Tuesday, January 14, 2014

What is the Real Story of Gaddafi?

The Great Nothingness of Libya, Two Years After Muammar Gaddafi
By Maximilian Forte
Global Research, October 21, 2013
Zero Anthropology 20 October 2013
The notion of a “Libya” has ceased to have any meaningful practical application. As a concept that either refers to some degree of national unity, an imagined community, sovereignty, or the exercise of authority by a state over the territory within its borders, “Libya” has been driven back to the time when it had yet to become formalized as a concept. Those once celebrated as “rebels” and “revolutionaries” — by Obama, NATO states, UN bodies, Western media, and a range of liberal imperialist opinion along with those “socialists” who, after an extended period of internalized structural adjustment now model their thinking to better accord with neoliberal principles — are rarely if ever held up now as paragons of the “better future” that was to come. Visions, as in hallucinations and delusions, of the better that would come once Gaddafi was dutifully executed, abounded in the politically prepubescent writings of an “Arab Spring.”
If there ever was an “Arab Spring” in Libya, within days it quickly turned into an African nightmare. This was especially true with respect to the racist terrorism launched against scores of unarmed black Libyan civilians and African migrant workers. To the extent that “Libya” exists any longer, it is either as an absence or as a shameful stain. Libya is now Africa’s newest apartheid “state” and torture “regime”. Why the quotes? Unlike apartheid South Africa, the “new Libya” lacks any kind of cohesion as either a state or among actual or prospective rulers as a class, and in fact class analysis when applied to Libya by using Marx as a how-to-manual, produces laughable results to be expected from orthodox Eurocentrics, from those who cast the present in non-western settings as a mere projection or repetition of “Stalinism”.
The grotesque and criminal torture, murder, and butchering of Muammar Gaddafi should have symbolized what would soon be done to all of Libya, just like it had been done to thousands of black Libyans and African migrants by the “heroic rebels” of NATO’s 2011 war against Libya. Libya is being dismembered as this is being written, sinking into a war of all against all for the benefit of a few.
Days, weeks, then months and now years have passed marked by daily kidnappings, acts of torture, wrongful imprisonment, assassinations, bombings, raids and bloody clashes between rival militias, armed extortion, strikes that have reduced the oil sector to a mirage of what “once was,” and an explosion of racialism, religious fundamentalism, and regionalism. If “Gaddafi” was their enemy, then Libyans have a funny way of showing it: by slaughtering each other, armed Libyans declare that
they are each other’s worst enemies. Gaddafi was clearly not the problem: he was the solution that had to be broken in order for Libya to be “fixed,” to be fixed good and proper from the standpoint of the cruel tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the U.S.
If Libya has suffered a thousand deaths since the brutal overthrow of Gaddafi and all of what he had achieved, gone too–and this is happy news–are all of the jejune and childishly simplistic pretenses at theory that are founded on Eurocentric binary oppositions and ideas that are barely veiled translations of the idiotic, demonizing caricatures of Gaddafi.
So here was “the dictator,” but who apparently ruled without a state, if you believe what Reuters tries to pass off as political analysis. (No amount of “being there” will cure you if you’re insistent about your ignorance.) Here was the “brutal” dictator, but who apparently kept his army weak. Or there was a state, but it was also a one-man show–whatever, something, anything to cast all blame on the past and take our eyes away from all those who have responsibility for the present.
If they’re continuing to fight “Gaddafi,” and credit/blame Gaddafi for everything in the present, then there was no “revolution” either, just multiple, continuous reenactments of all that was “Gaddafi.” If militia leaders see Gaddafi everywhere and in everyone, it is because they are nowhere. Gone too are the grandiose declarations–that passed for expert analysis by Juan Cole and friends–of all of Libya “rising up,” united, to “throw off the regime,” a people against a dictator. I mean really, this is embarrassing when you think that supposed adults — “scholars” even — were behind such cartoonish drivel.
To those “socialists” in the West who cheered the Libyan “revolutionaries,” let’s ask them: where do you see socialism in Libya today? To those liberals who spoke of “democracy” and “human rights,” where do you see either of those today? To the advocates of “humanitarian” principles of intervention and “protection,” why did you go so silent after the lights were turned off with Gaddafi’s murder? To those who imagined would-be “massacres” to come that accompanied the demands of British and U.S. altar boys that “Gaddafi had to go,” why does your imagination suddenly fail you when confronted with the actual massacres that you yourselves committed and enabled?
To those who claim “lives were saved,” where were you when the bodies began to pile up amidst swarms of flies in blood-stained, abandoned hospitals? When patients in hospitals were gunned down in their beds, and when handcuffed prisoners lying on their stomachs were executed at such close range that the grass beneath their heads was scorched, did you wince? In other words, where do you all see this great “success story” in the charnel house that is now “Libya”?
It’s polite analysis to speak of the time-space compression of globalization, that presumably explains how many iPad imperialists personally vested themselves in “correcting” Libya so it could become more like what they imagined they possessed. They would not stand idly by, no, not when another chance presented itself to flatter themselves with a reinvigorated cultural evolutionism, applied by the force of NATO bombardments.
Libya was now “ready for democracy,” and the cruise missiles showed just how ripe Libya was for “improvement.” Time-space compression? The globalization of consciousness? Consciousness, however much there ever was, was certainly compressed: into a tiny a nut-shell that prohibited considering contrary opinions, as right as they consistently proved to be.
In that vein, I recommend that the reader invest a mere 40 minutes or so in reviewing how things looked before we became deluded by our own lies. These are overviews of Libya and Gaddafi, produced by the BBC and CBS news (believe it or not), when the demonological fantasies had not yet fully hatched, taken wing, and unloaded so many propaganda droppings on our heads as come from Obama’s vainglorious, imperial monologues. Challenge yourself, and look at some of what Libya has lost, all in the name of the great nothingness.
NATO’s Role in the Murder of Muammar Gaddafi
October 2011 Interview
Global Research, December 05, 2011
Life Week Magazine (China), No. 44, Issue 655 22 October 2011
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, who returned to Canada from Libya in September, was interviewed by Life Week, a major Chinese magazine based in Beijing, regarding the murder of Muammar Al-Gaddafi in Sirte.The interview between Xu Jinjing and Nazemroaya discusses the broad implications of the murder of Muammar Gaddafi including the role played by the Transitional National Council and NATO in his murder.
What follows is the English transcript of the interview with the Chinese Magazine on October 22, 2011
XU JINGJING: In your opinion, what does Gaddafi’s death mean to the NTC? Does it mean the forces of Gaddafi will be split and never be a major threat to the NTC?
NAZEMROAYA: Members of the US Senate have pointed out that NATO was involved in the capture of Colonel Gaddafi. The British, French, and Americans had roles to play. NATO had bombed Gaddafi’s convoy. I also read a private letter demanding for NATO to confirm if it knew who was in the convoy, which was leaving Sirte. NATO refused to answer if it knew who was in the convoy, but cited them as threats to civilians.
