2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum

Former congresswomen and Green Party presidential candidate has just returned from a fact finding mission to Libya. While there she talked [YouTube 03:31] with a Qaddafi supporter in the hospital after being injured by US/NATO bombing. He said "People in Germany have Hitler. People in Italy have Mussolini. It does not matter if they are good or not; they have [a] hero. Why [not] let us have [a] hero? We like him [Qaddafi]." McKinney responded "yeah, right."

The ANSWER Coalition sponsored nationwide speaking tour of Cynthia McKinney: Eyewitness Libya started in Los Angeles on Saturday, 18 June 2011. This was at the Immanuel Presbyterian Church on Wilshire where many progressive events take place. Almost two hundred people showed up. Among them was a group of about two dozen Libyans and Libyan-Americans, some of which clearly associated themselves with the Free Libya movement, the tricolor flag of the Libyan opposition was much in evidence not only as flags but as hats, scarfs and jackets. All these Libyans were clearly anti-Qaddafi.

While the Libyans said they had liked Cynthia McKinney in the past, especially her work in support of Gaza, they were here to set her straight about Qaddafi and Libya. I had seen some of these Libyan activists before, at the first LA rallies in support the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. This was before ANSWER took up those struggles.

I didn't see any pro-Qaddafi Libyans that evening, either outside or inside the church. No Libyans were on the program and the green flag of Qaddafi's Libya was nowhere to be seen. If there were any pro-Qaddafi Libyans in attendance, they never revealed themselves. As far as I could make out, all of the pro-Qaddafi people in attendance, including Cynthia McKinney, were non-Libyans and all the Libyans who showed up were anti-Qaddafi.

So ANSWER showed them how we do public forums in the land of the free and the home of the brave. They excluded the Libyans from the Libya Forum! Not only did ANSWER tell them that they would not be allowed to pay their $10 and attend the event, a line of ANSWER people formed a human wall to divide the sidewalk between and us and them. When I exclaimed "They're keeping the Libyans out of the Libya Forum." one of the ANSWER people forming the wall told me "We're not keeping them out because they are Libyan. We're keeping them out because they support the intervention." This left me contemplating which was the worst reason for keeping people out? Keeping them out because of their nationality or keeping them out because of views contrary to those of the forum organizers? Of course, opposing NATO's intervention is a very easy and moral position to take for those that have lost no family to Qaddafi and didn't stand to lose any no matter how many Graf missiles and cluster munitions he was given free reign to use on cities under siege like Benghazi and Misrata. They have nothing to lose by keeping their hands cleanly in their pockets and taking the moral high ground.

Inside the forum a number of other people spoke before Cynthia McKinney. All, including her, lauded "brother Qaddafi." They liked to focus on the Pan-African and anti-imperialist reputation he cultivated in the 1980's and before. None talked about the changes since 2004. Nobody mentioned the military-to-military relations he was cultivating with the Bush Pentagon, his use of the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle as a consultant, his ties to Goldman-Sacks, etc. Even Fidel Castro recognized this new Qaddafi, noting before the NATO intervention ["NATO's Inevitable War" on-line at CubaDebate, March 4]:

"it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent," adding that Libya "opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment" and that "many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies." ... "Aznar was full of praise for Qaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain; they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased... I simply ask why they now want to invade Libya and send Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court at The Hague?"

The reason, Mr. Castro, is that they realize, even if you don't, that the Libyan people have finally lost all fear of Qaddafi. He cannot survive, he will he done as soon as his money runs out. His dictatorship is done and NATO has in the last hour thrown him under the bus to help their play for a future role in Libya.

Cynthia McKinney and ANSWER say nothing of this, just as they say nothing of the more than seven thousand Libyans that the opposition says that Qaddafi has killed. Later in San Francisco, McKinney puts the total number killed at "four thousand and some dead".. "but of course the bulk of that would have to come from the NATO bombing because they're using bunker buster bombs." [YouTube 07:15] For his part, Qaddafi claims that about eight hundred civilians have been killed by NATO bombs but there are many reasons for questioning even that number.

