[Diggers350] The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos

MarkiB mark at tlio.org.uk
Wed Mar 9 17:29:43 GMT 2011

This is a response to the article posted on this list last week entitled
"The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos", by  David Rothscum
Original reference:

It is hard to digest any claim that many of the masses in this uprising
have been pawns to the machinations and manipulations by western interests
propagating propaganda, and so far, there is no concrete evidence. The
article sent to this list last week written by David Rothscum alleging CIA
involvment in preparing the ground for the uprising in Libya is based more
on supposition than concrete evidence (but as I will go on explain, there
is a nasty whiff). The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt clearly sparked the
uprising in Libya, fanning the flames of popular resentment amongst an
increasing poor majority due a combination of
population growth whose per-capita wealth has not increased as a result of
limits in the redistribution of wealth largely having been the result of
the after-effect of lengthy sanctions, plus the curtailment of democratic
freedoms such as long term banning of political parties and trade unions
(albeit under the auspices of a socialist, nationalised economic system
with theoretical democratic participation of all), and rule by the 12 man
revolutionary junta with Gaddafi as honoury figurehead 'alongside' the
peoples assemblies. All of this increasingly distanced the masses, as
patience with Gaddafi's whole 'revolutionary storyline'/mythology has worn
thin (as well as Gaddafi having not moved with the times or adapted to the
new generation, stretching things to breaking point in a classic
bonapartist form of rule). Plus, but to a lesser extent, there is also a
whiff of hypocrisy (the long-vaunted 'anti-imperialist' stance perhaps seen
to having evaporated with the BP oil deal). 

Despite all this, it should be acknowledged that before the onset of oil
production, Libya was a desperately poor country and, unlike Egypt, life
did get better for many lower down the social ladder with a first-rate
health service, access to good universities etc; up to at least the 1980s,
Libya was known by all mid-East pundits as the one country where the oil
wealth had not been hijacked by a corrupt elite. It's oil industry has been
nationalised since 1969. However, Libya is unarguably a very different
place now to what it was 25 years ago. Gaddafi seems to have been little
more than an ageing figurehead for years; the anti-imperialist rhetoric has
long gone along with, one suspects, any who were sincere in spouting it.
The ruling clique seem now to be cut from much the same pro-western stripe
as others in the region.

However, in specific regard to David Rothscum's article alleging CIA
involvment in preparing the ground for the uprising in Libya, with it's
chief allegation that 'National Front for the Salvation of Libya' - the
main opposition group who unified itself with other opposition groups to
become the 'National Conference for the Libyan Opposition' who called for
the "Day of Rage" which plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 - is being
funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence, it is right to be
mindful that there may well be something in what he alleges even if he
provides no evidence on this specific allegation. One should be mindful of
recent events such as in Ukraine with the Orange Revolution and the
exposing in Bolivia of CIA-front groups in the guise of The Democracy
Centre and the Andean Foundation. They are classic examples of how the US
has evolved it's counter-strategies to wield influence as well as
survellience via influencing and promoting democracy and 'people power'
through front-organisations (the broad definition of freedom with it's
loose reappropriation of it's meaning in the context of free trade which
inextricably interchanges with the otherwise impeccable virtue of
‘Democracy’ is a non-class term; ‘democracy’ to do what, exploit the
workers on behalf of US imperialism? Gaddafi is no socialist and is
butcher of the working class but the prime enemy of humanity is world
imperialism. So, like Trotsky's defence of the degenerate workers state, we
must defend Libya today but not Gaddafi, as opposed to a western-brokered
democratic transition demanding the right of international finance to
penetrate the Libyan economy without let or hindrance from troublesome

It is not clear if and how this new trend of planting the seeds for the
assertion of democratic freedom has been adapted in Libya, inherently a
more complicated society with numerous tribes, inter-tribal rivalry and a
vast area of territory. [See: 'Libyan Tribal Map: Network of loyalties
that will determine Gaddafi's fate' - Ref:
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=24257/ ]. The
impression we have got in the western media is of a popular uprising - but
no way on the same scale as happened in Egypt as tens of thousands took to
the streets in Libya as compared to hundreds of thousands in Egypt.
Notwithstanding this, major cities in the east fell under the control of
anti-government forces and at the peak of the uprising controlled all but
Tripoli and a few other towns, and after a significant number of miltary
and diplomatic representatives deserted him, the impression was of power
draining away from the political leadership of the country of which he is
honoury figurehead.  Since then, as fighting between government forces and
rebels has continued, Gov't forces have taken back a couple of towns on
Monday and today (09/03). However, one must be mindful of the fact that we
are hearing only one side of what is going on in Libya. Have absolutely all
the people fallen behind in support of these anti-government forces in
those cities under anti government occupation? This civil war is an
inter-tribal conflict mixed up with a people's rebellion on the streets,
and as such, is complicated to define as any rebellion is (the army
defections themselves could have been partly as a result of tribal
rivalry). I suspect many people are staying indoors scared (not least by
ill-judged incendiary talk by Gaddafi's son Saif mooting the possibility of
air attacks by Libyan forces on areas in revolt). Added to the mix has been
a brutal wave of mob violence and killing of African migrant labourers as a
direct reaction to Gaddifi's use of African mercenaries. They are the
victims at the bottom of the heap (as usual).