The murder of Colonel Gaddafi opens the door for internal rivalries to create splinter groups amongst the Libyan loyalists or resistance groups. With Qaddafi gone there will be a contest for leadership and it will result in negotiations between some elements in the Libyan resistance and the Transitional Council government.
The aim of murdering Colonel Gaddafi was not a mere act of revenge as is being portrayed by the media. It also is a means of hiding the crimes of NATO. The Obama Administration and NATO had him killed to also hide their own crimes before and during the NATO attacks on Libya. For example, the Libyans had a lot of evidence that proved President Nicolas Sarkozy was taking bribery money and was involved in election fraud.
XU JINGJING: Some of Gaddafi’s family is still on the run. Will anyone of them remain a threat to the NTC? Will they be put on trial by the International Criminal Court?
NAZEMROAYA: First of all I want to say that the International Criminal Court is a political tool. It is only used against weak countries. The case that the ICC presented was based on media reports and lies. You can see the annexes to verify. One of its key pieces of evidence was from the Libyan League for Human Rights, which told a colleague of mine on the record that they had no evidence about 6000 people being massacred.
International legal experts made it very clear to me that Washington and NATO would never let Colonel Gaddafi and several of his family members live, because of the legal threat they imposed. Some even suggested that the message be passed to him to surrender so as to guarantee that Gaddafi would get into a court to expose the lies and systematic breaches of international law by Washington and
Be certain that the murders will not stop with Colonel Gaddafi. The Transional Council also murdered one of his sons, Moutasim, who was being held and tortured as a prisoner for a week. The Transitional Council also murdered the leader of the tribal council of Libya, Sheikh Ali. Sheikh Ali was working tirelessly for peace and some sort of a compromise between both sides. They went into his house and murdered him.
XU JINGJING: Some analysts said the fall of Sirte is more significant for the effect it will have on the future stability of Libya. What do you think?NAZEMROAYA: The events in Sirte now guarantee the disintegration of Libyan society on the basis of tribalism, regionalism, and political orientation. Chaos will grip the country. In Darnah there is a so-called Islamic Emirate. In Misarata there is the Misarata Military Council. In Benghazi and parts of Tripoli there is the Transitional Council. There are even now figures that could emerge as warlords in Tripoli and Benghazi.
I was just informed that US troops have landed in Tripoli and Benghazi. They are getting ready for something. The country will eventually formally or informally balkanize. This will spill out into other parts of Africa. This is also one of the reasons that the Americans are sending combat troops into Uganda, which will also be posted and active in South Sudan and Kenya. The Kenyan invasion of Somalia is even linked to this project.
XU JINGJING: What are the priorities for the NTC now?
NAZEMROAYA: Speaking to people on the ground in Libya, I can tell you that the priorities of the Transitional Council are to take control of Libya and for each fraction to secure its own interests and secure its own power. They are more concentrated on weapons contracts and securing favor from Washington and NATO. They are not interested in even importing food and medical supplies to the degree that they really need to be. There own inner rivalries will also paralyze them to a degree.
XU JINGJING: What are the major power divisions in the NTC now? Do you see anyone capable of uniting and leading the country from the NTC?NAZEMROAYA: We have more than one government in Libya now. We have the Transitional Council, the Misrata Military Council, the Emirate of Darnah, and also the remnants of the legitimate Jamahiriya government. I seriously see civil strife and chaos sweeping parts of the country. Lawlessness has now become a reality in large parts of Tripoli and the rest of Libya. Armed gangs are involved in robberies, torture, rape, and extortion.
This is all very negative, because it will equate to the involvement of foreign arbitrators. This is exactly what Washington and the European Union want, because they will be able to keep these groups in line and have checks and balances over them. Each time one group gets out of control or refuses to listen, the American government and its allies will funnel their support to a rival group.
XU JINGJING: How much will the United States, EU and Qatar be involved in state building in a post-Gaddafi Libya? Why?
NAZEMROAYA: They will be involved in the reconstruction contracts and management of the country. Members of the Transitional Council, even before they came into power, already negotiated with them in February and March for oil contracts. I do not know what type of guarantees the Russian Federation and China received, but they are likely to become marginalized in Libya on the basis of the edicts of the American government and its EU allies.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. His articles have been translated into more than ten languages and he is also an award-winning writer. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.
21 True Facts About Gaddafi You Weren’t Told
Gaddafi’s pimps still peddling his lies
Posted by Veterans Today

Saturday, October 29th, 2011
Editor’s note: The original document was submitted as being published by the United Nations. On more careful examination, there is no UN attribution nor is there any UN organization likely to create a document that debunks so easily. All UN documents carry the UN seal. This never varies Thousands of organizations that claim to be UN related are under direct prohibition from using the UN seal. Wasn’t it the UN, at the request of Amnesty International, that ordered the attacks? (Edtior and former diplomatic officer of the UN’s Economic and Social Council, in “Special Consultative Relationship”)
Libya’s tyrant Muammar Gaddafi is dead and buried but his pimps around the world don’t seem to have got the message yet. Perhaps, like some of Elvis Presley’s fans, they believe that he’s immortal and is lurking among us, maybe in a disused sewer somewhere.Be that as it may, it’s worth looking at some of the lies being peddled by these pimps, if only for a laugh – and to have some pity on these individuals. It’s bad enough being a pimp, but a pimp with limited intellect, chronic cognitive dissonance and perhaps also some literacy problems is a creature truly worthy of our pity.
Here’s a selection of the Gaddafi lies still working their way around the internet, with my replies beneath each lie. In contrast to Gaddafi’s pimps, I have lived and worked in Libya for over 40 years, so I know what I am talking about .
Lie #1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.This is a complete fabrication - Libyans have always had to pay for utilities, including electricity.
Lie #2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0 per cent interest by law. This is another fiction – Libyans have always paid interest on all loans. This includes students sent to study abroad – their “grants” are deducted from their salaries after they return home. In addition, under Gaddafi many Libyan have had to borrow money from banks, relatives and friends in order to seek medical treatment abroad, typically in Tunisia, Jordan or Egypt. This is in a oil-rich country with a small population of just six million (including at least two million foreign workers).
Lie #3. Home considered a human right in Libya – Gaddafi vowed that his parents would not get a house until everyone in Libya had a home. Gaddafi’s father has died while he , his wife and his mother are still living in a tent. This is complete nonsense. It’s true that after Gaddafi’s coup in 1969 most of the corrugated iron shacks that dotted suburban areas in Libya disappeared, but that’s hardly a great achievement in a country whose population in 1969 was just 1.5 million and whose oil revenue grew at least tenfold during Gaddafi’s reign. In fact, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that this would have happened anyway, Gaddafi or no Gaddafi, given the phenomenal growth of income from oil. And that’s not to mention the palaces Gaddafi built for himself in every city – all paid for with the Libyan people’s money.
Lie #4. All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Libyan dinar (50,000 US dollars) from the government to buy their first apartment and help start up a family.This is a complete fabrication. It never happened either before or during Gaddafi’s reign. In fact, a huge number of people in Libya are unable to marry because they cannot afford to rent, buy or build a home.
Lie #5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 per cent of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 83 per cent.