For example there was that embarrassing incident a couple of weeks ago when Libya officials took foreign reporters to a hospital to view a baby girl they said was injured in a NATO air strike. The whole fraud unraveled after a hospital workers passed a reporter a note saying the girl had been injured in an automobile accident. Latter some of the reporters spotted the "concerned uncle" at another Qaddafi dog and pony show and he was forced to admit that he worked for the Libyan government. The "Kuwait baby incubator" fraud comes to mind only this time NATO is the victim, not the perpetrator.

Fidel Castro may support Qaddafi but he knows that the uprising in Libya is part of the Arab Spring and flows from the real concerns of the people, saying "Without any doubt, the faces of the young people who were protesting in Benghazi, men, and women wearing the veil or without the veil, were expressing genuine indignation."

After decades of living under brutal dictators and being exploited by their imperialist masters, the people rose up, first in North Africa and then in the broader Middle-East. Peaceful protests against Qaddafi were already developing in Libya in the middle of January as Ben Ali was being thrown out of power in neighboring Tunisia. They were spurred on my the ouster of Mubarak in their eastern neighbor, Egypt, less than a month latter.

The causes for the uprising in Libya have been essentially the same as they have been throughout the whole region, beginning with rising food prices and growing unemployment and ending with fearless rejection of long established dictators. The people rising up in Libya have been largely working class, as they have been in Egypt and Tunisia. But there have been differences. In Tunisia and Egypt, the people were able to throw out dictators that had ruled for 20 or 30 years quickly and with relatively little bloodshed because the army refused to open fire on peaceful protesters. In Libya they did not refuse such orders. Eventually the protesters took up arms and started fighting back. The uprising became a civil war.

But that's not how ANSWER sees things. Since they missed the non-violent phase of the Libyan opposition, to them it never existed. They see the rebels as the same as contras. They are all paid agents of NATO, tools of imperialism, etc. They weren't paying attention until the UN and NATO got involved. They didn't express any public support for the uprising in Tunisia until after Ben Ali had been ousted. They didn't support the uprising in Egypt until 29 January. Compare that to the hacker group Anonymous, which started OpTunisia on 2 January and OpEgypt on 23 January. When it comes to Yemen and Bahrain, ANSWER has spoken out in support of the uprisings and against the repressive, US backed regimes. But when it comes to Libya and Syria, with their "anti-imperialist" dictators Qaddafi and Assad, it's a different story.

In those countries they don't support the Arab uprisings. In fact, they don't even recognize those struggles as part of the Arab uprising. Because those leaders have a reputation for opposing NATO, they support the government violence and act like the people have no right to rebel. Whatever NATO is for, they are against. Whatever NATO is against, they are for. That is the western centric way they view the world. In this perverse way, they tail after their own bourgeoisie. They don't support the people's revolutionary struggles in a steadfast way.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation [PSL] which leads ANSWER, made this point crystal clear in a recent proclamation:

Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else. This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt.

Ultimately the problem PSL will have with their starting point is that they can't lead by taking a reaction as their starting point.

An alternate starting point might be "steadfast support for the people's revolutionary movements irregardless of stand taken or pretended by the US." That is a starting point that doesn't have to wait for and react to what the Western powers do. That is a starting point that demands our attention and support as soon as a people act to liberation themselves. That is also a starting point that requires that we have an organic connection to those movements. It is a starting point that demands that we take the focus off of ourselves and what our government is doing about it.

Another Libyan, commenting on a similar Cynthia McKinney video presentation noted this "all about us" attitude that runs through much of the ANSWER type opposition to the war in Libya. I think he put it well:

These questions don't occur to McKinney as she goes on to state that the United States is "a poor trumpet" for democracy because of its own legacy of oppression, from "genocide of indigenous Americans to enslavement of stolen Africans to disfranchisement of women..." This, ironically, is just a perverse form of patriotism. For McKinney, the whole question is about America [my bold]—certainly not about the Libyans, who deserve democracy entirely apart from the United States' moral credibility to advocate for such. This is a cynical and dishonest distraction of the lowest order.

