and authorities who investigated the Lockerbie bombing have come to the conclusion that Ghaddafi most probably had nothing to do with it. So Ghaddafi planned to demand financial compensation for all the years Libia was boycotted based on allegtions only, and also wanted to be paid in gold. Tis was too much for the Western ‘elite.’

    “Lockerbie bombing probe”:

  31. Tim Oliver says:

    I wonder how many of these new oil contracts will in fact end up in Chinese hands – just as has happened in Iraq. Of course energy is a concern here for governments – but so was the humanitarian situation. But the idea that Western political leaders aren’t merely creatures possessed by the spirits of large corporations and forced to do their bidding at every turn, but may have a humanitarian instinct driven by a deeper liberal interventionist philosophy that can trace its roots back to Gladstone and beyond which has informed and shaped these debates doesn’t make a sensational enough story.

    No country goes to war for just one reason – there are always a multitude of factors that propel states to go to war in any instance. This is understandable, as war costs a lot in terms of blood and treasure, and diminishes your capacity to respond elsewhere. The NATO post-conflict plan doesn’t sound anything like an invasion to me. Go and read up on the reconstruction of post-war Germany, Japan and South Korea to understand why you’d want to keep police on the streets, civil service institutions staffed and utilities refurbished. I know it’s not a great intrigue, but sadly most of international politics isn’t. 

    Poor article.

    • antiwar_soldier says:

      What is so Humanitarian about this statement by NTC official and subsequent NATO bombings of Sirte?

      “In the end, we will get Sirte, even if we have to cut water and
      electricity” and let NATO pound it with airstrikes, Benghazi spokesman


    • antiwar_soldier says:

      Or why was not this attack on Abu Salim stopped?

      France 24 TV correspondent Matthieu Mabin, reporting from Tripoli, provides a particularly chilling account:

      “What happened had less to do with fighting than with stamping out the last pockets of Gaddafi faithfuls, or rather the artisans, technicians and low ranking officials employed by the state, most of whom were housed in blocks of flats concentrated in the Abu Slim neighborhood and who lacked the means to get away in order to evade the lethal sanctions of the rebels. What we are seeing today is certainly the saddest phase of the Libyan war, with columns of rebels who are
      assailing this area, these people, the families who are esconced in these tenement buildings.

      Our colleagues have just returned after an all-night coverage at the main Tripoli hospital, reporting the arrival of a large number of gunshot victims, including elderly people, women and even children. The CNT has remained completely silent about this. No call to surrender has been issued. We are undoubtedly entering the saddest phase of the conflict and it is likely that the CNT and the rebels will have to account for their abuses […].

      We have reached a degree of cleansing that appears to be totally out of control, mostly at the hands of the gangs from Misrata, the martyr city of Libya, which have come all the way to Tripoli to carry out their revenge. ”

    • Rocky Racoon says:

      So much for protecting civillians.

    • Rocky Racoon says:

      I do know that contracts with the French went from 10% to 35% share of available oil.  Tripoli had not even fallen and the deal was already inked.

  32. writerman says:

    Good, rational, detailed, calmm, fact-based, sceptical, ariticle; everything journalism should, but seldom is, in wartime.

    If something sounds like propaganda, or a script from a cheap B-movie, for example thousands opon thousands of prsioners held in secret underground prisons, then the chances are it is propaganda.

    One continually hears people comment that the attack can’t be all about oil because we could just buy it on the open  market, why go to the expense of war to get it?

    Because it isn’t just about the price of oil, but is primarily about unfettered access to, and more importantly, control on the oil, who decides where it goes and how much. Oil isn’t only a economic asset, it is a strategic asset, which wars have been fought over before. Armies cannot fight without plentiful supplies of oil. Libya with lots of it, high quality oil, was too valuable a prize not to take control of.

    If one wants to examine a detailed and well-argued examination of the dire situation we face regarding our oil supplies, and their economic and strategic importance, which cannot be over-estimated, check out the report published by the German Army’s, the Bundeswehr,  Future Analysis Department. It’s an extraordinary document, explosive, and challenging. It should be read by everyone and be on all the front pages of the world’s press. One can find it, in english on the Web, or link from Der Spiegel.

    It puts the attack on Libya in its proper context.

    • antiwar_soldier says:

      Look at Oil Product Share agreements and you will understand what “war for oil” really means.

      In short when oil is pumped there is a part for a country and part for company. Kaddafi has decreased companies parts progressively to as low as 20 percent from 50 and more. New friends of Libya will be literally payed by oil. 