Education and medical treatment have always been free, under the monarchy and during Gaddafi’s reign. However, under Gaddafi, and especially from the late 1970s onwards, if you were unlucky enough to go to a state hospital you would have had to (a) bring your own bedding, if you wanted to sleep in clean bedding; (b) get your family or friends to bring in food for you; and (c) put up with appalling standards of hygiene, including reused syringes. If you didn’t want any of this, then would have had to find the money to go to a private hospital.
Lie #6. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick - start their farms – all for free.
This is a blatant lie. It never happened at any time in Libya.
Lie #7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US 2,300 US dollars per month accommodation and car allowance.Utter nonsense. See my answer to Lie #2 above – under Gaddafi many Libyan have had to borrow money from banks, relatives and friends in order to seek medical treatment abroad, typically in Tunisia, Jordan or Egypt. This is in a oil-rich country with a small population of just six million (including at least two million foreign workers).
Lie #8. In Libya, if a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 per cent of the price. Complete nonsense. In fact, you’d be lucky to find a car to buy. Gaddafi seized all car dealerships in the late 1970s and, from there onwards, only the state very occasionally imported motor cars and sold them to the public at exorbitant prices. And that’s not all. To get to buy a car at all, you also had to pay a large bribe to one of the officials in charge of selling the state-imported vehicles. And, if you wanted to import a car privately – whatever its make and whether brand new or used – you had to pay 100-per-cent import duties (plus a bribe to get the port authorities to release the car even after you paid the import duties).
Lie #9. The price of petrol in Libya is 0.14 US dollars per litre. As with all oil producing countries, the price of petrol was lower than in Europe or Japan. But it certainly was not 0.14 US dollars per litre. It was equivalent to the price of petrol in the USA.
Lie #10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to 150 billion US dollars – now frozen globally.
That’s true, but why should a country of vast oil revenues, six million people and almost no public expenditure have a foreign debt? In Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny hardly any new infrastructure was built and existing infrastructure, such as roads, hospitals and schools, hardly received any investment at all. It’s also worth noting that, despite several contracts with Russian, Ukrainian and Chinese railway companies costing approximately 40 billion dollars, Libya has no railway at all. As for the reserves of 150 billion US dollars, that too is hardly surprising given the vast oil wealth and almost zero public investments. Almost all of these reserves were managed by Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, who spent the money in corrupt private dealings. The defunct dictator’s other son, Mutasim, also dipped into the country’s reserves, spending by his own admission two million dollars per month on gifts and parties for his girlfriends.
Lie #11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found. This is a complete lie. It is estimated that at least one-third of Libyan graduates are unemployed – none received anything from the state. And Libya has no social security, so these people, like all other unemployed citizens, had to rely on family and friends for support.
Lie #12. A portion of Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens. Rubbish! It’s simply not true.
Lie #13. A mother who gave birth to a child receive 5,000 US dollars. Another figment of the imagination of Gaddafi’s pimps. It never happened. Ever
Lie #14. Forty loaves of bread in Libya costs 0.15 dollars.Bread has always been cheap – even in impoverished countries like Egypt. But the price of one (repeat, one, not 40) loaf of bread in Libya in December 2011 (i.e. before the people’s revolution) was about 0.20 US dollars.
Lie #15. Twenty five per cent of Libyans have a university degree. More or less true – and 30 per cent of them are unemployed!
Lie #16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. That’s true. This is a prestige project that cost three times as much as originally estimated. It would have been much cheaper to develop desalinated water plants. And what happened when the “Great Man-Made River” was completed? They connected it to the country’s ageing water pipes which blew up all at the same time because of the huge increase in pressure, leaving millions in Benghazi, Tripoli and elsewhere without freshwater for months. And why weren’t the pipes renewed before connecting them to the “Great Man-Made River”? Well, money had been allocated to do this but the job was never done - not one pipe was renewed? And why was that? Because Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and his brother Mutasim pocketed the money. All of it. Ten billion us dollars, in fac
Lie #17. According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index - ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155.
Go and tell that to the families of the hundreds buried alive in underground prisons in Libya, or to the loved ones of those locked up and left to die in shipping containers in ambient temperatures of 45 degrees Celsius. Or to the relatives of the 1,200 political murdered in three hours in Abu Salim prison in 1996. As for ranking 53 globally on the UN’s Human Development Index, big deal! Onlt 53, in a country of immense wealth and only six million people? Why not ranking first globally? This is an indictment of Gaddafi, his thieving family and his murderous regime. And ranking first in Africa – is that a great achievement, considering that the overwhelming majority of African countries are either super poor or ultra-corrupt?
Lie #18. According to the US Energy Information Administration, “Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa”. It is a measure of the intellectual calibre of Gaddafi’s pimps that they cite Libya’s oil reserves as an achievement of the defunct tyrant. Well, let me surprise them: the size of a country’s oil reserves is determined by natural phenomena spanning billions of years, not by human intervention.
Lie #19. On 21 February 2011, five days after the Arab Spring broke out in Libya, Gaddafi launched a new programme to privatize all Libyan oil to every citizen of Libya, initially providing 21,000 US dollars to every Libyan from a total of 32 billion dollars in the Year 2011, so that the health, education, transport and some other ministries could be abolished and individual Libyans could use the profits of their own investments, including from oil ownership, to obtain the relevant services. This, Gaddafi said, is the best way to eliminate corruption, including the theft of Libyan oil by foreign oil companies, and to decentralize governmental power.
I’ve heard this story from Gaddafi’s own mouth before - in fact, once every three years or so, the last time being in early March this year, shortly after the people’s revolution began. It’s a cheap attempt to tempt people, but never materialized at any time following promises along the same lines from 1979 onwards. Besides, after 42 years of Gaddafi rule Libya is still 97 per cent reliant on oil revenue. So much for development! So, even if Gaddai were serious, what will Libyans do with all that money. The answer is simple: with zero domestic output, it would mean a several-hundred-per-cent increase in imports. We already import everything. As for the theft of Libyan oil by foreign oil companies, well, who gave these companies control of Libyan oil in the first place, and who pampered them and gave them and their staff preferential treatment over Libyan citizens? Every Libyan knows the answer to that question but let me spell it out for Gaddafi’s intellectually-challenged pimps: the answer is Gaddafi and his corrupt sons.
Lie #20. The Great Man-Made River Project, begun in 1984 by Gaddafi, has been called the Eighth Wonder of the World. It supplies fresh water to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere. The US threatened to nuke this “chemical weapons factory”. Foreign companies covet the fresh water.
See my answer to Lie #16 above: This is a prestige project that cost three times as much as originally estimated. It would have been much cheaper to develop desalinated water plants. And what happened when the “Great Man-Made River” was completed? They connected it to the country’s ageing water pipes which blew up all at the same time because of the huge increase in pressure, leaving millions in Benghazi, Tripoli and elsewhere without freshwater for months. And why weren’t the pipes renewed before connecting them to the “Great Man-Made River”? Well, money had been allocated to do this but the job was never done - not one pipe was renewed? And why was that? Because Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and his brother Mutasim pocketed the money. All of it. Ten billion us dollars, in fact! As for foreign companies coveting the “Great Man-Made River’s” freshwater, what exactly would foreign companies do with this water?
