Due to the overwhelming quantity of western lies, mistruths, half-truths, manipulation of facts and propaganda, it would be useful if someone, somewhere, presented the issues and gave both sides of the coin for the readers themselves to come to their own conclusions. Following is the continuation of the Great Debate on Libya.* (See arguments and links).
Is it strange that there were "Revolutions" in Tunisia and Egypt, on Libya's frontiers, before the Libyan "Revolution" took place?
Position A: No, because there have been such uprisings across the Arab world, from Morocco (demonstrations) to Syria.
Position B: Sometimes it is not a question of the cause, but a rapid reaction, taking advantage of a situation, which can make it appear like the "uprisings" in Tunisia and Egypt were stage-managed to secure the Libyan frontiers. There is no doubt that there have been issues among the young population across the region, mainly due to feeling there were no jobs available, feeling a corrupt ruling elite held the population down and feeling the effect of rising food prices. In Somalia for instance they have risen 270% in a year.
So the situation in Libya is exactly the same as that in other countries in the region?
Position A: Yes, they're all the same, why should they be different?
Position B: Well, no, in fact, as anyone who has actually been to Libya and who has close contacts in the country will be able to confirm very easily. Colonel Gaddafy set up the Jamahiriya decades ago, passing the power to the People's Committees, which Jamahiriya means. The Communities governed themselves. His government provides full employment, guaranteed free housing, education and healthcare. If anything, Libyans might complain that they do not have enough to do. Some people say they have become lazy because the State provides too much.
Colonel Gaddafy also saw more recently that corruption meant that the oil wealth was not reaching the people as it should and started to pass it directly to the Committees.
What about Gaddafy's billions held in foreign banks?
Position A. Yes, what about it? That wasn't reaching the Committees was it?
Position B: That is a claim made out of sheer pig-headed ignorance. The "billions" were not for Colonel Gaddafi at all, they were earmarked for development projects in the African Union. For example, the satellite system he financed bringing e-learning and telemedicine to all citizens across the continent, whereas before, Africans were saddled with a 500-million USD annual payment to use western satellites.
So why do they say this is an uprising against an unpopular government?
Position A: Well it is, otherwise why would Gaddafi have been slaughtering civilians?
Position B: Look at where it started, not in the capital city like any other Revolution, but in the endemically separatist Benghazi, home to Islamist fanatics who fought NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan. Google up Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, their leader. What an unsavoury character.
And notice how those new flags in pristine condition suddenly flooded Benghazi. Where were they printed (the ones in use at the time of the monarchy, which Colonel Gaddafy overthrew in a bloodless coup - bloodless, notice, very unusual for the region - before he inherited the poorest in the world and made it the richest in Africa)?
It is a regional uprising, orchestrated from abroad and based upon tribal differences in Benghazi, Misrata and other limited areas. The vast majority of Libyan tribes support al-Qathafi, they have no reason not to. Remove Al-Qathafi at this moment in time and the country implodes into a tribal civil war of disastrous proportions unseen in recent history.
And as for slaughtering civilians, the Government has denied this time and time again, from the beginning, when it called in international observers to witness the fact they are not civilians, but heavily-armed terrorists. What is a government supposed to do when thousands of Islamist fanatics with machine-guns run amok torching buildings and massacring people on the streets?
Look at the photographic evidence and ask yourself, are these civilians?
Why is the West involved, then?~
Position A: Because it is protecting innocent civilians against the Government forces.
Position B: That is as simplistic as it is dangerously naïve. The West in general, and NATO in particular, never get themselves involved if there is not an ulterior motive. Did they intervene in Bahrain or Yemen, where the Government response was equal? No. And in Syria? No. Why in Libya? Well, the Presidents of Yemen and Bahrain are western allies so basically they can do what they like. Libya has prime quality crude oil and enormous freshwater resources.
Colonel Gaddafi has also cheesed off a lot of people in the energy, arms and banking lobbies, the three most powerful groups on our planet, in creating the African Union and in making sure Africa for once stood up for itself. He himself financed a lot of the freedom movements and he helped the ANC fight apartheid. He is genuinely popular across Africa due to his humanitarian projects.
It is just possible that Cameron and Hague, two very green and naïve politicians in the UK, thought they were doing the right thing and that "the regime will be toppled in weeks". Then they said "It is not about removing Gaddafi" and then when they saw the huge mistake they had made, they became entrenched in their arrogance. Those advising them though knew what they were doing, as did Sarkozy and the USA. It's about grabbing resources and destroying the African Union. Africa cannot speak with one voice and create its own institutions, where then would the western lobbies be about to siphon off resources for free (did you know they take 90% of what they exploit?)
Who are the rebels?
Position A: The population of Libya rising up against a dictator
Position B: Utter nonsense. Look at the demonstrations of love for Gaddafi practically everywhere except Misrata, Zintan and Benghazi, all for tribal reasons. The rebels are a mix of racists (they started their rebellion by massacring Negroes) and criminals, with a few well-meaning "reformers" positioned in more visible positions. We have mentioned the al-Qaeda-linked al-Hasidi.
The Transitional National Council (TNC) is in favour of imposing Sharia Law, is composed of Islamist fanatics, monarchists and defectors from the Gaddafi Government. One of these is the TNC Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former Justice Minister who not once, but twice, confirmed the death penalty against five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor for their part in infecting children with HIV-contaminated blood. Gaddafi freed them.
Gaddafi 2 Jalil 0.
In fact only 13 of the 31 leaders of this "movement" have been named. Why? Because the others have highly dubious records, some of them having fought for al-Qaeda. This French report on the rebels is interesting:
Article 1 on the TNC Charter establishes Sharia Law as the legal system in Libya and it exposes the movement as including al-Qaeda elements. It also produces evidence of NATO war crimes, apart from murdering three grandchildren of Colonel Gaddafi and his son, a hospital was hit in Mizda, and civilian targets were strafed in Misrata and Ziaouia.
Position A: Well, given Gaddafi's humanitarian record, you have failed to convince me
Position B: Colonel Gaddafi has long been outspoken against a lot of people and a lot of wrongs. He has always been an opponent of radical Islam, he has humiliated in public Moslem elders by exposing their positions, by speaking out against the killing of homosexuals for being gay, against the veil, against the stoning of women.
He was the first international leader to issue an arrest warrant against bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he has genuinely helped millions of people, lifting them out of poverty and implementing humanitarian programmes across Africa. For his humanitarian record (see below) he was to receive a UN award in March.
Now don't tell me all that research was based upon conjecture and that suddenly he has become a despot, in two months, after a 42-year record as Brother Leader?
So what can we do?
A lot. Ask your local MP or Congressman/woman where they stand on Libya and ask them if they agree to spending hundreds of millions of dollars strafing hospitals and schools and murdering children, ask them if they knew what was the callous response of Cameron and Hague and Sarkozy and Obama to the murder of the grandchildren of Colonel Gaddafi. No seriously. Find out what they said. It is amazing, but not funny. These, ladies and gentlemen are not nice people.
And then ask them if they want to be part of the nations which perpetrated this sickening act of murder, supporting Islamist terrorists?
* Libya: The Great Debate
An objective analysis of where the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister stand one hundred days before the Brexit deadline. Let us see the facts, not conjecture