And that, finally, is why the Libyans had been excluded from the Libyan forum. It really wasn't about them.

Whereas Castro sees an attempt to subvert a revolution, "Imperialism and NATO – seriously concerned by the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, where a large part of the oil is generated that sustains the consumer economy of the developed and rich countries – could not help but take advantage of the internal conflict arising in Libya so that they could promote military intervention."; they see the Libyan uprising as CIA/NATO intrigue from top to bottom. Perhaps it is this simplistic view that leads them to abusing Libyans who attempt to attend their Libya forums.

After Cynthia McKinney spoke she showed a film they had made in Libya. The core of it was one bloody scene after another showing what NATO ordinance had done to Libya soldiers; missing were the women and children that should have been very prominent if indeed 800 civilians have been killed in the bombing. The Qaddafi government clearly was providing the visuals for this film and dead children would have been high on the list if they had any at that time.

In the Q&A that followed, it became clear that at least one Libyan had gotten in and he was against Qaddafi. He was booed.

Cynthia McKinney has been a little vague about who paid for this trip. She said that when she was in Tripoli earlier she decided that she wanted to return with others on a truth telling mission. She was able to borrow the $25,000 cost from an unnamed friend, who "I have to pay back." Hence the collection at the door and the latter passing of the plate. While it is pretty clear that this friend with 25 grand to spare is also a Qaddafi supporter, since we don't know who he is, we can't know what political and economic ties he may have to Qaddafi. This raises a lot of questions about the whole trip and tour. In any case, it's too bad they didn't let the Libyans in. She could have been a couple hundred dollars closer to her goal.

San Francisco was Tuesday. San Francisco was different.

ANSWER didn't keep Libyan's out of the Cynthia McKinney Libya Forum in San Francisco on Tuesday 21 June but they had other ways of letting them know they weren't welcome. An ANSWER Coalition supporter told the Libyans to "go back home." [YouTube] When a Libya women became offended and said that she takes it very personally because most of these Libyans are exiles, she has family in Libya, she has an uncle in his prison and Qaddafi has killed three of her cousins, she is told my one person that if she takes it personally she should take it outside and my another to "grow up."

They also tried very hard to avoid calling on the Libyans in the Q&A. When they failed, it led to some interesting exchanges. When a Libyan man ask Cynthia McKinney why she made no mention of the over seven thousand Libyans killed by Qaddafi in suppressing the uprising, she responded that "it is the right of the Libyan people, in my opinion, to solve their problems among themselves without NATO bombs and missiles." [YouTube] That got a big round of applause from the ANSWER supporters.

As was pointed out in Arming Gaddafi, and other places, many of the weapons Qaddafi has been using against his own people have been supplied by NATO countries, but these aren't the NATO weapons that McKinney opposes. She hasn't objected to NATO countries selling Qaddafi millions of dollars in weapons, which he is now using to put down the rebellion, but she has been most vigorously objecting to NATO doing anything to right the balance. We all know that NATO is not a bunch of boy scouts, but the larger and more dangerous doctrine that Cynthia McKinney, ANSWER, and all the "non-interventionist" appear to advocate is that the international community has no right to set limits on the level of violence a state may use to put down uprisings within its borders. Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are all now expanding the reach of that doctrine with all it's frightful consequences.

She may not realized it but this stance she is taking with regards to Libya also justifies Israel's vicious suppression of Gaza, which she has so courageously opposed; because a necessary corollary to the thesis that the world has no right to interfere with what a state does within it's own borders is that the world has no right to tell a state what those borders are. Qaddafi understands the Gaza connection, that is why he uses the example of Israeli to justify his own actions, telling France24 "even the Israelis in Gaza, when they moved into the Gaza Strip, they moved in with tanks to fight such extremists. It's the same thing here!" He was referring to Operation Cast Lead, which Israel launched against the Gaza Strip two days after Christmas, 2008, killing at least 1,400 Palestinians. See Gaddafi: Crackdown modeled after Israel. Weeks before NATO started bombing, Qaddafi was carrying out a Israeli styled crackdown on the Libyan people and this is what Cynthia McKinney is demanding not be interfered with.