Lie #21. Muammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969 in a bloodless coup by overthrowing King Idris of Libya - Idris achieved power with British backing in 1949.
If we’re supposed to conclude from this that Gaddafi is a peace-loving man who only does things bloodlessly, then the defunct tyrant’s pimps are stupid beyond our wildest imagination. Gaddafi’s dismal, murderous human rights record in Libya is a matter of public record and is beyond doubt. Likewise, his murderous actions abroad are almost unparalleled. Just think of his sponsorship of drug-crazed limb amputators in Sierra Leone and Code d’Ivoire, his arming and funding of Charles Taylor’s gangsters in Liberia and his decades-long bloody meddling in Chad and Sudan, to mention but a few. Also, staging a bloodless coup in Libya in 1969 can’t have been a very hard job. Gaddafi’s colleagues arrested the crown prince and three army officers and seized the radio and TV station – one building. That was it! And there’s a sting in the tail here too. One of Gaddafi’s coup colleagues – Muhammad al-Mogaryaf, who was murdered by Gaddafi in 1972 - related that at the crucial hour when some of his colleagues went to arrest the army chief, Gaddafi panicked and hid for a full four hours. Mogaryaf paid for this comment with his life. By the way, Libya’s population at that time of the coup was 1.5 million, in a country six times the size of the UK. It must have been really hard to stage a bloodless coup in such a tiny country with a super weak regime!

US and NATO Murder Muammar Gaddafi
By Bill Van Auken
Global Research, October 24, 2011
World Socialist Web Site 21 October 2011
The savage killing Thursday of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi served to underscore the criminal character of the war that has been prosecuted by the US and NATO over the past eight months.
The assassination follows NATO’s more than month-long siege of Sirte, the Libyan coastal city that was Gaddafi’s hometown and a center of his support. The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.
Gaddafi was apparently traveling in a convoy of vehicles attempting to break out of the siege after the last bastion of resistance had fallen to the NATO-backed “rebels”. NATO warplanes attacked the convoy at 8:30 a.m. Thursday morning, leaving a number of vehicles in flames and preventing it from moving forward. Then the armed anti-Gaddafi militias moved in for the kill.
The death of Gaddafi appears to have been part of a larger massacre that has reportedly claimed the lives of a number of his top aides, loyalist fighters and his two sons, Mo’tassim and Saif al-Islam.
While details of the killings remain somewhat clouded, photographs and cell phone videos released by the NATO-backed “rebels” clearly show a wounded Gaddafi struggling with his captors and shouting as he is dragged onto the back of a vehicle. His stripped and lifeless body is then shown, drenched in blood. It seems clear that having first been wounded, perhaps in the NATO air strikes, the former Libyan ruler was captured alive and then summarily executed. One photograph shows him with a bullet hole in the head.
Gaddafi’s body was then taken west to the city of Misrata, where it was reportedly dragged through the streets before being deposited in a mosque.
The fate of the body is politically significant in that it was seized by a Misrata militia faction that is operating under its own command and has no loyalty to the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC), which Washington and NATO have anointed as the “sole legitimate representative” of the Libyan people.
Thus this grisly event, which President Barack Obama hailed in the White House Rose Garden Thursday as the advent of “a new and democratic Libya,” in reality only exposes the regional and tribal fault lines that are setting the stage for a protracted period of civil war.
Both the US and France claimed credit for their roles in the murder of Gaddafi. The Pentagon asserted on Thursday that a US Predator drone had fired a Hellfire missile at the ousted Libyan leader’s convoy, while France’s defense minister said that French warplanes had bombed it.
The US and NATO had carried out repeated air strikes on Gaddafi’s compounds in Tripoli and other homes where they suspected he was hiding since shortly after the brutal air war against Libya was launched last March. One of these strikes at the end of last April claimed the lives of his youngest son and three young grandchildren.
Washington had deployed surveillance planes along

with large numbers of drones in an attempt to track down Gaddafi, while US, British and French intelligence agents, special operations troops and military “contractors” operating on the ground also participated in this manhunt.
Just two days before the murder of Gaddafi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton staged an unannounced visit to Tripoli on a heavily armed military aircraft. While there, she issued a demand that Gaddafi be brought in “dead or alive”.
As the Associated Press reported, Clinton declared “in unusually blunt terms that the United States would like to see former dictator Muammar Gaddafi dead.
“‘We hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don’t have to fear him any longer’, Clinton told students and others at a town hall-style gathering in the capital city.”The AP went on to note: “Until now, the US has generally avoided saying that Gaddafi should be killed.”
Yet in reality, Washington is pursuing an unconcealed policy of state murder. In this case, it has openly advocated and provided every resource to facilitate the killing of a head of state with whom the US government had established close political and commercial relations over the course of the last eight years.
The battered corpse of Gaddafi’s son Mo’tassim, who was also captured alive and then executed, was put on display in Misrata. As recently as April 2009 he was warmly welcomed to the US State Department by Hillary Clinton.
In his Rose Garden speech Thursday, Obama boasted of his administration having “taken out” Al Qaeda leaders, sounding for the all world like a Mafia don, minus the charm. Among his most recent victims are two US citizens, Anwar Awlaki, the Arizona-born Yemeni-American Muslim cleric, last month and, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who was born in Denver. Both had been placed on a “kill list” by a secret National Security Council subcommittee and murdered with Hellfire missiles. Abdulrahman was blown to bits along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other friends as they ate dinner.
The killing of Gaddafi is the culmination of a criminal war that killed untold numbers of Libyans and left most of the country in ruins. This operation was launched on the pretext of protecting civilian lives, based on the trumped up claim that Gaddafi was preparing to lay siege to the eastern city of Benghazi to massacre his opponents. It has ended with NATO orchestrating a siege of Sirte, where thousands have been killed and wounded in suppressing opposition to the “rebels”.
From the beginning, the entire operation has been directed at the re-colonization of North Africa and pursued on behalf of US, British, French, Italian and Dutch oil interests.
While over the past decade Gaddafi had curried favor with US, Britain, France and other Western powers, striking oil deals, arms agreements and other pacts, US imperialism and its counterparts in Europe continued to see his regime as an impediment to their aims in the region.
Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country’s former colonies and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country’s reserves.
Combined with these economic and geo-strategic motives were political factors. The turn by Gaddafi toward closer relations to the West had allowed Washington and Paris to cultivate elements within his regime who were prepared to collaborate in an imperialist takeover of the country. This includes figures like Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s former Justice Minister and now chairman of the NATO-backed NTC and Mahmoud Jibril, the former economics official who is chief of the NTC cabinet.
With the popular upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt—on Libya’s western and eastern borders—the US and its NATO allies saw an opportunity to put into operation a plan that had been developed over some time for regime change in Libya. With agents on the ground, they moved to exploit and hijack anti-Gaddafi demonstrations and foment an armed conflict.
To prepare for a direct imperialist takeover, they followed a well-worn path, vilifying the country’s leader and promoting the idea that only outside intervention could save innocent civilians from a looming massacre.