In this context, it is worth noting the biased media reporting of what has
happened in Libya (all reporters across many tv channels seem to choose to
film amongst the rebel fighters, whilst no pro-Gaddiffi demonstrations have
been filmed even whilst in reports they have been briefly mentioned, how
when tens of thousands of people were protesting in Bahrain at the height
of the uprising there, the main news headline on the BBC consistently for 2
days was how hundreds (not thousands, yes just hundreds) of protestors were
protesting in Libya against Gaddiffi, the curious lack of hard news
despite the much-vaunted role of Twitter and access to new media, and how
videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests have been weirdly disappearing from Youtube
which is strange). Of note is the point made by respected journalist Robert
Fisk who has pointed to the fact that what has recently happened in Libya
does have the hallmarks of US orchestration about it, opinions similarly
shared by the "Justice for Megrahi" campaign. See e.g.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/ for some good material. That doesn't
mean that the regime is not rightly hated but one wonders if its political
crisis has not been exacerbated by US political influence. (Some of the
Libyan "dissidents" interviewed on Brit TV and claiming influence on events
might as well have worn a Stars-and-Stripes tie, something that was clearly
not true of Egyptian political exiles.)

The US has had its sights on Gaddafi for years, has a very strong interest
in covering up the Megrahi stitch-up and even long standing retribution in
relation to one of Gadaffi's first moves on taking power when he threw the
US out of what was at the time its largest military base on foreign soil.
That's not a humiliation lightly to be forgotten, especially if, as seems
likely, partial or even wholesale retreats from the likes of Egypt, Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere are on the cards and would certainly need to be
prepared for.

Even though the US has less of a grip on Libyan oil than the Brits do, oil
is undoubtedly a factor here for all of the rich west for whom the US is
the main military power, even if Libya is long considered through past
colonial ties an in-effect protectorate of Italy and the UK (capital is now
after-all interconnected globally, and when the reserves here are so vast,
surely there is a mutual interest served in changing things for the better
in terms of more direct exploitation rights and access; as if to emphasise
the mutual collective interest of the major powers, one can point to the
increasing influence of China in Egypt with some parts of the country so
dominated by Chinese capital that the road signs are even in dual language
- Arabic and Chinese). There is a heightened sense of awareness over this
fact after President Obama came out and vowed that the plan to use
airstrikes on Gaddafi's air power was now an option that could not be ruled
out via UN agreement (which, however, is likely to be unlikely). The main
oil fields in Libya are in the thinly populated south. That is the prize.
With the 'tribes' apparently hesitant and content to wait for Gaddafi to
simply give up and go, they may well see the opportunity for an assault on
Tripoli, establishing themselves as 'arbiter'.

All this is speculation after serious questions have been raised about how
an SAS unit loaded with weaponry was captured by Libyan rebels forces,
apparantly seeking to make contact with a specific tribal group, but who
got discovered by a different group not impressed with their presence.  Is
this consistent with the fact that MI6 funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in
an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi in 1997?  Other SAS missions can neither
be confirmed nor denied by the government. What of them, one wonders, and
which tribal groups have our security services been at least making
overtures to and at most been actively supporting?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Diggers350] The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:18:10 +0000
From: Tony Gosling <tony at cultureshop.org.uk>
To: Massimo <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>

The World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos

by David Rothscum
Global Research, March 2, 2011

How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people 
have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let 
us look at the facts for a moment.

Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than 
the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant 
mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life 
expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was 
undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the 
world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic 
product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of 
Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the 
country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development 
Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed 
equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the 
poverty line than in the Netherlands.

How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot 
of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the 
resources while the population starves, unlike countries like 
Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt 
bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost 
of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil 
revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his 
opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the 
article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he 
holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake 
that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in 
fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should 
be compared to a founding father.

The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The 
current prime-minister is Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the 
leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. 
Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. 
Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both 
out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is 
taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the 
supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the 
architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of 
pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we 
speak. "Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in" 
youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5fLGNg0sk is gone. "Pro Gaddafi protests in 
front of Libyan embassy London" youtube.com/watch?v=pRwv0Ac8qbc Is 
gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when 
it's from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it's viewers than 
chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and 
enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.

Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and 
Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and 
obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a 
moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the 
general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire 
by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the 
United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment 
the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on

The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or 
anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself 
"Islamic Emirate of Barka", the former name of the North-Western part 
of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This 
is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the 
group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing 
four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group 
and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the 
eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his 
fears of an Islamic Emirate of Benghazi declaring itself independent.

So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the 
same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their 
chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in 
Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in 
numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could 
not rule out links to Israel.

Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to 
assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the 
National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is 
being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This 
group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the 
National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this 
organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya 
into chaos on February 17 of this year.

It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been 
opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front 
for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to 
unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the 
Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this 
failed uprising.

Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat 
to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent 
against the United States. This concept is called the United States 
of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are 
contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government 
for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the 
assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He 
says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged 
Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the 
last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries 
that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been 
eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.

The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong 
Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing 
Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the 
United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through 
lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya 
than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in 
Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has 
historically been divided into various tribal groups.

This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing 
mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the 
government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government 
has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The 
alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic 
groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more 
homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take 
little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th 
century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. 
The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that 
the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play 
a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.

Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war 
unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia 
and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters 
suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments. 
The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts, 
conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the 
country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi's system of 
government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.

Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for 
medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification 
and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and 
Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead 
to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control 
over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of 
Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many 
of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how 
many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months, 
as the world cheers.

  Global Research Articles by David Rothscum
+44 (0)7786 952037
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which 
alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list