In response to another Libyan who managed to ask a question, Akbar Muhammad from the Nation of Islam said "The way I'm going to answer my Libyan brothers [is] there's a way to go about it. You could have called for a referendum. Look at when those African leaders came to Benghazi, the people in Benghazi ran them out, these African heads of state. Now if you really wanted to do it, you could tell America, if you want their help, say "What we want is a vote"... "Could you come in, instead of bombing, supervise a referendum, so that the Libya people could say if they want Mummar Qaddafi or some other Westminster democratic process." That got a laugh.

Of course he is in the United States, not Benghazi. He can talk about the Afro-American struggles and then tell the Libyans "your situation is not unique." He can arrogantly forget that a few days before NATO started enforcing the no-fly zone, Qaddafi told Benghazi "We will show no mercy..."

Remember the circumstance under which Muhammad is suggesting they should have called for a referendum. Qaddafi's forces had just flatten the small town to the west of Benghazi, killing hundreds with aircraft, tanks and artillery. "The town of Ajdabiyah has been cleansed of mercenaries and terrorists linked to the al Qaeda organization," Libyan state TV bragged. Now Qaddafi was promising to "go house to house" and "kill the rats", meaning Libyans, in this city of almost a million. This was on the eve of the UN vote on resolution 1973. Libyan League for Human Rights chief Soliman Bouchuiguir, said that if Qaddafi was allowed to attack Benghazi there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda." That is why the Arab League voted for intervention. That is why the first NATO air strikes were around Benghazi. Whatever their motivation, the NATO actions almost certainly did stop a bloodbath in Benghazi. This is an inconvenient truth for Qaddafi supporters.

But when you're not in a difficult situation it can be very easy to be judgmental.

I will tell you frankly that I don't like the police. I know that they have gotten away with murder too many times. I have seen them lie, torture and act like thugs. On a personal level, police have threatened to murder me and I have done time in jail because police lied on me. Still, if I happened to be threatened by gangsters or if my child is kidnapped, I will call the police.

And I don't think Ho Chi Minh was an imperialist tool because he allowed US OSS doctors to treat him or because he accepted US military help in his struggle against the Japanese.

However, I think it was absolutely shameful the way Stalin sent Molotov scurrying off to Washington to beg the United States to step up it's war against Hitler in 1942. Imagine that! A union of socialist republics demanding the US imperialists help them in their war with German imperialists by intervening militarily in a European affair. Didn't they know the US reputation for wantonly killing civilians, from the Indian wars or the Philippines for example? Shouldn't they have been able to anticipate the hell on Earth the US and British imperialists would create for the civilians of Dresden and some one thousand other German town and cities they incinerated in the final months of the war?

Of course, that was after the Hitler-Stalin pack broke down and Hitler invaded the USSR, before that [Daily Worker, 1940] it was "the Anglo-French Imperialist war machine."

Libyas TNC has made no appeal to Israel

This is part of a false counter-narrative that is being promoted by Qaddafi supporters.
Here's the story on that,

The first salvo in the latest controversy was fired earlier this month in Jerusalem, where Levy had a 90-minute meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

During the meeting, Levy relayed a verbal message from Libya’s opposition leaders that the National Transitional Council (NTC) would seek diplomatic ties between Libya and Israel if it came to power. At least that’s what BHL said he said.

In an interview with the AFP, Levy said he told Netanyahu that, "the future [Libyan] regime will maintain normal relations with other democratic countries, including Israel,” before going on to add that, “the main point was that the future Libyan regime would be moderate and anti-terrorist and will be concerned with justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel.”