The supposed imminent destruction of Benghazi was utilized to win support for imperialist war from a whole range of ex-lefts, liberals, academics and human rights advocates, who lent their moral and intellectual weight to an exercise in imperialist aggression and murder.
Figures like University of Michigan Middle Eastern history professor Juan Cole, who had raised limited criticism of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, became enthusiastic promoters of the “humanitarian” mission of the Pentagon and NATO in Libya. Representative of an upper middle class social layer that has become a new constituency for imperialism, they were utterly compromised, politically and morally. They were untroubled by the lawlessness of the entire enterprise and the mounting evidence of the murder and torture of immigrants and black Libyans by the so-called rebels.
Their attempt to portray the regime change in Libya as a popular revolution becomes more preposterous with each passing day. The unstable puppet regime that is taking shape in Benghazi and Tripoli has been installed through relentless and massive NATO bombing, murder and the wholesale violation of international law.
Libya stands as a warning to the world. Any regime that gets in the way of US interests, runs afoul of the major corporations or fails to do the bidding of the NATO powers can be overthrown by military force, with its leaders murdered.
Already, the US media, which has staged a hideous celebration of the bloodbath outside Sirte, is braying for NATO to repeat its Libyan intervention in Syria. For her part, Clinton warned Pakistani leaders on Thursday that insufficient support for the US-war in Afghanistan would mean that they would pay “a very big price.”
There can be no doubt that future operations are on the way, with bigger wars coming into focus, posing catastrophic consequences. The Obama administration has already put Iran on notice that all options remain “on the table” in relation to a fabricated plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. And as the Libyan intervention was aimed in no small part at countering Chinese and Russian influence both in the region and globally, so China and Russia themselves are seen as future targets.
The bloody events in Libya, and the economic motives underlying them, are providing a fresh lesson in the real character of imperialism. The crisis gripping world capitalism is once again posing the threat of world war. The working class can confront this threat only by mobilizing its independent political strength and rearming itself with the program of world socialist revolution to put an end to the profit system, which is the source of militarism.
Death report shows Gaddafi dies of shots in head, abdomen
By Global Research
Global Research, October 24, 2011
Xinhua 24 October 2011
BENGHAZI, Libya, Oct. 23 (Xinhua) — A death report of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s fallen leader who died on Thursday in his hometown of Sirte after captivity, showed on Sunday that he died of bullet injuries in his head and abdomen.
The report provided by Libya’s justice department said that Gaddafi’s death was caused by a shot on the left-side head and another wound in the abdomen. This is in conformation with what the leadership of the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) has announced shortly after the death of Gaddafi on Thursday.
But no more details were offered concerning the circumstances of the deaths of Gaddafi and his son Mutassim, who was also captured in Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown and the last stronghold of his loyalists, and later died on Thursday.
Mutassim’s death came after he suffered shots in his neck, feet and his back, the report said.
The report added that there were scars of old surgeries on both the left and right sides of Gaddafi’s abdomen as well as in his left thigh.
Gaddafi’s body is still on display for civilians in Misrata, a town in the middle between Sirte and the capital Tripoli, as the NTC is scheduled to announce the “liberation” of the country in a couple of hours in Benghazi, the second largest city in Libya and where anti-Gaddafi protests started.
Meanwhile, the new Libyan rulers are yet to come up with a decision on how to deal with Gaddafi’s corpse. Some have suggested a sea burial.
Special Report: Foreign Military Intervention in Libya

Gaddafi Death: A Bullet to the Head is the Culmination of NATO’s Criminal War
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, October 22, 2011
22 October 2011

The shocking images of Muammar Gaddafi being hauled while dazed, confused and blood-soaked on to the back of a pick-up truck by gun-toting opposition fighters cannot disguise the awful reality – the Libyan leader was lynched on the street, executed in a squalid form of summary “justice”.
His murder by NATO-backed militants is in many ways a fitting end to a seven-month campaign of criminal war and atrocities by the US, Britain, France, Canada and other western powers.
After several weeks of military siege of Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, during which civilians were bombarded by NATO warplanes, the Libyan leader was dragged from a drainage pipe before being fatally shot. The involvement of NATO in this climactic act of savagery cannot be denied.
Apparently, a convoy carrying Gaddafi attempting to flee from Sirte was attacked by NATO jets – various reports say British and French jets – rendering him to the hands of the NATO-backed fighters on the ground.
Mobile phone images showed 69-year-old Gaddafi being manhandled, barely able to stay on his feet. His vest was a bloody mess. It is not clear whether his injuries were incurred during the earlier NATO air attack on his convoy or at the hands of his captors. But moments later, similar images show his lifeless body with a gunshot to the left side of the head. His captors also claimed that he had been shot in the upper body with a 9mm handgun. Just before his killing, one of Gaddafi’s captors was seen brandishing a handgun at his head.
The NATO-backed Transitional National Council is now contradicting the version of events told by its fighters, claiming – somewhat incredibly – that the former Libyan leader was shot in crossfire between soldiers loyal to Gaddafi and the TNC’s fighters.
Washington has subsequently called for an “open and transparent” inquiry into how Gaddafi was killed. Such a call can be seen as a cynical attempt to obfuscate the appalling fact that NATO is an accessory to a war crime – the cold-blooded murder of a defenceless prisoner.
Certainly, the initial reaction of Western leaders and media could not contain their glee at the news of Gaddafi’s brutal slaying.
The Financial Times declared that his “timely death” opened up a new beginning for the North African country; the Daily Telegraph crowed how Gaddafi was hauled from “a sewer” and given “a bullet to the head”. The New York Times intoned that Gaddafi’s killing “vindicated” Obama’s war strategy in Libya, while the Christian Science Monitor asserted that “Gaddafi death gives NATO its ‘mission accomplished’ moment in Libya” and went on to ponder if it provided “a model for future US interventions”.
Obama, Cameron, Sarkosy and Merkel were quick to glorify the execution.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “The path is now finally clear for a fresh political start, in peace. Germany is relieved and very happy about this,” she added.
US President Barack Obama called the death a “momentous day in the history of Libya”.

Britain’s David Cameron also could not restrain his satisfaction, declaring that he was “proud of the role played by Britain in Libya’s liberation”. Cameron appeared to excuse the roadside execution: “I think today is a day to remember all of Colonel Gaddafi’s victims… We should also remember the many, many Libyans who died at the hands of this brutal dictator and his regime.”
Few people would deny that Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule was without allegations of human rights violations. Indeed, that did not stop Western leaders cosying up to Gaddafi at times when it suited them. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Tripoli to have several secret meetings with Gaddafi and on one occasion lobbied on behalf of investment bank JP Morgan.
Whatever crimes Gaddafi is alleged to have committed does not mitigate the fact that he was summarily executed by NATO-backed forces and that this appalling extrajudicial killing was greeted by Western leaders with approval and applause.
His murder marks the lawlessness and barbarity with which Western governments are now overtly operating in pursuit of their foreign policy objectives.