  33. James Walls says:

    Too much of what has been written about here has more than a ring of truth about it to be dismissed.  Insightful

  34. Jazz says:

    Hi all!  New here and first time commenter…

    Nothing is ever as it seems.  Be sure to read the PDF that’s linked… I think people are going to be speechless.


    • Aquaman says:

      Sadly, this is no news outside the actual media that controls what they want you to believe. I was living in France when Reagan tried to kill Qaddafi, Mitterrand was president at that time and he denied the air space to the bombers, and we had the chance to really learn what was going on. Fortunately, now we have forums like this and the social networks, let’s hope from now on that we can spread what’s true and what is not.

  35. blog dog says:

    It was decided: Gadaffi had to go, because  

    1) he worked out a way to get Libya compensation from the oil companies for damages from the decades of sanctions over the Pan Am 103 frame up (a rogue CIA op involving a CIA drug ring scandal) –

    2) his very plausible plan to launch an African Gold Dinar –

    too much –  NATO’s hit team took him out on contract from the global financiers

    as for the so-called ‘rebels’, Al Qaeda Commander of NATO’s Bloody Reign of Terror in Tripoli is the Monster Abdel Hakim Belhadj, aka Abdel Hakim al-Hasadi, Friend of Osama Bin Laden, former US POW, and Infamous Killer of US Soldiers in Afghanistan –

    but it ain’t over yet…

    Saif Al Islam Speech (Translated) – 08.31.2011

    I’m speaking to you from area around Tripoli , I just like to assure all Libyan brothers today i went to Azizia we met people there and we met with Warshfana Tribe , and from Aldawahi alarbaa , and some areas around Tripoli , i meet lots people , we are fine , and we still fighting.

    Also we heard that Warfalla Tribe had a meeting because insurgents threaten this tribe they had decided and declared that they will fight insurgents. 

    NATO has killed many innocent people, and Fezzan still resists. They also had a meeting and decided that we will never give up

    As for the insurgents who threaten people in Sirte City, ok welcome to Sirte.  There are 20-thousand volunteers ready to fight you. 

    Also the leader is fine and we are all fine don’t worry about us. Also I have a message to the people in Albeida and Toubrok and Zliten and Tripoli. I  tell you to move now, don’t miss this chance, attack insurgents now, you have to fight them day and night, everyone is Gaddafi , Everyone is Saif Islam , Everyone is Khamis. 

    Also about Bab Azizia. It’s a lie because Bab Azizia was destroyed completely because they attacked it 64 times –  to enter or exist from it means nothing, but this only to make people confused.

    I tell you that your army is fine and the tribes still fine. I called all tribes and from all the answer to NATO is,  “go to hell we will never give up”. 

    NATO will leave soon, and the insurgents we killed. On Alshat road are mercenaries from France , Italy , UK , Qatar and we will kill them. 

    All people who give up to insurgents did so to protect their family. NATO are the most stupid people. Even people who said that they are the leaders in Tripoli are from Al Qaeda and NATO supports them. 

    Today I went to Tribes of Warshfana and all along the way I found no insurgents.  They are afraid. Even in some areas in Tripoli I didn’t find any insurgents. I tell Bosliem And Alhadba prepare yourself for Victory or Martyrdom.

  36. Howard Beale says:

    Too bad Syria doesn’t have anything we want!

  37. Sgk02 says:

    Though Libya for the past decades tenants were given property rights to their dwellings and individual ownership of dwellings was limited to just one property what will happen now?

  38. toddboyle says:

    Nice graph and statistics. As usual, the word “Dollar” does not appear. Russ I’m afraid you have a simplistic understanding of the oil wars. It’s not about grabbing the oil.  The oil always goes “to the marketplace” and whoever has dollars get it.  And any country that doesn’t sell the oil for dollars, gets bombed into submission.  respectfully. todd.

    • antiwar_soldier says:

      You have even more simplistic understanding.

      Again, Look at Oil Product Share agreements and you will understand what “war for oil” really means.

      short when oil is pumped there is a part for a country and part for
      company. Kaddafi has decreased companies parts progressively to as low
      as 20 percent from 50 and more. New friends of Libya will be literally
      payed by oil.

  39. Bill N. says:

    We’re just going after the “usual suspects,” while the underlying truth about what is going on in Libya is not touched upon by the Fawning Corporate Media (credit to Ray McGovern).  

  40. PB says:

    Funny. That was the bill of goods Reed et al sold to  Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal at Citicorp back in 1990 something. They aren’t biting anymore…love the part about Goldman…

Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.