While Netanyahu’s office confirmed the meeting with the French writer-philosopher, it declined to comment on the content of the discussion.

But just days after the meeting, the NTC released a miffed statement – a copy of which was obtained by FRANCE 24 - declaring that it “strongly rejects what has been reported in some media as Mr. Bernard Levy's comments on the future relationship between Libya and the Israelis.

“The NTC is surprised by Mr. Levy's comments,” the statement went on to add. “Mr Levy was received as a Special Envoy from the President of France, and relations with Israel was never discussed.” (sic)

A self-styled “militant philosopher,” BHL has no official position in the French cabinet or government.

Good Points That Don't Connect To Make The Thesis

Many good points but they do not connect to make your underlying thesis tenable or justified. Namely that US/NATO intervention in Libya is a necessary evil whose benefits outweigh the costs to all involved, both in the short and long run.

It is shameful that ANSWER did not allow the expatriate Libyans to speak or did not allow them a fair hearing even if most, if not all of them, must be anti-Qaddafi by default. It is also unfortunate that Cynthia would not disclose the identity of her mystery benefactor. It does raise a lot of questions about the excursion and her statements regarding the matter.

To me it is clear that Qaddafi must go but what is not clear is that the rebellion should be supported by the military machine of the west that operates at the behest of arch-villains that make Qaddafi look like a schoolyard bully.

You are correct in asking where were all these anti-NATO crusaders when it came to decrying the sale of arms to a known murderer and torturer or where were they when these movements first began and it was time to unequivocally support –the people- in their struggle against all tyranny and abuse.

Yet the opportunism and shallow nature of many of these anti-NATO and anti-Imperialism activists again in no way actually makes a case for US/NATO intervention in a civil war against the government of another country that has not in any way provoked or attacked the US or any member of that alliance of “mutual defense”.

This is not even touching the subject of the –legality- of such military actions under U.S. law as executed by the lawless Obama regime.

Did NATO operations save lives in Benghazi? Probably. Has it taken other lives, some of them innocent? Certainly.

It is somewhat bemusing to hear people talk about the Arab League (also known as the Arab Dictator’s Club) requesting a No-Fly Zone and doing so in the interest of the people of Libya when fully half if not more of them engage in similar repressive and brutal behaviors.

Of course, maybe they didn’t understand what a No-Fly Zone really means to US/NATO.

Let’s do a quick roll call of the member states:

Palestinian Authority
United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia

Not exactly the Freedom, Justice and Equality squad there.

But apart from that, let’s have a grim chuckle at the “oh hmm” reaction of the chief of the Arab League in the he Guardian article linked below after realizing that you don’t call on wolves to protect the chickens from a fox.


It is my opinion that people who feel so strongly in favor of the removal of Qaddafi from power should put their blood, sweat and tears where spouts their armchair utilitarian moralizing.

That much like during the days of the Spanish Civil War there should be formed something like the International Brigades that once fought fascism and militarism.

They should get to Libya, get training and a weapon then serve under rebel command ready to kill and die for the cause.

To do as we have done now only further justifies the insatiable western war machine that can never divorce its actions from its stomach and very reason for being: the greed and powerlust of its corporatist and imperialist overlords.

Not all rebellions are created equal (be it motives or viability) nor are they all executed and timed in a way that permits success. People should not start fights they are not prepared to see through to the end on their own, be it victory or defeat.

President Abraham Lincoln managed to get over half a million Americans killed (although not all deaths were direct combat casualties and the number is somewhat debatable) during his war to preserve the union of the United States and employed the use of men such as General William T. Sherman whose policy of total war would define the nature of modern warfare.

Wrong or right?


You say:

People should not start fights they are not prepared to see through to the end on their own, be it victory or defeat.

By this statement I must conclude that you do think it was wrong for Ho Chi Minh to accept OSS help, wrong for the USSR to demand US help in defeating Hitler, wrong for the Americans of 1776 to accept help from France, wrong for the Viet Minh garner support from the socialist camp, etc.