The squalid demise of Gaddafi is reminiscent of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. He too was at one time feted by Western leaders when, like Gaddafi, it suited their self-serving interests. But when their mercurial interests dictated, he too was crushed and discarded. Like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein was captured and dragged from a hole in the ground. But at least in the case of Saddam, the Western powers felt obliged to go through a sham court prosecution before he was lynched. No longer, it seems, are Western governments restrained by sham niceties in their method of discarding opponents. A bullet to the head on the side of the road will do.
Finian Cunnningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa correspondentcunninghamfin@yahoo.com
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Many of his recent articles appear on the renowned Canadian-based news website Globalresearch.ca. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He specialises in Middle East and East Africa issues and has also given several American radio interviews as well as TV interviews on Press TV and Russia Today. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the political upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests.

Over 2,000 killed in NATO airstrikes on Gaddafi’s hometown
By Global Research
Global Research, September 17, 2011
RT 17 September 2011
More than 2,000 people have been killed in 17 days in Libya’s Sirte, the hometown of the country’s fugitive leader, Reuters cites Muammar Gaddafi’s spokesman as saying on Saturday.
Meanwhile, NATO planes are continuing to attack Libyan military targets in one of the last strongholds of Gaddafi loyalists. The alliance conducted 121 flight missions over Libya on September 16, including 43 strike missions, most of them targeting Sirte.

17 Crimes committed by Gaddafi against Libyan people
June 28, 2010 | Posted by admin
February 17, the start of the Free Libya Revolution. These are only the recent ones. The list of crimes he and his family have committed against the Libyan people during his 42 year reign would go on forever. It will certainly be a long time before the memories die.
1- Shooting at unarmed protestors
2- Burning houses of people in Tripoli who called Al Jazeera
3- Looting houses of people suspected to have protested against Gaddafi
4- Torturing kidnapped people to death
5- Shutting off water, electricity and communication to cities
6- Indiscriminate shelling of cities with BM21 grad rockets & tanks
7- Attacking ambulances & hospitals and killing injured
8- Using ambulances to move forces & attack on protestors
9- Kill doctors for treating injured people after hospitals were closed for people
10- Using State TV to encourage violence.
11- Attacking & destroying mosques
12- Using sleeper cells in Benghazi to randomly shoot at civilians to create chaos
13- Forcing migrant workers to join mercenary training camps
14- Stealing all money, phones & other stuff of refuges
15- Attacking livestock near attacked cities
16- Destroying graves of dead protestors, taking away bodies to unknown place
17- Bringing in people to dance with Gaddafi pictures in massacred cities.


Gaddafi's Coup
On September 1, 1969, a group of military officers led by Muammar al-Gaddafi staged a coup against Libya's first and only king, Idris, 80 years-old and in Turkey for medical treatment. Idris was pro-Western. He had been a supporter of the British during World War II, and after the war the British had supported his elevation from emir to kingship, created with Libya's newly won independence in 1951 – a weak tradition easily undone by Gaddafi and company. The king's nephew and crown prince was put under house arrest. The monarchy was abolished and Libya was renamed from the United Kingdom of Libya to the Libyan Arab Republic.
Gaddafi had been trained at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, in England. He was an admirer of Gamal Abdel Nasser, another military man, who had organized the overthrow of the king of Egypt and the Sudan, Farouk, in 1952 – another king associated with the British. Gaddafi and his friends in the military were admirers of Nasser's Arab nationalism and opponents of Nasser's foremost enemy, Israel, which had defeated Nasser and Egypt in 1967. Gaddafi and fellow officers are reported to have felt shame from having stood by helplessly during that six-day war. They saw their overthrow of Libya's king as a contribution to Arab unity in the wake of Egypt's defeat.
The British disliked Nasser and Nasserism, and they remained loyal to Libya's monarchy and had a plan to undo Gaddafi's coup. But U.S. strategists were opposed to the idea, apparently not wanting to offend Arab sentiments against a colonialist appearing intervention – the same thinking that led Eisenhower to oppose British and French actions during the Suez crisis in 1957. The U.S. was afraid that actions against Gaddafi would further radicalize Arabs, and they saw Gaddafi as sufficiently anti-Marxist. Gaddafi's asked the U.S. to vacate its huge Wheelus Air Base in Libya, and the U.S. complied, believing that it didn't need the base anyway.
The U.S. strategy, described by Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's National Secretary Advisor at the time, was "to seek to establish satisfactory relations with the new regime. The return of our balance of payments and the security of U.S. investments in oil [were] considered our primary interests." According to Kissinger, "Western Europe chose actively to curry favor with Libya's radical ruler. Europe, of course [had] made itself far more dependent on imported oil, much of it Libyan." (Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, p. 860)
In 1970, Gaddafi pursued his Arab nationalism further by ordering Libya's Italian population to leave. The Italian population in Libya, described as 20 percent and also as 12 percent, all but disappeared, leaving behind lengths of railway, roads, farmland, buildings and ports. They also left behind too the name Libya. The name "Libya" had been resuscitated in 1903 by the Italian geographer Federico Minutilli – a name used by the ancient Greeks for all of North Africa except Egypt. In 1934, the Italians combined their two colonies, Italian Cyrenaica in the east and Italian Tripolitania in the west, and named the combination Libya.
Gaddafi was most concerned about consolidating his power. Libya remained a land divided by tribal loyalties. There are about 140 tribes and clans in Libya. Gaddafi made allies of his family and his own tribe, the Gaddafa (also spelled Qaddafa) and two larger tribes with close ties to his own tribe: the Warfalla and the Margharha. These three tribes – but mostly the Gaddafa – were to dominate the ranks of Gaddafi's militias and armed forces and to remain a base of support. He moved to diminish other tribal influences. He created districts that did not match tribal territories, and he appointed administrative officers in place of tribal leaders.
Gaddafi and his friends in the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) believed that the separation of state and religion was an artificiality that violated the Koran and relegated sharia law to an immoral secondary status. Libya had a dual court system: religious and secular. In 1973, this division was abrogated. Secular jurisprudence was obliged to conform to sharia.
In trying to unite Libya, the RCC established the Arab Social Union, a political assembly similar to what Nasser had in Egypt. Everyone was supposed to belong, and The RCC banned all rival political parties.
On April 16, 1973 (the Prophet Muhammad's 1.402nd birthday) Gaddafi delivered a speech outlined a program for his cultural revolution. All existing laws were to be replaced by new laws that served his revolution. Administrative reforms were to rid the country of "all forms of bourgeoisie and bureaucracy." Popular committees were to be created that give power to the people. All "imported poisonous ideas" were to be discarded in order to advance "the people's genuine moral and matirial potentialities."
According to Ruth First, in her book Libya, the Elusive Revolution, published in 1975,
Within days of the speech, two overlaying waves of arrests took place. In some instances individuals were denounced by Popular Committees, but the majority of arrests were carried out by secret police. University lecturers, lawyers, and writers, employees of government ministries, including the attorney general's office and the Tripoli Chamber of Commerce, younger members of prominent coastal families – most of them seemingly individuals identified in the past with Marxist, Ba'thist, Muslim Brotherhood or other political circles – were siezed. (Quoted by Mansour O. El-Kikhia, Libya's Qaddafi, p. 47)
In 1975, Gaddafi published his Green Book – his attempt at political ideology.
Gaddafi's Green Book
Gaddafi's first concern was political power. He began his book recognizing that conflicts were an everyday reality among people. Conflicts within a family is often a failure to resolve the problem of authority, he wrote, and he asked, "What form should the exercise of authority assume? How ought societies to organize themselves politically in the modern world?" He described his Green Book as presenting "the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper instrument of government." It was 100 pages and 200 words per page.
He answered his questions under the influence of his tribal and Islamic backgrounds. He saw tribes as brotherhoods, and the Prophet Muhammad saw Islam as a brotherhood. Tribes and brotherhoods were supposed to be able to mediate their problems without a formal political authority. Islam's first caliph was supposed to be a brotherly successor to Muhammad – which is how Gaddafi saw himself. That first caliph, Abu Bakr, first addressed his brothers acknowledging that ultimate power lay with the brotherhood. He said,
I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
In his Green Book, Gaddafi denounced contemporary forms of government as always favoring a tribe, economic class or political group and therefore a "defeat of genuine democracy." Gaddafi claimed that all of Libya was one vast tribe, and he wanted a "genuine democracy," which he saw as power distributed to everybody and not representative or parliamentary. "The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments," he wrote. "True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives."
He rejected political parties (as did George Washington) because, he said, they represent only a segment of the people while "the sovereignty of the people is indivisible."
Without political parties or people's representatives in some kind of parliament, and with Gaddafi's modesty preventing him from declaring himself caliph, Gaddafi saw himself as a brother who happened to be recognized, and loved, as the guiding light for the new Libya. Government was to be conducted by "popular conferences" and "people's committees," with a sort of spontaneity – rather than government by elected officials.
In his Green Book, Gaddafi described government by people's committees as eliminating violence against any segment of society. "In such a system," he wrote, "if deviation takes place, it is then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of force."
Moving on to Part Two of Gaddafi's Green Book, he proposed an economic system that is neither "capitalist" nor "communist." He described wage earners as "but slaves to the masters who hire them" – temporary slaves, that is. "The ultimate solution," he wrote, "lies in abolishing the wage-system, emancipating people from their bondage and reverting to the natural laws which defined relationships before the emergence of classes, forms of governments and man-made laws."
Gaddafi spoke of land as "the private property of none." And he wrote,
Allowing private economic activity to amass wealth beyond the satisfaction of one's needs and employing others to satisfy one's needs or beyond, or to secure savings, is the very essence of exploitation.
Gaddafi believed that every family should do its own routine work. "Domestic servants, paid or unpaid," he wrote, "are a type of slave."
In the third and last section, Gaddafi wrote of the "dynamic force of human history." Historic movements are mass movements, and heroes are those who have sacrificed for the masses. He wrote:
The national struggle – the social struggle – is the basis of the movement of history. It is stronger than all other factors since it is in the nature of the human group; it is in the nature of the nation; it is the nature of life itself.
Gaddafi Exercises Power, 1971-80
Someone was in charge of Libya's military and security forces, in charge of relations with foreign countries and foreign companies working with oil and in charge of wealth distribution. Someone selected the diplomats and decided how much money went to Gaddafi and his associates and how much went to public health care and civil engineering projects. There was the 12-person Revolutionary Command Council, a permanent body with Gaddafi as chairman. Gaddafi held the title of Prime Minister beginning in January 1970, but in July 1972, three years before he published his Green Book, he dropped that title.
Libya was not being governed democratically. The Revolutionary Command Council did not stand for election. And people continued to identify themselves by their tribe, as local tribal leaders continued to exercise some authority regarding local matters. As for Gaddafi's Popular Committees and Popular Conferences, they were to be described as having no real power. Anthony Shadid in the New York Times was to quote a cleric in the city of Bayda saying of the Popular Committees that "The head of it didn't have the power to pick up a glass and set it back down." Shadid would write that In the city of Bayda, "... was Colonel Gaddafi's second wife, Safiya Farqash, who was born in Bayda and whose family, from the city's largest tribe, Birasa, acted as mediators between the city and the colonel [Gaddafi] himself." Shadid would quote a Bayda resident as saying that no one in charge did anything without the permission of Gaddafi's wife or her uncle, Jarah, who was in charge of Bayda's sole army battalion.
Gaddafi's government, meanwhile, controlled the media. Freedomhouse.org in 2009 was to rank Libya as the most censored of countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
Regarding Libya's neighbors, with the death of his hero, Nasser of Egypt, in 1970, Gaddafi saw himself as Nasser's replacement as ideological leader of Arab nationalism. He opposed what he saw as encircling, demonic forces of reaction, imperialism, and Zionism. He advocated all Arab-speaking states unifying into one Arab nation, and he extended this to a loose unity of among all Islamic peoples around the world.
Egypt and Syria would not go along. Tunisia developed a hostility toward Gaddafi, as did the Saudi monarchy, especially after the Saudis came to believe that Gaddafi wanted to resort to assassination.
Gaddafi supported attacks on Israel. In May, 1972, a Japanese "Red Army Faction" killed 25 and wounded 76 at Israel's Lod Airport. Gaddafi called on Palestinians to perform similar attacks. On June 11, he announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for such work "can register his name at any Libyan embassy [and] will be given adequate training for combat." He also promised financial support for attacks on Israel.
In 1973, Gaddafi tried to persuade the West to end its support of Israel. To this end he played a key role in promoting oil embargoes as a political weapon. President Nixon took offense and, while still involved in a war in Vietnam, moved against Gaddafi by increasing military aid to Saudi Arabia and the Shah of Iran.
Gaddafi was in conflict with President Gaafar Nimeiry of Sudan. Their friendly relations broke down after Nimeiry began to align Sudan with the Western powers. In 1976, Sudan accused Libya charged that Libya was involved in a terrorist plot against its government.
Gaddafi supported IRA attacks on the British. In 1976, the IRA placed bombs on rail lines in England. Gaddafi announced that "the bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are the bombs of Libyan people. We have sent them to the Irish revolutionaries so that the British will pay the price for their past deeds."
Gaddafi was a close supporter of Uganda's brutal dictator, Idi Amin – as was the Soviet Union and East Germany. Gaddafi sent Libyan soldiers to help Amin in his war against Tanzania, and about 600 Libyan soldiers are reported to have lost their lives attempting to defend the collapsing presidency of Amin.
Gaddafi supported the military ruler Jean-Bedel Bokassa of Central Africa. After an encounter with Gaddafi, Bokassa gave up his Catholicism for Islam and changed his name to Salah Eddine Amhed Bokassa, a move presumed by some to have been to assure economic aid from Libya. The conversion lasted only a few months.