The idea that people involved in a desperate struggle against oppression must stand alone and should refuse any outside support is the idea and complaint of the oppressor.

Without the support these movements received, often from corrupt sources, it is doubtful if any could succeed. That is the real import of your "purest" view, to hold back the people's movement, to force it to refuse, on 'idealogical' grounds, help that could tip the balance.

A good revolutionary is one that is not only always willing to accept the aid of friends but is also willing to exploit contradictions among the enemy. Qaddafi is an enemy of the Libyan people and so is NATO. But Qaddafi is the main enemy now. He has been the main support for imperialism in Libya and he is the one that has been and still is massively killing Libyans. So the main task of the revolution in Libya now is defeating Qaddafi, and "by any means necessary" as Malcolm X said.

For many people, when they hear the phrase "by any means necessary", think of the revolutionary with a gun in his hand. I think it means what it says, including making deals with the enemy of my enemy.

I realize that such deals are never easy and they are fraught with danger for the revolution, unfortunately for those making revolution in the real world, they are a part of the terrain and a necessary part of any successful revolution.

To reject them out of hand is equivalent to rejecting the road to revolution in the real world.

Note on the Arab League vote:
You are correct to point out that most of the governments voting are corrupt dictatorships. The question that you fail to address, that everyone that has tried to denigrate the AL vote has failed to address, is were they acting democratically or as a dictatorship with regards to this vote?

That is to say: Was the AL vote for intervention in Libya supported or opposed by the Arab street? After you regurgitate all the minutia about quorums and corruption, did the vote reflect the demands of the Arab people? And if so, could that not be the reason the vote was taken?



“By this statement I must conclude that you do think it was wrong for Ho Chi Minh to accept OSS help, wrong for the USSR to demand US help in defeating Hitler, wrong for the Americans of 1776 to accept help from France, wrong for the Viet Minh garner support from the socialist camp, etc.”

No. You mustn’t conclude anything of the sort.

You employ here the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

Each conflict is unique and not in any way analogous to the civil war in Libya and US/NATO intervention other than to note that sometimes common enemies make strange bedfellows.

What you “must conclude” from my statement is that unless there is broad enough popular support for a rebellion or freedom movement, meaning the hearts and minds of “the people” as a majority are with your cause to make a revolution viable all you are doing is leveraging regime change for the benefit of a few.

Like it or not, there is plenty of popular support for Qaddafi amongst Libyans while divisions tend to follow regional tribal-ethnic ties and socio-economic lines.

But let us briefly examine some of the particulars in the examples you mentioned above to flesh out some differences and similarities.

1) Ho Chi Minh and the OSS vs. Japan: Not a civil war.

Anti-colonialists freedom fighters team up with U.S. intelligence operatives to evict Imperial Japanese forces as aggressive invaders.

2) USSR and US vs. Nazi Germany: Not a civil war.

The Soviet republic is betrayed by Nazi Germany after making a pact with it to buy time as Stalin figures the West is trying to deflect German attention towards the east due to Britain’s Chamberlain’s own strategy of buying time by acquiescing to Hitler’s demand for the Sudetenland.

Neither the USSR nor the US initiated hostilities, although it can be argued that American bankers set the stage for the coming conflict with their toxic and avaricious influence in setting the terms of the Treaty of Versaille after WWI.


3) American colonial rebels and French supporters vs. British Empire: Not a civil war.

Colonial elites resort to all manner of false claims, exaggerations and rabble rousing to agitate their otherwise less than enthusiastic plebeian brethren to action in the interest of securing the considerable private property and wealth of the colonial elites from the depredations of the monarchical elites.

The French were of course only too happy to assist in limited ways that were mostly meant to antagonize and weaken their colonialist rivals, the British, and reestablish their diplomatic position of preeminence amongst European powers.