Domestically, Gaddafi's attempt at national unity was not materializing. According to Mansour El-Kikhia,
[The} new modernizers were not able to change much because the regime as unwilling to delegate power to the institutions they ran. Chairs of the popular committees were held accountable for political decisions and economic programs they had neither initiated nor were able to change. (El-Kikhia, Libya's Qaddafi, p. 50)
There was bickering "to a large degree the result of jurisdictional overlapping and the lack of defined role for each organization." And there were conflicts within the RCC. Adds El-Kikhia:
Opposition to the Libyan leader finally manifested itself in coup led by two of his colleagues, and the withdrawal of two others from the ruling body. All. who remained were those amenable to accepting the [Colonel's] means and ends. The failed coup also served as an opportunity for the victorious faction of the RCC to purge the armed forces of dissent. Twenty-one junior officers were arrested, court-martialed, and summarily executed by firing squad. The executions were accompanied by a purge of the armed forces; sensitive posts were allotted to close personal acquaintances of [Colonel] Qaddafi or to members of his immediate family or tribe. (El-Kakhia. p. 51)
In March 1979, Gaddafi made another effort at political unity. At the the General People's Congress (GPC) it was announced that the country was vesting all political power "in the masses." Gaddafi relinquished his duties as general secretary of the GPC and was known thereafter as "the Leader" (a word that in Italian translates to Duce, or in German to Fuhrer). Gaddafi remained supreme commander of the country's instruments of violence: its armed forces. Gaddafi would also continue to direct Libya's foreign affairs.
In 1980, Gaddafi sent troops to intervene in the civil war taking place in Chad – Libya's neighbor on its southern border. Gaddafi had been supporting Chad's anti-government rebels – the Front for the National Liberation of Chad.
Meanwhile, an attack by Libyans against the Tunisian city of Gafsa. France supported Tunisia with transport planes, military helicopters and stationed three warships nearby. The U.S. duplicated the military equipment sent by the French. Gaddafi on December 2, 1979 allowed an irate mob to burn the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. And on February 4, 1980, Gaddafi allowed irate mobs to ransack and burn the French embassy in Tripoli and the French consulate in Benghazi. The French and U.S. retaliated by expelling Libyan diplomats.
President Jimmy Carter denounced Gaddafi as a "polecat." He remained embarrassment by his brother Billy, who had made three trips to Libya, had obtained a $250,000 loan and had registered himself as a foreign agent of the Libyan government.
Gaddafi and Ronald Reagan
In April 1980, Gaddafi's revolutionary committees called for the assassination of Libyan dissidents living abroad, and on April 26, 1980, Gaddafi set a deadline of June 11 for dissidents to return home or be "in the hands of the revolutionary committees." (Facts on File 1980 Yearbook, p. 353, 451.)
Ronald Reagan wrote in his memoirs that in early May, 1981, soon after having taken office, FBI agents implicated a Libyan in a Chicago murder and that the U.S. responded by ordering the Libyan government to close its embassy in Washington.
Reagan wrote of Egypt's Anwar Sadat complaining about Gaddafi in league with Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and their desire to remove him and impose a government on Egypt to their liking. Libya was threatening Egypt by building up a force on its border, and Reagan promised help for Egypt. Two weeks later, wrote Reagan, on August 20, Gaddafi sent up several of his planes and they fired at two F-14 jets from the USS Nimitz that were participating in naval maneuvers sixty miles off the coast of Libya. "In compliance with my instructions," wrote Reagan, the two Libyan aircraft were shot down. Reagan added:
A few days after the incident over the gulf, security people obtained secret information indicating that Gaddafi had advised some of his associates that he intended to have me assassinated. So, it was back into my iron vest whenever I was out in public.
Subsequently, security people obtained what they considered highly credible information that not only I, but [Vice President] George Bush, Cap Weinberger, and Al Haig were targeted by Libyan hit squads that had been smuggled into this country. From then on, security precautions became even more rigid. (Ronald Reagan, An American Life, Simon and Schuster, p. 291.)
In December, 1981, the Reagan administration ordered U.S. citizens out of Libya. And in March, 1982, it placed an embargo on the importation of Libyan oil and the export of high technology to Libya.
In a note dated June 27,1985, after the hijacking of a TWA 727 two weeks before, Reagan described Gaddafi as "talking to Iran and Syria about a joint terror war against us ..."
On December 27, Palestinians fired on passengers at Rome and Vienna airports, killing twenty people. Gaddafi, wrote Reagan, "promptly called the suicide attack a 'noble act'." On the body of one of the terrorists, according to Reagan, was a Tunisian passport that had been taken from a Tunisian worker at the time he had been expelled from Libya.
Reagan decided to go after Gaddafi. In March, 1986, he sent the Sixth Fleet on "naval maneuvers." Gaddafi took the bait and sent several gunboats in the vicinity of the U.S. ships. The fleet sank the gunships and knocked out the radar installation that had guided Libyan missiles at carrier-based aircraft.
Gaddafi retaliated by bombing a disco in West Berlin that was frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing an U.S. soldier and a Turkish woman and wounding two hundred others. Reagan wrote in his memoirs that "our intelligence experts established conclusively that there had been conversations regarding the bombing before and after it occurred between Libyan diplomats in East Berlin. In the 1990s, archives in what had been the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) would reveal that the operation was carried out by Libyan agents from the Libyan embassy there.
Reagan considered Gaddafi a crackpot and a barbarian. On April 15, after several days of diplomatic talks with European and Arab allies, Reagan retaliated, with support from the Thatcher government of Britain. France and Spain refused to allow U.S. bombers the use of their airspace, so the bombers from Britain had to go around and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding 2,100 kilometers each way.
At two in the morning, eighteen F-111 bombers hit three targets in the Tripoli area and two in the Benghazi region. One American F-111 was shot down by a Libyan SAM missile over the Gulf of Sidra. In Tripoli, some bombs went off-target, killing civilians.
"The attack," Reagan wrote in his memoirs, "was not intended to kill Gaddafi; that would have violated our prohibition against assassination. The object was to let him know that we weren't going to accept his terrorism anymore, and that if he did it again he could expect to hear from us again." He cited article 51 of the UN Charter, which gives a nation the right to self-defense. In a television address to the nation Reagan said, "When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world, on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I'm in this office."
On December 21, 1988, Gaddafi executed his retaliation. Pan Am Flight 103, on a flight from London to New York, exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing the 259 on the plane and 11 Lockerbie residents on the ground. The bomb had been in a Samsonite suitcase stored in the baggage. It had been routed on the interline baggage system at Frankfurt, Germany, from a flight from Malta and loaded onto the Pan Am plane 17 hours before take off. Apparently Gaddafi expected the plane to blow up over the ocean, leaving no evidence. Evidence was retrieved that led to the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrah, a Libyan intelligence officer, by three Scottish judges, in January 2001. In August, 2003, in a letter presented to the president of the UN Security Council, Libya admitted responsibility but not guilt for the bombing. On February, 24, 2011, Libya's former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, claimed that Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
Also See:
 The Saga of the Benghazi Report!
22 December 2012
What Happened in Benghazi?
31 October 2012
What is Really the Situation in Libya?
(Part 1)
24 August 2011
Libya seeks Freedom from Dictatorship!
(Part 1)
21 February 2011
(Part 2)
19 April 2011
(Part 3)
21 July 2011
Depleted Uranium Used in Libyia!
30 May 2011