Shortly after gaining independence the new American nation then turns to their former “oppressor” as their main trading partner leaving the financial relationship much the same as it was before the revolution with Britain while France’s crippling debts and attending social issues, many of them incurred during the war, set the stage for the French Revolution.

4) Viet Minh garnering support from socialists: Not a civil war.

Hardly some glaring conflict of interest there and an utterly irrelevant example since my point is not that movements shouldn’t have help, but that their initiation and success should not be contingent on the intervention of predatory powers acting on behalf of less than the majority of the people of the country experiencing the unrest.


“The idea that people involved in a desperate struggle against oppression must stand alone and should refuse any outside support is the idea and complaint of the oppressor.”

Again, not what I said.

I think –you- should go and help and put into action your convictions. I think those Arab dictators should send people to go and help if they are serious about intervention and “the Arab street” indeed supports that action.


“Without the support these movements received, often from corrupt sources, it is doubtful if any could succeed. That is the real import of your "purest" view, to hold back the people's movement, to force it to refuse, on 'idealogical' grounds, help that could tip the balance.”

1) Your speculation is not fact.

2) How is it the “people’s movement” if so many still support Qaddafi?

3) Tip the balance in favor of –whom-? Some of the principal actors behind the rebellion were once stalwarts of Qaddafi and themselves engaged in many of the human rights abuses while some others are Islamic fighters who have participated in armed conflict against Western powers and their puppets in the Middle East.



“Younes defected from Gadhafi's forces only in the last month. While his long-lasting loyalty to Gadhafi has aroused suspicion among some opposition elements, he brings with him recent military experience and knowledge of Gadhafi's forces and capabilities. “



“Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the” Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".

Strange bedfellows indeed! No doubt this contributed to the reason the rebels had to make gestures of appeasement to the increasingly nervous Zionist oriented Western powers


“As mediation and ceasefire initiatives such as the Road Map proposed by the African Union via South Africa's president Jacob Zuma failed, a French writer, Bernard Henri Levy announced that he delivered a message on Thursday from Libyan rebel leaders to Israel's Prime Minister, saying they would seek diplomatic ties with the country if they came to power.”


“Note on the Arab League vote:
You are correct to point out that most of the governments voting are corrupt dictatorships. The question that you fail to address, that everyone that has tried to denigrate the AL vote has failed to address, is were they acting democratically or as a dictatorship with regards to this vote?

That is to say: Was the AL vote for intervention in Libya supported or opposed by the Arab street? After you regurgitate all the minutia about quorums and corruption, did the vote reflect the demands of the Arab people? And if so, could that not be the reason the vote was taken? “

Here I will let Noam Chomsky express the counterpoint in a much more thorough and incisive way:


EXCERPT (although the entire piece should be read for context and relevance):

“And then — but in this case, they could also add something else, which has been repeated over and over again, namely, the U.S. and its allies were intervening in response to a request by the Arab League. And, of course, we have to recognize the importance of that. Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and was pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were doing. But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League produced — issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper: "Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone."

Actually, I’m quoting from the London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States. Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone," that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared.

Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from the New York Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, "The poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the region’s stability."

Actually, that’s not quite accurate. It’s been a cornerstone of the region’s instability, and that’s exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel to expand its operations — illegal operations — in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn’t quite make it. And that was understood.

So the immediate reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don’t like — we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does everyone in the region.

On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying when they said that it led to the region’s stability. And the reason is because of the meaning of the word "stability" as a technical meaning. Stability is — it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that’s called "destabilizing." It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s destabilizing the region.

On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it’s possible to write — former editor of Foreign Affairs — that when the U.S. overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word "stability."

Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people — that’s all bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.”

I know you mean well but you mistake your naivety for “realpolitik” and your pragmatism for principle.

I expect to see you in Libya with a weapon in hand and a willingness to kill and die for the rebel cause if you are sincere about what you say you feel regarding the matter.

Hi Felix

I would like to mention that you are very welcome to submit your rebuttal in article form if you like (since you are already halfway there). Like so. http://wlcentral.org/q-a

Best regards,


Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer